Hacker News Reader

Comment by ranit | Hacker News Reader

So, we insist open-source software developers to keep their "implicit contract", but we (as society) allow companies to buy companies that develop and maintain open-source to close-source it or just close the entire establishment? Without legal consequences.

View on HN

Companies that shut down open-source dev teams are at least usually honest that that's what they're doing at the time that they do it. Open-source projects that actively evangelise—by extolling their community and documentation, presenting polished websites, in-app screenshots and shiny video demonstrations—then fail to make an adequate effort to serve and relate to the userbase the project has intentionally drummed up are not being similarly honest. If you don't want to serve the users, quit or turn off the evangelisation.

> If you don't want to serve the users ...

I don't understand how Guido van Rossum's message was interpreted as "he doesn't want to serve the users". His message said (to me) that he will continue, but he will not make decisions.

> Companies that shut down open-source dev teams are at least usually honest that that's what they're doing at the time that they do it.

This sentence implies that Guido van Rossum did something worse (than these companies) today. Is this what you are saying or I misunderstood?

BTW: I don't know him personally. I don't use Python regularly and I don't have any knowledge or position on Python's developers struggles and disagreements (if there are any).

I'm not commenting on GvR or GvR's behaviour at all. The discussion took a more general turn, with people seriously suggesting that the developers/maintainers of high-profile, publicly-evangelised open-source projects don't have any ethical duty to support or engage politely with their user base even while still in post. Obviously van Rossum is completely entitled to step down, certainly since there will be others to pick up the reins.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com