Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

This notion that open source projects aren't really open source unless they welcome all contributions is one of the dumber ideas in the world.


Having worked a few places that have major open source projects, it was eye opening to see how pervasive this seems to have become. It feels like over my lifetime I've watched the value/expectations/demands/definition of OSS shift from "source is available, and I can make changes to my own copy/fork of of it if required" to "source is available, and I will demand you make changes to it for me"


> source is available, and I will demand you make changes to it for me

There seems to be a disconnect here. I agree, demanding someone else make changes for you is in poor taste. The issue is, some of these projects advertise themselves as being open source while having no meaningful way to contribute changes back upstream - ie. the spirit of open source.

If I use your program for free, and encounter a bug, I should be able to fix it and contribute that back upstream so everyone benefits. That's my way of "paying back" and helping the community. Projects that reject contributions, or make contributing difficult are not in the spirit of open source, even if they are technically open source via their license.

That's what I call "fake" open source - you want the positive image of being Open Source only.


You are free to fork their code, add your fix, open a bug-tracking system, start a forum, guarantee response times, etc to "help the community".

Not everyone has time for a second or third full-time job.


> There seems to be a disconnect here. I agree, demanding someone else make changes for you is in poor taste. The issue is, some of these projects advertise themselves as being open source while having no meaningful way to contribute changes back upstream - ie. the spirit of open source.

I mean, you're not demanding someone else make the changes. You're only demanding that they engage and build a community around their project and all that entails.

As long as the license is reasonable, anybody else could pick up the project and do the community building around it. Apache HTTP Server developed around community patches to NCSA httpd. I don't think hitch (from the people who brought you Varnish) is well know, but it started as stud with community patches. If something like this takes off, the originator will either start taking the community patches too, or not; it's their choice.

In the meantime, as a user, I get the benefit of whatever changes the origin provides and I can patch it as I want, and fix up problems that I see. That works for code dump open source and community open source,.





Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: