Hacker News Reader

Comment by cobertos | Hacker News Reader

Only certain FOSS is worth working on for me. Here's my heuristic as of today.

* Don't work on FOSS that supports a SaaS or proprietary product. You're enriching someone else's ecosystem for no money. You take on the communication bandwidth and issue load of dealing with not only your issues but their issues too. Your software is useless if theirs fails. It's thankless.

* Don't work on FOSS you aren't using yourself anymore. This heuristic isn't fully fleshed yet, but I've found if I stop using software I wrote, it just becomes a support burden for me. Especially frustrating are entitled users or entitled users who make money entirely using my software who want niche issues fixed. Not PRs, they want me to debug it all or put in the thought to get the features working. (Probably doesn't apply if you're immersed socially with a friend group working on a FOSS project though)

View on HN

> Don't work on FOSS that supports a SaaS or proprietary product.

So true. I'd expand on that with a more specific example: game modders. When i look at all the energy spent on game mods which bring significant (gratis) value to commercial games, i can't help but wonder what the FOSS gamedev ecosystem would look like if all those dedicated people put their energy on free-software ecosystem.

Minecraft for example made a fortune on promises of later open-sourcing the game and deriving value from all the volunteers building mods.

While I agree with the broader point, I don't think Minecraft example is accurate. Historically, most MC mods were freeware closed-source, only few years back (around 1.10) lot of them became open-sourced. So I don't think open source was a big consideration for modders.

You are correct. I meant that Mojang was saying they would consider open sourcing Minecraft itself when it's ready and has raised sufficient funding (have we reached this point yet?). My point was that modders are providing significant value for free to private companies (and are happy to do that as lon as they're credited) and i wish such energy was directed towards a FOSS game ecosystem instead of continuing to enrich the same crooks who derive money off dark patterns (subscriptions, lootboxes) and exploited workers (gamedev industry is famously harsh).

Also, each software has its guidelines to build mods. I feel like if a game had modding guidelines suggesting to open source, modders would be more than happy to do so; if not, open-sourcing a single-person project can be considered more work (eg. setup git).

I believe the phrase was "Once sales start dying" though

Anyways, while there are some similarities shared between Open Source and video game modding scenes, they are substantially different. Instead of evidence to back up this claim, I implore you to imagine what it would be like if some wrote an article titled "Is It Even Worth Working on Videogame Mods Anymore?".

Please don't do this.

The premise sounds good but some of the best things in gaming were conceived as mods. Team fortress was a Quake mod. Now, I personally don't blike moba games but Dota also started as a mod. Not to mention Quake OSP/CPMA/Defrag, UTComp, HLDM, Black Mesa and countless others.

It's really unfortunate how unfriendly games are to modding both technically and legally today. We've certainly missed out on a lot of potential

In a previous life, I used to work for a game retailer. I couldn't believe EA was charging 20 euro for a handful of maps and that some people were willing to pay for their own community's destruction thanks to these map packs acting as gatekeepers.

Mods = love

On the other hand, plenty of game modders have started a productive career from modding.

In an ideal world, I'd agree it would be better that that energy would go into free software. But in our current world, if there's a proprietary game someone is hooked on to the point they get excited about modding when they otherwise wouldn't and that modding leads to a career or even just skill development and perhaps connections with other modders, then overall it seems like it's still a productive use of time, if not entirely an equitable one from a monetary perspective.

There is a balance. I made some connections and learned skills after a few years of moderate to serious modding. With today's free or cheap tools though I'd encourage folks who find joy in modding to consider making their own modest IP. We used to mod because there was little hope of making your own 3D game without an existing engine. (When licensing costs were in the hundreds of thousands and we were poor school kids.)

Anecdote, but I started in modding and made some amazing friendships through it as well as honed my abstract reasoning I use for programming professionally now.

There definitely social benefits that can outweigh the more concrete software == value and time trade-off benefits, but I find communities that are "worth" it _much_ harder to find these days.

The example of game modding is more related to the corollary of the third point: work on FOSS for something you currently use (or in this case, play). Why not if it's something that brings you enjoyment?

One skill that I’ve learned, over the years, is to say “no,” in a calm, respectful manner. Works a charm.

The “calm and respectful” part is important. I can be right ornery, and learned, the hard way, that OS projects are more fragile than commercial ones, so enemies can do a lot of damage.

I have written software for a fairly … pithy … demographic, and have dealt with feedback that would make many FOSS authors hide under their standing desks, whimpering.

I've not found a good heuristic for saying "no". Most issues are valid issues. I can see the benefits, they might even benefit future me.

The hardest part for me is actually saying no, because it's never that black/white. I might work on it later because I want to help. I might stumble into a use case where I now need this feature and then do it. Someone might make a PR. But each "open ended issue" is still bandwidth, brain capacity, effort.

I've learned the skill. I had to.

However, you are correct about that "using bandwidth" thing.

If we publish something, then I think it behooves us to make it clear what users/adopters of our work can expect from us.

I tend to use the MIT license ("You can do what you want, but don't come crying to me."). I also make every effort to make the project as understandable and well-documented as possible. I appreciate feedback, and apply it, if I deem it fitting.

I have only had one project "go viral," so to speak. It's a fairly big deal, nowadays. It was taken over by a new team, and they had very little trouble getting up to speed on it, because of the quality of the code and documentation. Thousands of folks around the world, use it every day. It's become a fairly vital infrastructure component, for a certain demographic.

The best thing I ever did, with that project, was get the hell away from it, as soon as I was confident the new team was good.

> Don't work on FOSS you aren't using yourself anymore.

More-or-less agreed.

> This heuristic isn't fully fleshed yet

I'd perhaps extend it as:

“Don't work on FOSS you or people you sufficiently care about aren't using anymore.”

Who qualifies as those you care about and why is an entirely personal thing and I'll not judge anyone's choice there. They could be friends, they could represent a cause you support, they could be randoms and you just get off on feeling helpful, they could be important and you like to be associated, you could be being paid to care, etc.

Also it goes without saying, but I'll say it anyway as I'm in a wordy mood, if you are enjoying working on something even if you don't use the output I'd still consider that to be finding some use in what-ever it is.

Yeah, exactly this.

Enjoyment is a good signal for whether youre using your time in a way your brain tolerates. I personally strike a balance between maximizing happiness and also maximizing value, so when enjoyment dips, it takes a bit for me to get off a project still.

In response to your first point, I'd rather use and contribute to FOSS that supports a SaaS or proprietary product. Issues are more likely to be addressed if the maintainers depend on the software themselves for profit. I see it as trading helping them improve their software for the ability to use it in my own projects. It also gives some reassurance that the FOSS is going to be maintained if the creators depend on it financially.

I agree with your second point though. The main reason I see for contributing to FOSS is to fix issues that affect me or creating issues that may lead to the maintainers improving the software in a way that would benefit me.

I think it makes sense for companies to open source tools they depend on. They help others by providing the free software and in return they get help identifying and fixing bugs.

> I'd rather use and contribute to FOSS that supports a SaaS or proprietary product. Issues are more likely to be addressed

I understand the logic behind this assertion, but i don't believe it holds true at all. Businesses will favor fixing bugs related to main features that drive revenue in. Whatever's not hurting their business is invisible to them.

That first heuristic is very difficult. It means you can’t work on the Linux kernel or pretty much anything that could be used for server infrastructure.

It also means you’re very restricted in license choices since you otherwise never know if your project might get picked up in the future and used in a proprietary service. This likely means you have to use something like AGPL.

It’s fine if someone picks up and uses a project I worked on. That’s what OSS is for, but the Linux kernel doesn’t need my support to keep going as it’s self sustaining at this point. Plenty of other projects are in serious need of active support and keeping them afloat is simply a better use of my time.

Having your project picked up by commercial users is entirely the problem this heuristic is intended to avoid. It’s also the central problem from the linked article: commercial users take from open source projects and often don’t give anything back. They also tend to externalize any costs they have from use of the project onto the project maintainers.

Maybe you’re okay with being treated the way the log4j maintainers are being treated right now. The whole point is that you shouldn’t be! People producing valuable software in their free time and giving it away for free should be treated with respect and that’s not happening right now. We need to find a solution!

“Being treated” implies a lot of things.

Someone using something I have written doesn’t cost me anything, but it also doesn’t create any obligations for me. I don’t need to make my contact info public, or have any interactions with users whatsoever.

log4j accepted donations which is really it’s own thing. Running a charity, which is what it means to get paid full time to maintain OSS, has a host of issues that have little to do with OSS and a lot to do with public relations.

It’s probably more like how some video channels on YouTube are careful with their sponsorship. LTT has been careful to make sure that no company is the majority of their funding, and more recently, that no company is the plurality of their funding.

If the biggest or only user is one company and its customers, it’s not really capital O Open.

I meant support in a more direct manner. For example, writing a piece of software that does better Markdown importing to Notion.so. You're only enriching Notion.so's system, you're at the mercy of their API, whims, and bugs.

There is no black/white category of what is direct support though. It's a spectrum. And these are my own personal heuristics, rooted in my experiences and found benefits/drawbacks of my own projects and working with people.

I learned long ago that I don't want to waste my life doing something I don't care about. I publish things as open source that I wrote because I needed them, and nothing existed like it.

One of those things, other people actually use! I don't so much, but I enjoy keeping it going every so often because it gives me purpose.

Another of those things, literally nobody seems to know about, even though it's a very useful thing which there is no oss alternative for. I'm a little sad nobody uses it, but it's fine because I still use it.

When I stop using these completely, I'll shutter them. Somebody can fork them if they want.

> Don't work on FOSS you aren't using yourself anymore.

I think there is still some middleground possible. It can still be enjoyable doing small support stuff for it and to keep it running and fixing small bugs, without any big rewrites or big features. I once cared about those things and I might still do. Just keeping it running might feel better than discarding it.

It all depends on personal preferences, the type of users and their communication, if you still use the language, etc.

Yeah, I agree. I think https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29673524 captures it well

Also: entitled users who ask if x can be done, and after a comprehensive answer which took a lot of time and thought say "can you make a demo and post the code. thanks"

To be fair that isn't limited to open source software, I get plenty of that with my commercial software as well.

Why not reverse bounty or charge these entitled users for fixes and change requests?

If they want the patch or improvement, they should pay for it.

Log4J CVE might have been the perfect use case for asking for 50K-1M EURO for the maintainers to patch the bug, to any corporate clients this is a drop in the bucket.

That starts to sound suspiciously like an extortion racket.

Capitalism is just one big extortion racket. Pending to move to fully automated luxury space communism, that's what people need to do to succeed in the economic incentive structure we've created.

Or just wait for a SaaS to start using your project and then change the license to monetize.

Lol!

Reply on news.ycombinator.com