I agree with the fundamental points here. Expecting things like they describe out of open source volunteers is absurd.
But screaming “I am not a supplier” in this context is like yelling “I am not a driver” while driving a car.
If you take the sofa i left on the side of the curb to bring it home, i am not your supplier.
You found something for free in my trash. That does not make me your supplier. Me being your supplier mean we have a relationship that does not exist here.
And yes, you literally are a supplier if you are putting things out there for free, with no strings and no support, and others are taking them.
(The article is very nice otherwise and I agree with your points, just not the language)
I mean, the analogy sucks. But it’s worth considering that you’re doing more than just putting it into the ether.
Analogy doesn’t suck, looking through “I’m entitled” lenses distorts the picture for you.
It’s when the code is maintained, bugs are fixed, releases are put together, etc. that people start acting entitled.
A better analogy would be someone who opens a sofa depo, starts giving away “as-is” sofas, then starts building new sofas and improving them. Some people take those sofas and use them in rental homes. Then it turns out that someone planted listening devices in some of the sofas, so the landlords start showing up at the depo and asking questions about supply chain security…
Yes, you are. That you do so completely passively doesn't erase the fact that you are supplying something and that some kind of a relationship exists.
The law(s) generally also recognize it like that, and the license you are quoting does so as well ('_provided_ "AS IS"').
Sure, your relationship can be a completely passive non-business no-strings relationship, but the relationship is still there.
See, it works perfectly fine.
In your new example, the phrase "your driver" does not refer to a business relationship, so I guess saying "I'm not your driver" to someone because you don't want to ferry them around is now also poor use of language? Just stop dude.
If you use those replacements in the analogy, then the analogy will work much better.
Except driving is active. You must take acts to drive, it is a continuous commitment. There’s an expectation that if you’re on the highway driving someone they won’t jump out the window and let you crash. Ideally even they’ll get you where you wanna go.
Sharing some software for free is passive. You can share something and walk away. They can even die and the software is still shared. It’s a single action. Push publish, walk away. There may be an expectation of continued support, but it’s based on historic behavior not on actual commitments.
Entering a business relationship is active, and there should be an expectation of support (based on contracts of course).
Selecting a specific open source license and issuing releases and bug fixes is pretty far from “passive.”
Passive would be not putting the code software online and not inviting others to use it.
Its a one-time action. Its "set and forget". That's pretty passive. Yes, you took a direct action, but its not an ongoing action.
> issuing releases and bug fixes
Again, after each fix, you're done. And to the original point, you're never committing to anything.
To repeat my original point, a maintainer could die and the software would still be shared, and the companies that use it would have the exact same relationship they had prior.
What obligation do I, a person developing FOSS in my free time without compensation, have to a consumer of that software (and especially to a consumer who is likely making money in part due to their use of the software I wrote)?
But so what? That does not change the fact that a person developing FOSS supplies something—in fact in most cases they supply a ton of value.
Your supply chain involves everything you use and rely upon, no matter if its provided by a business relationship, taken out of the ground, provided by the government, made in-house, or found in outer space.
The point of supply chain management is to manage the inputs to production. Analysing this process using tools from other industries is, at least, a defensible approach. It doesn’t, in itself, imply any obligation on the suppliers. It’s just a way of thinking about the world.
If you write code and make the conscious decision to assign a liberal license and build it and test it and update it and make it available, it’s really hard for me to accept that you are not a supplier of that code. Your license specifically excludes any obligation to users of your software. But the whole essay just felt like semantic tricks to protest against the idea that software can be modelled as if it is some kind of industrial process.
Like I said, your (presumed) license specifically excludes any obligation to users of your software. I’ve written free software and proprietary software, and one thing I’ve learned is that the world is full of entitled jerks. Entitlement has zero meaningful intersection with software supply chain management.
By most reasonable understandings I would say no. We have no relation at all.
This is not right analogy, cad drawings are not the code. It is relatively easy and near instant, to change license (for cad drawings), and prohibit make materialized copies without written permission.
But I must admit, in freedom world, You have rights and freedoms, to be irresponsible, we just need to figure out, how this could co-exist with real life issues, like supply chain safety.