Hacker News Reader

> You're saying that because users didn't pay for the software, they're not allowed to be surprised and angry when they're forced to either continue using unmaintained versions, take over maintenance themselves or wait until someone from the community does

Surprised maybe depending on how long the software has existed, but angry? 100% they are not allowed to be angry.

Anyone who thinks that a maintainer of open source software is required to maintain that software for free forever is an entitled brat.

The answer to all your scenarios is yes. There is no amount of free labor someone can give away that entitles the recipients to more free labor.

Don't you realize how hostile it is to have a bunch of non contributors demand and entitle themselves to things and burn out OSS organizers at an increasing rate so much so it's been cited as an ongoing critical concern to the entire software supply chain?

Your attitude ignores the real financial and time constraints that OSS has been facing forever and people are rightly starting to get tired of this shit.

We're well past the stage where its little well meaning communities trading cool bits of code with one another OSS is a completely economy defining thing now and people shouldn't settle for being worked to the bone, they should be setting proper safeguards, like Datastar has done here, to ensure their project does not burn them out and they can continue to grow and direct it in a way that accords with their own interests and desires.

> The current context is within FOSS, however. And it has a widely known definition[1].

Yes, and my argument is that definition is wildly inappropriate. It takes the perfectly-legal actions of software authors and equates them with an illegal financial scam.

> You're saying that because users didn't pay for the software, they're not allowed to be surprised and angry when they're forced to either continue using unmaintained versions

Correct, except no one is "forced" to do anything. That includes the software authors, who are not forced to continue maintaining their software, for free or at all, if they so choose.

> And you're saying that paying for the software buys you these privileges?

Potentially, yes. But that depends entirely on the terms of the license, product offering, payment method, etc. Just like anything else you buy, if the product is deficient (potentially within a set timeframe), you may have some recourse available but it varies.

> if the author of cURL decided tomorrow that it's no longer "practical" for him to support ancient and obscure protocols like Gopher and Telnet for free, and he decided to put them up behind a paywall, that the people depending on these features don't have any right to be upset about it?

Correct. If you are not the employer of the author of cURL, and you are not a customer of the author of cURL, why do you think you have any right to tell him what he can or cannot do with his software or his free time?

> And if they are, they're being entitled?

Absolutely, 100% this is unquestionably extreme entitlement.

> if the people making meals at a community kitchen decide that it's no longer "practical" for them to supply [...]

Open source developers are not even remotely similar to soup kitchens, and open source software users are not impoverished starving people.

> Don't you realize how hostile this is?

After the previous analogy, perhaps you should ask yourself that.

> I'm in favor of F/LOSS projects having commercial tiers or subscriptions, as long as it's done fairly.

The issue here is that your definition of "fairly" is completely subjective, and seems to involve you having a say in what other people do with their time and intellectual property.

> The moment you decide that users not paying for your work are not worth listening to

That simply isn't what I said, nor what any of the sibling comments said.

> So they're quite happy to "leech off" other people's work, but not happy to let others do the same off theirs.

I believe this is a complete logical fallacy, as I don't see the Datastar authors (or anyone else in this thread) complaining about leeching anywhere. But please link me to this if I'm mistaken.