Comment by simlevesque
2 days ago
When you start making your open source project worse for your users because you are not making enough out of it I'll choose to use something else.
There's a point where it's too much and it just feels like a trojan horse when later you stop caring for your free users.
I think the part you're missing here is that the author here is under no requirement to accept changes to their project and everyone else is welcome to fork it if they disagree with choices made by the author.
The author did not in fact, make the project worse, all they did was not accept a change, and that is entirely different than making it worse.
Even those who stood to benefit from the change have not received a degraded experience in comparison to the current state of affairs, but the same experience as the current state of affairs, since no change occurred. It is truly within the author's rights to do this, in any case.
One should avoid a sense of entitlement to additional and ever-increasing quantities of free work when free work has already been done.
> all they did was not accept a change,
A change to make the documentation easier for LLM scrapers to inhale.
What would be the point? It would, in no way, improve anything. Probably not even for LLMs.
I am astounded the gentleman responded at all. I think all the talk of money (whilst urgent and catastrophic) is a red herring
For sure, yeah.
I notice that you didn't answer their question: How should OSS be funded?
Ethically
What's the ethically bad thing Tailwind did here? Not merging that pull request?
6 replies →
Please let us know if you launch this open source project, we’d all be excited to use it!
You keep repeating that he makes his project worse – an active action – while in fact he did not do anything at all, he just refused to change something.