Hacker News Reader

Comment by WJW | Hacker News Reader

Not to mention that the dynamic would completely shift in terms of community contributions. If I submit a patch to a free project where the maintainers make nothing, I wouldn't even think of asking for anything in return (even if it is a project used by bigcorps, such as Redis or GHC). If I know that the maintainers get paid a full salary for maintaining the software, it becomes a much weirder thing to send them bugfixes for free.

View on HN

"Sending them bugfixes for free" is both a benefit and a burden to an open source project. It takes maintainer time and effort to review the fix, test, make releases, etc, and that's a thankless job. When a company pushes their patches upstream, they're gaining a benefit for themselves (avoiding maintaining a fork), and potentially benefiting any other users who might be affected by the bug or want the same feature. But they're also adding to a maintainer's workload, and that's often the scarcest resource in open source.

Fair enough, but I didn't mean sending in bugfixes because I need it for my employer, I meant sending in bugfixes (or features) to a project that I wanted to make because it bothered me. For example, some time ago I sent in a patch to use better data structures in an event loop library that I think is cool but otherwise don't use.

Should OSS devs optimize for my (probably quite rare) use case? Probably not, but the feeling when making a patch for something that I like is still different when the maintainer runs it as a business compared to when they run it as a hobby.

(This is what the whole discussion seems to be about btw. Some people like to program in their free time as a hobby and other people would REALLY like guarantees about the software that cannot be made without losing the essential hobby-ness of it)

Reply on news.ycombinator.com