They are open source developers, giving away free software as a gift. There is no duty here.

We can speak, respectfully, of how important backwards compatibility is to us, and ask nicely for them to give more of their time to support it when their free sodftware isn't backwards compatible. Perhaps we can even offer to help implement it.

But they have no duty to do so or to "care" for their users. (They have already demonstrated they care for their users, btw, by giving them free software.)

EDIT: I missed an important part of the story, which is that they mutated existing files in a non-backwards compatible manner. That should have been avoided, I understand where the (secondary) author is coming from now.

The argument is that developers have a duty not to arbitrarily delete data on your system that you may have relied on that was produced by another program just because they’d like to replace it with something in their own format.

I don’t care if you’re volunteering your time; if you build something whose implied purpose and success depends on other people using it, you emphatically have a duty to those people not to silently destroy stuff that was there before your software was.

> giving away free software as a gift

Even a gift comes with an implicit promise that it will do no harm. Deleting important data of yours without warning is harm.

“Here, take this car, it’s free!”

“Ow, the gas pedal is actually a bear trap.”

“Why are you complaining? It’s free!”

A duty, like a responsibility, can be something you feel or choose for yourself. The fact that the maintainers of some software don’t feel it is a perfectly good argument for not using that software. There is no necessary connection to compensation or transactional thinking.

If I give away food I have a duty not to poison you. It doesn’t matter you didn’t pay for it.

They wrote this software with the explicit intention of offering it to other people to use. Their program deleted data created with a different program, on someone else’s computer. If they have no sense of duty that would preclude doing that, no one should use their software.

This is absolutely true. On the other hand, if there's Vim, Neovim, emacs, MS Word, Google Docs etc and some treat me with respect and others do not, that might affect my choice of which software to use.

Sure. And likewise, users who care about backwards compatibility have no duty to do anything for the Neovim developers--they can simply use a different editor that suits their preferences.

Sure. And nobody has a duty to use it. This user states that (s)he doesn't want to use an editor that doesn't care for its users. I don't blame anyone here.

"Behold my glorious generosity, which eclipses your petty meaningless little data!"

This is the extreme version of "I enjoy coding but I hate users."

It may be legally valid in absolute technical terms, but I'm going to take a lot of persuading that it's a healthy attitude.

> They are open source developers, giving away free software as a gift. There is no duty here.

But actually there is! They didn't start from scratch. They took another very successfull and beloved project with the promise "to make it better". There is some promise here and the duty not to make it worse.

HN commenters constantly mistake “what I should do” with “what I am obligated to do.” Nobody is saying open source developers are legally mandated to be careful with user data. We are saying they should. There’s no need to haul out the license and put our lawyer hats on here. One can be within one’s legal rights and still be wrong.

If people can be upset when llms delete a file, we can be upset when an open-source project deletes a file.

Ill remember this when I distribute malware.

Oh my. This set of principles is appropriate for malware.

> giving away free software as a gift. There is no duty here.

By that logic, if Facebook gives away their services for free then they don't have the duty to protect their user's privacy and mental health?

By your reasoning, a doctor who volunteers to provide free care to people has no duty of care to those patients. This is patently absurd - ethics and norms are a large part of what constitutes a professional.

And for what it's worth, I have flagged your comment for the inevitable pointless bickering it has precipitated. While applying reductionist frameworks and seeing where they lead is a necessary part of an individual's path to understanding, please avoid pushing ignorant assertions ("there is no duty here") as if they might constitute well reasoned truths.

There is not a duty but there is an image and quality issue. Something many open source projects suffer from and should not.

And even mentioning that results in "fork it if you're not happy" which immediately turns everyone off who's had to maintain a fork to fix a minor issue in something before. And anyone who can't fork it is being told to go to hell.

Everyone needs to quite frankly get off their high horse, crank the ego down and listen to users. Because you're damaging open source with the attitude.

30 years ago, things were better. They got a lot worse, particularly since github appeared.

You spewing bs like the left-pad dev who removed it from NPM a decade ago crashing everything.

Yes, OSS can start with just a passion without a duty, but as the scale grows you have a duty to make sure it does not have adverse effect.

If you don't like the duty, just make it die by building it crappy like VIM does.