On a semi-related note: Woof, issues like that make me want to never do open source again. Did that guy make a mistake? Obviously. Was it in good faith? It seemed so. Were people jerks even after he fixed it. Absolutely.
Adding unwitting users' computers to a proxy network by default is so obviously and blatantly unethical, it beggars belief. I'm not angry at the creator, because they seem oblivious. I am, however, extremely saddened and frustrated by their obliviousness. Like in no universe is it ever OK to do this even if nobody responds to your discord poll. It takes a real failure in responsible, ethical upbringing to get here. It takes a lack of consideration and empathy for other people to believe that including this isn't an act of aggression towards everyone who encounters the software.
Or sadly, that commit log standards are nonexistent and don't have to describe the changes and be misleading, it's one of those.
As far as I can tell, they didn't even really make a Discord poll.
The first mention of "spider" (or "IP" or "proxy" or any related words) is from the release announcement of a version which already contains Spider, which got negative reactions: https://i.imgur.com/gLKce8W.png
It's very deceptive wording since "I made an announcement to poll people's reaction" is technically true, but it wasn't a poll or before the changes were made as is implied. Same with "There were very little comments", which leaves out the fact the comments they did get were negative and the low quantity is just from it being a small unknown Discord server.
> ImageGlass Store version is not affected.
Most contributions are from drive by contributor's that may not even use the project.
Neither those nor the maintainer are entitled to compensation, but open source is a cruel environment where people want to use what you made but they wouldnt give you a dime unless they had to
I wish it was otherwise, people, but it's usually "build it and they WON'T come" ("they" being the funds needed to make a living.)
On what planet could this be considered good faith?
We need more martinlindhes in open source and fewer Yakabuffs.
It seems to me that it's up to the author to explain why the project can still be trusted, they can't just do this and expect that people will still trust them just because they reverted it.
everyone makes a mistake at some point and the fact that the dev used the ip hijacking service's name in the commit message to me signals that he wasn't aware of how shady it is
Even if he was, a comment like "I don't think this is acceptable and will fork" is a lot more appropriate than "don't talk shit"