Why is it a problem for you if someone is willing to give their work to the world in a way that allows others to benefit from it? Why is that not enough? Why do they also have to keep doing more after that?
If you disagree with the notion of someone publishing their work under a free software or open source license being useful for the world, then please post an AskHN about it and you will have _plenty_ of material to convince you of this perspective. However, I think most reasonably clever people can already come to the conclusion themselves.
It is enough, and I don't disagree with "the notion of someone publishing their work under a free software or open source license being useful for the world." I have simply no idea where you got the idea that I would disagree with that.
What you are responding to is a rhetorical response I gave as an argument against the dismissive idea that an open source maintainer should have no responsibility unless they are getting paid. I don't agree. I find that it's a maintainer's responsibility not to extend, but to maintain. That's all I'm arguing.
If someone wants to throw OSS at the wall to see if it sticks with no obligation to maintain, then that's fine. But as soon as someone puts on the maintainer hat, I think it's reasonable to say they are accepting responsibility for that role.
> I have simply no idea where you got the idea that I would disagree with that.
"If that's the case, then why open source it at all?"
This is the part which made me feel you disagreed with it.
However, may I ask if it is your belief something released under an open source license comes with an intent to maintain it (for others)? Or that releasing something under an open source license is a declaration of being a maintainer of said software?
(not trying to be snarky and am just trying to see why we appear to be in disagreement)
>> "If that's the case, then why open source it at all"
> This is the part which made me feel you disagreed with it.
I am aware, and as I already explained, this is a rhetorical device which you mistook for my own personal belief. Obviously I don't believe OSS is bad. It's friggen great.
And that's a fair question. I am absolutely not saying that open source means you must maintain it. I am simply saying if you call yourself a maintainer then you are responsible for maintaining. If you don't want to maintain OSS, then don't. Just don't pretend you're a maintainer and that you have no responsibility to maintain. At best, pass it on to someone willing to maintain it. At worst, pretend you're working on it. As I said in my original comment, others should fork as needed.
And to add, I don't believe the original subject of the article, the now former maintainer of actix-web, did the wrong thing. I am in agreement with their decision to drop out. No one should be held to an unrealistic standard by entitled users and expected to put up with that BS. The part of my original comment that everyone has a problem with is seriously the least consequential phrase. Blows my mind that everyone is hyper focused on taking it out of context as well.
Thank you. I now see where we differ in our beliefs. We have to just agree that we may never agree on what responsibilities lie with a maintainer (if he is not paid for it by the users(s)).
There are many possible reasons, and yes, one is because they might hope it's useful to other people. That's not the same as being "responsible" for such usefulness.
And I agree completely. Except when you claim you're a "maintainer." If you do, that is supposed to mean something. And I think it means you're going to maintain the code. That's the only responsibility I am talking about.
