31–40 of 363 posts
Can someone elucidate why he is so against "his" code being used in this project?
Can someone elucidate why he is so against "his" code being used in this project?
I've seen a similar situation when Ansible were resolving issues with Jinja2 but Ansible contributors simply helped the Jinja contributors to resolve the issue. It wasn't like all the burden was put on the jinja project. Now those are two very active projects but what I mean is that no one is forcing the author of the repackaged code to support anyone he does not have time to support. If they want support they can as…
I don't think there's a way to actually do that with an open source project though.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The author's wishes are formally and legally specified in the copyright license to the code he wrote, which is MIT and allows redistribution. Everything else is simply noise. Once you make your software free, it isn't yours any longer and your opinions about it (or what others do with it) aren't relevant.
While I don't disagree with you, the problem the author is saying is that end users don't realize that, and contact the author directly even when they are using an out-of-date package from a distribution, and the author doesn't have an immediate way to determine whether the problem is with their code at the version they released, or an older packaged version. While it's technically true that a free software author ow…
I don't know when precisely that stopped happening. Perhaps when OSS became more commonly hosted on sites like GitHub that have more easily-approachable issue trackers, users became more savvy about talking to upstream directly.
I am reminded of jwz, debian, and xscreensaver (Not linking to jwz's blog from HN because... he doesn't want it to be.)
Can someone elucidate why he is so against "his" code being used in this project?
He says early in the thread: > If users experiencing issues with the ambee library in this package, they will knock on my door. And I'm not willing to support that or accept that burden. Especially as I don't see a good repacking reason in this case.
requiring users to explicitly set config.ambee.acceptThatThisPackageIsNotSupportedByUpstreamDevelopersAndIWillGoToNixpkgsToReportAnyIssues = true to be able to install the package, or they would get an error that would make it even clearer. Would that be enough for you?
the author replies just:
I feel like I'm starting to be on repeat now. Please don't add any of my stuff to this project.
Can someone elucidate why he is so against "his" code being used in this project?
Really seems like you need to respect the author’s wishes here, but the tension between author and community can get complicated with FOSS. Open source is a contract with your audience that the code can be used freely. Authors gain their audience because of that contract, so there’s some obligation for them to respect that. That said, respect flows both ways, and I’ve had FOSS code get repackaged to steal credit whic…
I don’t think its as simple as respect the authors wishes. You are participating in a large OS ecosystem as soon as you become a dependency of another project. Most people don’t care about the package in this case and just want the package that is using it. The author is additionally being intentionally dense and inflammatory. They are unlikely to get their way acting like this instead of trying to find a compromise…