My “favourites” are the ones threatening to abandon the tool, despite having never made a single positive contribution. On open-source that’s an easy laugh and a “good riddance”. On commercial cases it’s more frustrating and nuanced.
I disagree willingness to pay is that meaningful of a filter, in the cases I experienced. And it’s getting worse; many people are getting too impatient and act like everyone works for them specifically and only their needs matter.
But driving that line is a cost: to you, your volunteers, or your tokens(?).
As for tokens, there have been exactly zero cases where someone has submitted LLM code to one of my repos that has been up to my standards and I have accepted it. Yes, I can say that with certainty. If I wanted LLM code I’d ask for it myself, having an intermediary in that process is worse than useless.
Having to spend time reviewing a PR or issue is “no cost”?
I’m not convinced yet.
> As for tokens
I did not mean LLM contributions…I meant using AI tools to automate the reviews of contributions and users you seem to think cost no time or attention, but I do..
You can choose to
Or you can choose to ignore them
Why are you on a platform open to accepting them in the first place?
Are we talking about the same thing?
because you don’t have to “drive a hard line”, to do that,
you just draw it once (publish a no PR policy, don’t host on GH, etc),
and you shouldn’t be hearing from users.
So, reviewing them.
Which takes time/focus.
(I still get bug tracker emails for the kernel from before 2010!)
Git hosting provides discoverability and the ability to fork repositories. Everything else is an optional feature.
Somebody paying for your product is very strong signal. You know that such a person represents real world use cases for your product, and that their issues and feature requests are based on real world problems. Otherwise the chances are low that they would be paying for the software.
So helping them with what they want could mean that you've just tipped the scale enough for hundreds or thousands of people to become new customers.
And of course you should give them their money back to get rid of them if they're any kind of headache. Or tell them that their requested feature will be in the next versions, which is a new purchase.
Sure, if the request is reasonable and sensical. I entertain those and even help them formulate the request better if needed. That’s true of both commercial and open-source.
But I’m more talking about the users who demand features. Those who say the tool needs to have whatever idea they just thought of 2 minutes ago, despite no one else ever having asked for it and it not really making sense. Those users who only think of themselves and suggest features which require fundamental changes which would modify the behaviour for everyone, or the feature is in itself contradictory and there’s no way it could work.
If you have users who aren't paying you, there is no reason at all to pay any heed to what they say.
> Those who say the tool needs to have whatever idea they just thought of 2 minutes ago, despite no one else ever having asked for it and it not really making sense.
If no one is bothered enough by the lack of the feature to mention it, then the software doesn’t need it. And you’re ignoring the “and it not really making sense” part. If a feature is well-reasoned and makes sense in scope, I always consider it.
- I'm not particularly into castles, but I've visited a fair few while travelling. I lived in Norwich for 10 years, home to one of the finest Norman castles in the country. Did I visit? Did I heck.
- When your favourite film was on TV you'd watch it every time. Then when you got it on DVD you'd never watch it again.
- Give a dog some miscellaneous leftovers and notice how they prioritise ingestion.
Not sure it's really the same entitlement phenomenon the GP was talking about, though.
They were almost always full to the brim.
Anecdotes are fun, but not much more than that.
With a less famous artist price is perceived as a signal. So if it is free, people would think that the show is not worth bothering.
A long time ago I was helping a friend with her hand-made candles stall at a craft fair. A particular thpe of candle wasn't selling - so we talked about it and she reduced the price of each candle. But they still weren't selling. So we talked about it some more, and she priced them at 3x the original price. They all sold.
I can think of several reasons for that. It would be nice to know for sure which was the right one (or if there’s a combination).
E.g. Maybe being free, people reserved the tickets but then didn’t show up. Or if you didn’t have to reserve, people only went on a whim. Or they always assumed they would all be reserved in advance so didn’t bother to try.
I suspect that when you pay for an event you’re more likely to make a concerted effort to attend lest you “lose the money”.
I'm not sure what the exact lesson is here. Something about stingy people not being nice to work with, perhaps?
Basically, you get what you pay for. That's not always true, but it holds pretty reliably.
The pragmatic accept that work ≠ value, some do so permanently. But someone newly aware of this may deem it unfair, and react with totally disproportionate demands, some do so permanently.
Then you come across those who already benefit greatly from the imbalance, yet still make disproportionate demands. These tend to be good at it, subtle, strategic. Which may explain why they end up on the benefiting side.
Broadly, you find three types: the greedy, the balanced, and the generous pragmatic.
The greedy exploits relativity. The balanced respects it. The generous navigates it without resentment. Whether consciously or not.
See: Redis, Elastic, etc.
Not an ounce of AWS or GCP is open source, yet they'll happily spin up a managed version of your thing and make hundreds of millions without cutting you in.
We need new licenses that are more "shareware" like. That permit individuals, but slap big trillion dollar companies.
"Fair source", "Fair code", the defold license, etc. are all pretty good.
What you actually want is some kind of noncommercial clause: you can use my free shit as part of your free shit. If you want to make money off my shit, the rules change to "fuck you, pay me"
"But what if a company just wants to try it out?" well they can live within the already existing exception called "not telling me you're breaking my license". If I don't know about it I can't impose any penalties on you. Every good business already knows how and when they can break the law with impunity, and that's one of them.
Companies shouldn't get your labor for free. Especially the big ones.
Trillion dollar companies don't deserve hand outs.
We should have figured this out twenty years ago.
> No, this begging is particularly different because it capitalizes on the good will of open source developers. Microsoft, Apple, and Google are standing on the internet in their trillion dollar business suits with a sign that reads "Starving and homeless. Any free labor will help." They aren't holding people up at gun point. Rather they hold out their Rolex encrusted hand and beg, plead, and shame open source developers until they get free labor.
> Once they get this free labor they rarely give credit. They're ungrateful beggars that take their donated work hours, jump in their Teslas, and ride off to make more trillions proclaiming, "Haha! That open source idiot just gave me 10 hours of free labor. What a loser."
In the age of LLMs and entitled users, I must be selfish and cannot release my work as free software any more. The best of all worlds, for me, is to provide source code along with binaries to paying customers.
The name for this is the Veblen Effect [0], and it applies to all irrational market behaviour where people are actually happier with luxury goods the more they pay for them.
Funnily enough, I've seen some of the exact same clients brag about how cheaply they got something else. The lesson I've drawn is that they're mostly looking for approval, so they're equally interested in buying status as they are in getting real stuff done. It's a win/win if you deliver a great product that they can brag about, because they'll do the hard work of selling it to themselves for you.
A corollary of that psychology is that some, maybe even most people are never happy with stuff they paid market price for. They either think they could've gotten it cheaper, or they think they could have gotten more for their money. Paying market price makes them feel like a chump. But paying way more than market has to be justified to themselves first. It's simply too embarrassing to admit that they might have overpaid an arm and a leg. So as a contractor, pricing your work as either very cheap or very expensive, on the margins of the parabola, alleviates this vague sense of dissatisfaction from your clients' internal debate, and gives them the peace of mind that they're actually trying to buy.
In my experience charging too little is one of the biggest mistake to do when starting.
Using GPL or MIT or whatever open or free license you prefer does not mean it's OK to get bullied.
It's perfectly fine to not accept entitlement and still let others use or even build on your work, if you want to.
You have the freedom to shape the interactions you want even if nobody else does it this way.
I'd say it comes off as more of a challenge than a suggestion. "I don't care, do it yourself if you care so much". Most people just go away when they get told that. Some people actually rise up to the challenge.
> even if to clarify that currently there is not enough resource to accept/reject it
That's fine if clarified beforehand. The CONTRIBUTING.md from the above comment is an excellent example. It clearly communicates the maintainer's stance.
If it's coming from someone who previously "welcomed PRs", that sort of reply is extremely rude. Learning and modifying someone else's project is a major undertaking, and it's very disrespectful when maintainers don't match that effort, especially when they invited it upon themselves.
Same software i offer for free will take 2-5x more time if i did it opensource way.
> When I am working with a small team, I do not care if my commits are ugly or repetitive.
Your team cares though. Probably including yourself later. Maintaining proper commit history is always worth it.
If they are so inclined, they can fork it and patch it. It's out there after all. As long as they obey the terms of the license I put forth, it's all fair.
The OSS part ensured that even if I went full Sam Altman, the user will still have an absolute baseline they can fallback on. And given how lazy I am, the OSS is often basically 70% of the project. This also has the benefit that the significant part of the code can be audited for security/etc, sometimes even for free.
That's in line with my experience on both consulting and selling software. The more they pay, the easier and reasonable they are to work with.
Years ago, I put out some free software and there were a lot of users who seemed to be on a power trip to show me who is the boss. I assumed they were some lonely guys in a basement who had nothing else going on, so they best they could come up with is to beat up an author of the only software they can afford.
"Be entitled to whatever one is willing to give upstream" is my motto.