Thread

1. recursivedoubts · 1790522383 · focus · HN ↗

   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.

   1. pdonis · 1790522952 · focus · HN ↗

      > 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.

      1. timschmidt · 1790523472 · focus · HN ↗

         This gift comes with the following clauses listed plainly in the license file:

            7. Disclaimer of Warranty. Unless required by applicable law or
               agreed to in writing, Licensor provides the Work (and each
               Contributor provides its Contributions) on an "AS IS" BASIS,
               WITHOUT WARRANTIES OR CONDITIONS OF ANY KIND, either express or
               implied, including, without limitation, any warranties or conditions
               of TITLE, NON-INFRINGEMENT, MERCHANTABILITY, or FITNESS FOR A
               PARTICULAR PURPOSE. You are solely responsible for determining the
               appropriateness of using or redistributing the Work and assume any
               risks associated with Your exercise of permissions under this License.
         
            8. Limitation of Liability. In no event and under no legal theory,
               whether in tort (including negligence), contract, or otherwise,
               unless required by applicable law (such as deliberate and grossly
               negligent acts) or agreed to in writing, shall any Contributor be
               liable to You for damages, including any direct, indirect, special,
               incidental, or consequential damages of any character arising as a
               result of this License or out of the use or inability to use the
               Work (including but not limited to damages for loss of goodwill,
               work stoppage, computer failure or malfunction, or any and all
               other commercial damages or losses), even if such Contributor
               has been advised of the possibility of such damages.

         1. InsideOutSanta · 1790524422 · focus · HN ↗

            It's genuinely mind-blowing to me that software can do something obviously bad, someone can point it out, and then someone will link to the license file to say they have the right to do it.

            That's such an obvious category mistake that I'm not sure how to respond. It almost feels like a bad-faith interpretation of Wichary's original point.

            1. timschmidt · 1790525210 · focus · HN ↗

               Equally mindblowing that folks feel someone hacking on open source software has an obligation to do anything the way they feel it needs to be done when the whole point is that anyone gets to do more or less what they want with the code.

               You can't have both.

               1. retsibsi · 1790526996 · focus · HN ↗

                  They get to do more or less what they want with the software, and others get to say more or less what they want about that. What's wrong with deciding they've crossed a line, being bothered by that, and warning others? Nobody's trying to get the law involved, or maliciously retaliate against them, or anything like that.
               2. Chris2048 · 1790527497 · focus · HN ↗

                  > has an obligation to do anything the way they feel it needs to be done

                  > anyone gets to do more or less what they want with the code

                  so if the software had explicitly installed a root kit, you'd say the same?

                  If you give out free soup, you get to poison it too?

               3. InsideOutSanta · 1790527499 · focus · HN ↗

                  I published my comment for free, and yet you are criticizing it.
               4. nikanj · 1790527563 · focus · HN ↗

                  "My software ran rm -rf / but it's GPL so sucks to be you"
               5. ryandrake · 1790528151 · focus · HN ↗

                  I think you are objecting to OP’s “duty of care” wording which could be interpreted as suggesting a legal obligation. Nobody in this thread is really arguing that open source developers have a legal obligation to do this and to not do that. We are just saying they should do this and should not do that.
            2. leoc · 1790538962 · focus · HN ↗

               Right. It is weird that this has to be explained, but let's make it clear: in the Before Times, probably anytime up to at least the late '00s, probably approximately no-one in or around free or open source software would have endorsed the idea that the legal disclaimers completely free even the most mainstream, self-publicising, broad-userbase open source projects from any moral or ethical obligation to have even the slightest concern to ensure that their software doesn't hurt or betray its non-paying users, even in the most harmful ways. And if one of the many and often vocal FOSS opponents of the time had started claiming that this is what open-source developers really believe they'd have rightly been seen as having veered off into the lunatic fringe. And that's because it's a, frankly, bonkers idea which is radically detached from normal human understanding of the social and moral role and obligations of volunteers, voluntary organisations, charitable givers or gift-givers. And also because it's a wildly counterproductive idea to put out there if you're hoping to increase FOSS adoption.

               That does leave the question of why this idea has started to take off more recently. Part of the answer is certainly that Rich Hickey, disgracefully, set the ball rolling in this direction, and that many others have welcomed it as one weird trick and one pat answer for all the worsening problems of developer burnout. Unfortunately it seems hard to dismiss the idea that it's also social breakdown driven by a broader trend, as over time we move further and further from the pre-'60s "neurotic society" of people obsessed with duty and social conformity (often with oppressive or destructive results, to be sure) into the "psychopathic society" in which even people who don't themselves merit a Cluster B diagnosis have internalised narcissistic and psychopathic attitudes.

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.