Comment by teddyh
4 months ago
Comparing mainainers being socially obligated to respond to questions to actual slavery, is unseemly.
If people don’t want the social burden of being a public person or even the relatively small burden of having a public project, they have the option of not being public.
Or -- stay with me -- they have the option of running their public project in the manner and with the level of effort they want. If you don't like that, you are free to run your own projects according to your own standards.
People “have the option” to say whatever they want – it’s called Free Speech, and it’s an important legal right. But that does not mean that I think that everything people do say is right and proper. I can, and will, criticize people for what they say, and I will also criticize maintainers who treat their users with less than reasonable respect.
You are conflating legal rights with what is socially or ethically right, and I think this is a dubious rhetorical trick.
I don't "keep" doing anything - this is the first and only time I've ever replied to one of your comments, nor have I said anything that a reasonable person could construe as conflating legal obligations and social etiquette.
I'm well aware of the difference between between the two concepts. What I, along with basically everyone else in this thread, is telling you is that this social obligation on the part of open source maintainers you seem the believe in is not a thing. People who give away their software for free do not owe any debt to anyone who might choose to use that software. As I said to the 1 (one) other person who seems to agree with you here, the relevant social etiquette is "don't look a gift horse in the mouth."
7 replies →
When Forest Gump said “I’m pretty tired, I think I’ll go home now” was he breaking an obligation to keep running just because others were following him?
6 replies →
The degree to which you demand obligation is the degree to which you make equivalence.
Why only two options? It seems limiting the options of engagement only serves to create a false dichotomy for the purposes of supporting your argument.
If the only two options are to become obligated to the public or not to engage at all, what a sad world this would be. Thankfully, there are many, many alternate options in the reality we share, even if not in your imagined reality.
I only mentioned two options to simplify. I agree that there are many levels, as I have written about previously: <https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19538256>
I could write a lot about this but you may be too dug in to hear it. The obvious rebuttals are "caveat emptor", don't judge a book by its cover, don't buy a product just because the box looks professional, etc.
But you are actually arguing for something different. You are insisting on an implication where the rest of us don't see one. If a project has nice documentation, an up-to-date license, etc. you believe that there is ethical/moral implication that the maintainer will fulfil some responsibility.
This isn't just about misrepresentation (which is almost a side-effect), it is about a proposed belief in duty, almost like a chivalry that goes beyond gentleman-ness.
I tend to think of Postel's law in those circumstances, liberal in what I accept and conservative in what I do. I've heard it said that the happiest cultures of the world have low expectations.