The ethical problem is the bait-and-switch. A project that begins open and remains open is no problem; a project that begins closed and remains closed is no problem (ethically); a project that begins closed and becomes open is no ethical problem either. But a project that begins open, advertises their openness to the world, uses their openness to attract lots of community interest and then suddenly becomes closed is pulling a bait-and-switch, or rugpull.

▲

jrflowers 4 hours ago | parent | next [-]

> a project that begins open, advertises their openness to the world, uses their openness to attract lots of community interest and then suddenly becomes closed

Do you have any examples of that happening? When I click on the link at the top of this thread it takes me to a GitHub repo with a bunch of Apache licensed code that is open to anyone that wants to use or modify or build off of however they want. Heck, with permissive licensing like that you or I could fork it and put any part/all of that code into a proprietary product and make money off of it if we wanted to, and that would be entirely in keeping with the spirit and practice of FOSS.

This project seems perfectly open from what I can see, looks like the original devs stopped working on it though

▲

imiric 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Precisely.

It's remarkable that people think releasing a project as OSS is a license to disrespect users. This isn't even related to OSS. Software authors should have basic decency and respect for the users of their software. This relationship starts with that.

Publishing a project as OSS doesn't relinquish you from this responsibility. It doesn't give you the right to be an asshole.

And yet we fall for this trap time and time again, and there are always those who somehow defend this behavior.

I think it's an inherent conflict with the entrepreneurship mindset and those who visit this forum. Their primary goal is to profit from software. OSS is seen as a "gift" and an act of philanthropy, rather than a social movement to collaborate on building public goods. That's silly communism, after all. I'm demanding that people work for free for my benefit! Unbelievable.

▲

rebolek 3 hours ago | parent [-]

Wow.

"Software authors should have basic decency and respect for the users of their software." Why? Not at all.

"Publishing a project as OSS doesn't relinquish you from this responsibility. It doesn't give you the right to be an asshole." You are free to be asshole and it's nobody's business.

Actually it's exactly opposite. Such feeling of superiority and privilege, that just because you use some software, you have any right to command its author is the very definition of being an asshole.

"I'm demanding that people work for free for my benefit! Unbelievable." Yes, that's unbelievable.

	▲	imiric 2 hours ago \| parent [-]
		> "Software authors should have basic decency and respect for the users of their software." Why? Not at all. Because that's the core reason why we build software in the first place. We solve problems for people. Software doesn't exist in a void. There's an inherent relationship created between software authors and its users. This exists for any good software, at least. If you think software accomplishes its purpose by just being published, regardless of its license, you've failed at the most fundamental principle of software development. > you have any right to command its author is the very definition of being an asshole. Hah. I'm not "commanding" anyone anything. I'm simply calling out asshole behavior. The fact is that software from authors who behave like this rarely amounts to anything. It either dies in obscurity, or is picked up by someone who does care about their users. > "I'm demanding that people work for free for my benefit! Unbelievable." Yes, that's unbelievable. Clearly sarcasm goes over your head, since I'm mimicking what you and others think I'm saying. But feel free to continue to think I'm coming from a place of moral superiority and privilege.