What does the consumer community do to destroy open source software?

In the wake of the introduction of DevOps and the general development of IT among the masses, the use of open source software (Free Software) is becoming more and more popular. Even Microsoft had a very good hand in popularizing open source software among the masses. One problem is that users are consumers, and someone (probably someone was) suggested to these users that the same rules apply to STRs as in commercial software, but they don’t have to pay anything.

So, let's consider four logical errors that users make in their attitudes to open source software. Only four, because I consider them the most important.

1. The developer of open source software is responsible to users.

GPL says:

THERE IS NO WARRANTY FOR THE PROGRAM, TO EXTENT PERMITTED BY APPLICABLE LAW. WITHOUT & IMPRODUCTIONS, CLEARING, CLEANING, ETHER EXPRESSED IMPORTURES, INC. . THE PROGRAM IS WITH YOU. SHOULD OF THE PROGRAM DEFECTIVE, YOU ASSUME OF THE COST OF ALL NECESSARY SERVICING, REPAIR OR CORRECTION.

MIT says:

IS SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED, IS WITHOUT, WITHOUT AND ANTI KIND, FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE AND NONINFRINGEMENT. ORIGINAL CLAIM, DAMAGES, ORAINTHROWISSION, CONFECTION, CONTRACTING, ORDERWISE, ORTHERWISE SOFTWARE.

Literal translation

THIS SOFTWARE, CURRENT OTHER CONDITIONS IN ORDER OF CHARGES

You can read more about MIT here .

In general, any GPL-compatible (even one way) license says that the open source software and its author or any member of the product are not responsible for the performance of the application. The developer’s sole responsibility is to follow the licensing rules, but not all licenses require it.

Disclaimer by Stolman

In general, the GPL does not mean that you lay out your code only under the GPL and use only the GPL version yourself. You have the right to put your code under a different license, but not everyone approves of it, but they don’t argue about tastes ... The truth is, there are a lot of BUT in all this, which do not fit into the framework of this note.

However, as practice shows (purely personal experience), it is in countries where piracy is most common that users often do not read licensing agreements. As, in other matters, in most countries, the consumer does not read the text of the license, but agrees immediately ( "no, well, I need to use the software" ). Unfortunately, many users, having learned that they agreed with the denial of responsibility, for some reason consider themselves to be deceived by the software developer and do not want to agree with their responsibility. In general, the question of self-responsibility in people is a sore question for society.

A very precise term for such a relationship limassolsk picked up in this comment . And it is precisely this (as described above) attitude toward STR that does not create development, but, on the contrary, leads to the degradation of the community.
I’ll say it myself: the question "what’s better {{something}}?" on opennet. This question really does not apply to the authors of open source software, because they do not sell their product. Ultimately, no one should answer this question if there is no benefit, but there is a real opportunity to independently figure out "what is better / worse." The right question would be “how to help?” .

So, an open source software developer with a free license is not responsible to the consumer . Using the open source software, you automatically agree to the conditions specified in the license agreement test. This question is not only legal, but also moral and social.

2. The developer of open source software works for the idea

Not only. For the idea alone, you can work on a pet-project. I want to remind everyone one picture, very capacious:

We are people. We need food, a roof over our head, etc. SPOs kill not commercial companies or double licenses, but, oddly enough, ordinary people spreading negative (and very often deceitful) rumors about open source software, simply because they did not like the author’s attitude / implementation of the functional / interface, because {{anything}}.
It is also worth noting that ideas may not coincide, not to mention priorities.

There is another category of open source software that is filled by various large and not-so-very companies that develop software and post its limited version under any free license. They also suffer from consumer attitudes, though not only from the average man, but also from large vendor-consumers. So, for example, Mongo suffers from the fact that its solutions are often sewn up by some cloud provider and they earn money from the work of Mongo employees, while bringing nothing to the project (cloud providers do not add popularity, but again exploit this popularity). Of course, there is not so simple, but this is an example of the consumer attitude towards open source software, which is increasingly developing in the "consumer community".

So, the author of open source software is not obliged to work for an idea , respect and / or some other non-material benefits, especially if its product brings something tangible to the consumer.

3. The development of open source software can not be a hobby

Say it to Linus with his "fan". Sometimes people have the same interest and together they start developing the product in their free time. But there comes a time when the hobby may get bored, but it does not make either the product or the developer bad, because the product itself remains the same. Sometimes developers have a desire to change jobs, activities or place of residence. We do not blame it? Why, then, does the consumer consider it necessary to throw mud at a developer who has lost the motivation to drag a project on himself, which is used by many, but does not bring any benefit, except for bug reports and suggestions for improvement? After all, in the end, the user does not do it out of a sense of mutual aid, but more often because of his “selfish” interests (this bug simply prevents him).

It is worth noting that work, which brings pleasure, is very similar to a hobby. As Confucius said:

Choose a job you like, and you don’t have to work a single day in your life.

In fact, the consumer attitude often kills the desire to engage in any hobby.

From personal example

I used to enjoy photography. I was a good reportage, moreover, with an emphasis on extreme sports, in particular Bike-stunt. I really liked it.
I also liked to photograph the real emotions of people at concerts or on the street.
It all brought me a lot of pleasure, especially photo processing. I treated those who processed almost every frame as a picture. It took the whole night or even a few days.

But over time, people who want to “update” their album in “classmates” for free have repulsed this desire, each time motivating that since I have a camera and it turns out so well, then I simply have to take pictures of them. Some once or twice, after my decisive refusal to do it for free, they bought the shooting, asking for a huge discount. Others perceived as an insult, because, as they believed, they did me a favor, poorly posing for the camera, without even bothering to gloss over their acne faces with at least a high-quality foundation.

From personal experience in other areas, I can conclude that a consumer attitude never contributes to development and creation, but only destroys any, even very cool, idea or innovation.

So, even the simplest pet-project can develop into a very popular, functional and popular product. But even the coolest project can be destroyed by demotivating the author with a consumer attitude.

4. The user does not need to read the license agreement.

Anecdote to the topic:

In the statistics department, Microsoft figured out that Russians are the fastest-reading nation in the world. After appearing on the screen of the license agreement of several dozen points, after half a second they click "I have read and agree to the terms."

It is very important to understand what you agree to when you click the "Agree" button. In the end, someone can add a clause to the agreement:

Using this software, you automatically agree that your apartment is now owned by us, and also agree to the withdrawal of your kidney in favor of our CEO.

The problem is that the same rules that consumers use in commercial products, he begins to apply in open source software. <sarkazm> Indeed, but why watch under which license the product is laid out, if you can just download and install it? </sarkazm> And it doesn’t matter to the consumer that the license of this product implies non-commercial use, and he wants to apply it in his company as a paid service.

This habit came from "piracy", when reading the license agreement was really unnecessary, because by installing "pirated software", the consumer has already violated this agreement.

And now a very "holivarny" question: does the author-developer need to know the conditions of a free license, under which he puts his software? The question, of course, is rhetorical, but still it is worth clarifying that YES (all sorts of individuals come across, someone thinks not). Moreover, when we are sent to a pull-request, it is also worth remembering that it is sent under the same license as the project itself (there are exceptions), which means that the main author will not be able to “close” or relicense the project.

The same applies to those who use free libraries. This is a huge stone in the garden proudly shouting into the issues of developers, in whom the project becomes vulnerable due to some bugs or features in the library used. No "stars", no popularity and other intangible benefits can not change the terms of the license agreement, which accepts the consumer, using open source software.

UPD

For residents of the Russian Federation all the norms of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation apply.

Someone might have a question: “as a kind of agreement, not documented, can it have some kind of legal force? After all, I just put a tick.”

That's how:

Thus, "the beginning of the use of such a program or database by the user, as determined by these conditions, means his consent to conclude a contract."

Total

At one time, the pirate "market" software very much spoiled the consumer, when good and high-quality software could be obtained absolutely free of charge, while at any tracker you could also complain about the software using various euphemisms and interjections.
Now the consumer is very firmly believes that something is owed to him, but at the same time he is not ready to pay for it. The thinking of some socialism developed with an emphasis on consumer egoism.

However, it is important to understand the Open Source Community - not about the consumer and does not carry such an idea. The main idea of Richard Stallman was to protect free software authors from liability and from “tivoizatsii” , to allow developers to share their workings safely. SPO is not a consumer level - it is a developer level. It was the developers who "deigned" to share their work, and not the users "deigned" to use the software.

Therefore:

Be grateful and remember - the authors of SPO owe you nothing.
Everyone wants to "eat" and slave labor in most countries with the constitution is prohibited.
Even the most interesting project can become a burden due to a consumer attitude.
Read everything you agree with explicitly and implicitly. Follow what you agree with, do not agree with what you are not going to do.

Take care of yourself and your nerves, fellow developers.

PS: Thank you berez for post-editing the article.

Source: https://habr.com/ru/post/449412/

All Articles