It’s OK for your open source library to be a bit shitty (2015) • Hacker News Board

Re: It’s OK for your open source library to be a bit shitty (2015)

#361

Post by gingerlime » Wed, May 20, 2020, 8:13 PM UTC

franciscop wrote: post #355

saagarjha wrote: post #353

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> There is no reason to discuss legal obligations because that part is covered by licenses. Correct, I think we agree on that. > The entire discussion is at the level of social expectations. No, this statement: > No, there is no obligation. But there’s a thing called courtesy. Is actually “No, there is no legal obligation. But there’s a thing called courtesy.“ And here the contradiction falls away and the discussion…

You are not "gingerlime" who said that, I understand the original as "moral/social obligation" and not "legal obligation" but you seem to be putting the word "legal" on the users' mouth by saying what they "actually" mean? As a Spaniard living in Japan, what social rules should I use to apply my social courtesy on Github?

I am gingerlime. I simply meant obligation as MUST and social norms / courtesy as SHOULD. So I guess technically you’re correct that it’s not a legal obligation, but I think the GP’s point is valid.

Re: It’s OK for your open source library to be a bit shitty (2015)

#362

Post by sgillen » Wed, May 27, 2020, 9:51 PM UTC

DangitBobby wrote: post #104

sgillen wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I like that a lot! could work for personal python packages too.

You can install directly from GitHub, bitbucket, etc. with pip, BTW. My point was that if I want to have packages for private use installable over the internet with package management tools for various languages, I have to put them on the public internet, or jump through some hoops.

Totally, I already do that. Would be interesting to be able to install sgillen.package separately from package, with just a flag passed to pip.

Re: It’s OK for your open source library to be a bit shitty (2015)

#363

Post by xpe » Thu, May 28, 2020, 2:51 PM UTC

fovc wrote: post #259

nicoburns wrote: post #227

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think it's fine to not have time to maintain code you open source. However, if your library ends up gaining a significant user base and you don't have time to maintain it, then I think you have a duty to either: 1. Allow others to step in as maintainers and review/approve new features and bug fixes in your stead. or (if you want to maintain control of your library) 2. Be clear that your library is in maintenance mo…

Wholeheartedly disagree. Vetting a possible maintener or fork is >0 work, and you don't owe us anything. If you had to go to the trouble of creating your library in the first place, it means either A) "the community" had not met your specific need, so why would they start now? Or B) you did this for fun/learning/visibility/coping with a mania, in which case you still don't owe us any favors. That said, doing either o…

I think we would benefit if more people think about individualist and communitarian views on ethics.

Think about this claim: ‘a creator of open source doesn’t owe X anything’. First, using a financial metaphor misses the point. Second, it is often used as a cliche and/or rhetorical device to shut down conversations about ethical considerations. Third, I get it: there are people that expect too much, which can encourage an (over) reaction from someone who shares an open source library.

Many people bristle when someone else uses the word ‘should’ in a sentence. I’d like software developers to be more mindful of what it means to participate in a community.

Re: It’s OK for your open source library to be a bit shitty (2015)

#364

Post by xpe » Thu, May 28, 2020, 2:58 PM UTC

Chris2048 wrote: post #266

fovc wrote: post #259

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wholeheartedly disagree. Vetting a possible maintener or fork is >0 work, and you don't owe us anything. If you had to go to the trouble of creating your library in the first place, it means either A) "the community" had not met your specific need, so why would they start now? Or B) you did this for fun/learning/visibility/coping with a mania, in which case you still don't owe us any favors. That said, doing either o…

> Vetting a possible maintener or fork is >0 work Who said anything about vetting?

Generally, writing ‘who said anything about X’ strikes me as unproductive for discussion. At the least, the tone could be improved.

More generally, I wonder about your underlying thought process and expectation. Were you somehow bothered when someone raised an additional related point?

The way we interact with each here other matters.