> Open source is not some backyard game anymore. It
> involves companies and their commitment in form of
> infrastructure and participation.
I think this approach leads to sustainability problems, and discourages individuals from sharing their work in open source form. I make a project because I need it, and maybe it's fun to build. I generally share it because I think others might find it useful too.
What I'm reading in your comment is that once it becomes widely used, it becomes my responsibility to meet the needs of these people and organizations who have started using the work I freely give to them. The act of having it used by other people obligates me to them.
That perspective seems like it will eventually force the people who share their work in this way down the path of burnout.
> Open source is like capitalism. But a project's success
> is measured in commitment instead of capital.
I would argue that the goals of any given open source project - and therefore the measures of its success - are under the control of the owner(s) of that project. If one of the goals is to make a widely distributed and used thing, then yes - there are obligations such as you've described; they are inherent in that goal.
If the goal is only to build a thing and share it, there can be no such obligation - regardless of how popular it gets.
> I think this approach leads to sustainability problems, and discourages individuals from sharing their work in open source form. I make a project because I need it, and maybe it's fun to build. I generally share it because I think others might find it useful too.
I don't believe that every little open source project is automatically held to the rules I described. But once your exposure gets bigger, you suddenly enter different waters. Hopefully you might have maintainers of a distribution shielding you from the biggest impact.
> What I'm reading in your comment is that once it becomes widely used, it becomes my responsibility to meet the needs of these people and organizations who have started using the work I freely give to them. The act of having it used by other people obligates me to them.
That is precisely what is happening in many places. I didn't say I like it. In most cases people can move. Sometimes the "market" moves on or forks it. But this is what I have been seeing more and more.
> If the goal is only to build a thing and share it, there can be no such obligation - regardless of how popular it gets.
This is tricky. Viewed from the moral standpoint of the starter of the project, I agree. But once you got into the limelight with your project and other people started depending on it, every misstep suddenly becomes a jackass move. You essentially lost the project.
> But once your exposure gets bigger, you suddenly enter different waters.
I fundamentally disagree with this. Just because my exposure has gotten larger (possibly through no action of my own), it doesn't magically give me more resources, more free time, more motivation, a team of developers, etc. If people (or companies) want to depend on a one-person open source project for something important to them, then they should pay to fund it, either by giving that developer money directly, or by hiring people in-house to contribute to that project.
(Not doing so is just foolish and risky on the company's part, too: depending solely on an unpaid volunteer for an important part of your infrastructure is not a winning move.)
Also consider that more users generally means less free time for developing, and more time handling bug reports and support issues. If an open source project grows, it's absolutely critical for users to step up and pitch in, either with their own skills, or with monetary resources that can help the maintainer (who might have a day job) focus more on the project.
Maintainers do have a responsibility to decide what they want their level of involvement to be, though, and to communicate that. Potential users should have the information they need to decide if the project they want to depend on is well-supported and sustainable. They have no right to demand that the maintainer change their approach or level of involvement, however.
> But once you got into the limelight with your project and other people started depending on it, every misstep suddenly becomes a jackass move.
I really dislike the lack of charitable interpretation given here, and this just contributes to the "entitled user" image. The unpaid maintainer of an open source project does not owe anyone anything. Full stop. Users are responsible for their dependencies. I'll repeat that: users are responsible for their dependencies. If they are going to take on a dependency for that's given away for free and not do their due diligence to make sure it is reliably and sustainably developed, that's on them. If they're not happy with the maintainership and want to use it anyway, that's on them. Users do not get to tell unpaid maintainers how to maintain their software. If they want to be helpful and constructive, that's great, but anything less is rude and unwanted.
What I'm reading in your comment is that once it becomes widely used, it becomes my responsibility to meet the needs of these people and organizations who have started using the work I freely give to them. The act of having it used by other people obligates me to them.
That perspective seems like it will eventually force the people who share their work in this way down the path of burnout.
I would argue that the goals of any given open source project - and therefore the measures of its success - are under the control of the owner(s) of that project. If one of the goals is to make a widely distributed and used thing, then yes - there are obligations such as you've described; they are inherent in that goal.If the goal is only to build a thing and share it, there can be no such obligation - regardless of how popular it gets.