undefined | Better HN

0 pointsjrflowers2d ago0 comments

It seems like you’re trying to build a system of ethics around being annoyed by OSS maintainers not working for free in perpetuity.

Having access to Apache licensed code that you can build off of is better than never having access to any code at all. Anything else about values or respect has to be inferred or imagined and has no bearing on the software itself.

Edit: Like who cares if they “wanted” to contribute to the public good? Did they actually contribute to the public good? It seems like they did and the code that did so is right there. If “life happens” then why are they obligated to do a smooth transition?

I love free stuff as much as the next person, hell, free stuff is my favorite kind of stuff. Is it annoying when there’s less free stuff? Yes. Does my personal irritation constitute a violation of a lofty set of ideals that just coincidentally dictates that nobody annoy me? No.

I would love to live in a world where it just so happens that it’s ethically wrong to bother me though. That would be sweet.

0 comments

ianbutler2d ago

That's what they always do it always comes down to a sense of perpetual entitlement over the work of others, work they themselves would never do.

I've had the same discussion for years now on HN. It is not unethical to decide to stop supporting something especially if you played by all the rules the entire time.

No one is owed perpetual labor and they completely disregard localstack has been oss for something like 10 years at this point just celebrate it had a good run, fork and maintain yourself if you need it that badly.

It is incredibly weird to think something that was maintained oss for 10 years is a rugpull that's just called life, circumstances change.

overfeed2d ago

> I've had the same discussion for years now on HN. It is not unethical to decide to stop supporting something especially if you played by all the rules the entire time.

What's unethical is taking yhe fruits of other people's work private: ranging from code contributions, through bug reports and evangelism.

Companies are never honest about how they intend to use CLAs and pretend its for the furtherance of open source ethos. Thankfully, there's an innate right to fork entire projects after rug pulls, whixh makes them calculated gambles amd nor a quick heist.

inetknght2d ago

> What's unethical is taking yhe fruits of other people's work private: ranging from code contributions, through bug reports and evangelism.

First, if it's open source, then the contributions are still there for everyone to use.

Second, if the license allows it, then the license allows it.

Now, if the contributions were made with a contribution license to prevent it, you've got a solid argument. Otherwise you're applying your own morals in a situation where they're irrelevant.

2 more replies

pocksuppet2d ago

The ethical problem is the bait-and-switch. A project that begins open and remains open is no problem; a project that begins closed and remains closed is no problem (ethically); a project that begins closed and becomes open is no ethical problem either. But a project that begins open, advertises their openness to the world, uses their openness to attract lots of community interest and then suddenly becomes closed is pulling a bait-and-switch, or rugpull.

jrflowersOP2d ago

> a project that begins open, advertises their openness to the world, uses their openness to attract lots of community interest and then suddenly becomes closed

Do you have any examples of that happening? When I click on the link at the top of this thread it takes me to a GitHub repo with a bunch of Apache licensed code that is open to anyone that wants to use or modify or build off of however they want. Heck, with permissive licensing like that you or I could fork it and put any part/all of that code into a proprietary product and make money off of it if we wanted to, and that would be entirely in keeping with the spirit and practice of FOSS.

This project seems perfectly open from what I can see, looks like the original devs stopped working on it though

imiric2d ago

Precisely.

It's remarkable that people think releasing a project as OSS is a license to disrespect users. This isn't even related to OSS. Software authors should have basic decency and respect for the users of their software. This relationship starts with that.

Publishing a project as OSS doesn't relinquish you from this responsibility. It doesn't give you the right to be an asshole.

And yet we fall for this trap time and time again, and there are always those who somehow defend this behavior.

I think it's an inherent conflict with the entrepreneurship mindset and those who visit this forum. Their primary goal is to profit from software. OSS is seen as a "gift" and an act of philanthropy, rather than a social movement to collaborate on building public goods. That's silly communism, after all. I'm demanding that people work for free for my benefit! Unbelievable.

rebolek2d ago

Wow.

"Software authors should have basic decency and respect for the users of their software." Why? Not at all.

"Publishing a project as OSS doesn't relinquish you from this responsibility. It doesn't give you the right to be an asshole." You are free to be asshole and it's nobody's business.

Actually it's exactly opposite. Such feeling of superiority and privilege, that just because you use some software, you have any right to command its author is the very definition of being an asshole.

"I'm demanding that people work for free for my benefit! Unbelievable." Yes, that's unbelievable.

1 more reply

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse