Open source is not about you (2018)
Open-source software maintainers are pushing back against the idea that users and contributors are owed features, support, or influence over project direction simply because the code is public. Commenters contrast a strict view of open source as “just a license and delivery mechanism” with expectations of community governance, basic courtesy, and clearer CONTRIBUTING policies, especially as projects become critical infrastructure or commercial dependencies. Many argue that while users aren’t entitled to free labor, social norms, scaling problems, and gift‑economy dynamics mean both sides benefit when expectations and boundaries are explicit and maintainers treat people decently.
Context and why it’s resurfacing
- Essay was written in 2018 amid Clojure-community debates about governance and “community-driven development,” but is being resurfaced now in light of recent OSS drama (e.g., MinIO, bots harassing maintainers).
- Several commenters note it reads as a frustrated boundary-setting document from a language author under sustained pressure.
Maintainer rights vs user expectations
- Strong support for the core thesis: an OSS license grants use/modify/redistribute rights, not support, features, attention, or governance rights.
- Many maintainers report frequent entitlement: demands for free work, quick feature turnaround, special support, or compliance paperwork.
- Others argue that if you publish code and accept issues/PRs, you implicitly invite interaction and should at least communicate your intentions (e.g., via CONTRIBUTING.md, “no support,” “no contributions”).
Politeness, emotional labor, and scale
- One camp: nobody is “owed” more than what the license states; politeness is optional and can’t scale when thousands of users want “five minutes” each.
- Another camp: while no one is owed features, humans are owed basic courtesy; brusque or hostile responses drive away contributors and poison communities.
- Burnout and a “support DDOS” from low-quality contributions are described as a real problem; contributors are urged to “demonstrate homework” and accept that trust must be earned.
Open source: license vs community / gift economy
- Some insist OSS is “just a licensing and delivery mechanism,” not inherently a community or commons.
- Others frame OSS as a gift economy with social contracts and mutual obligations; they see the essay as attacking collectivist/community values.
- Debate over whether popularity or dependency on a project creates moral (if not legal) duties to users.
Corporate and commercial angles
- Stories of enterprises treating maintainers as vendors (security questionnaires, support expectations) and surprise when told “pay or no.”
- Some maintainers successfully convert such requests into paid consulting; others want zero obligation.
- Several commenters highlight funding OSS, hardware, or prioritization as a healthier model.
Responsibility, harm, and consequences
- A minority argue that publishing widely-used software creates a “duty of care,” analogized to public safety; disclaimers don’t erase ethical responsibility.
- Others counter: legal licenses explicitly disclaim warranty; moral responsibility ends at “don’t be malicious,” everything else is bonus.
- Some users report that attitudes like the essay’s have made them keep patches private; others say if you dislike the governance, you should fork or avoid the project.