I disagree. A lot of open source software literally come with "it's what it is" clause in the license, meaning that the maintainer has ZERO responsibility towards you, the user. No promises were made, you take it as is or leave it. Just because the dev generously decided to open source the code doesn't give you, the user, any "rights" to inundate the dev with issues.
> A lot of open source software literally come with "it's what it is" clause in the license, meaning that the maintainer has ZERO responsibility towards you, the user.
There's a loophole in that scenario, which is created by the fact that in FLOSS there is no clear distinction between users and mantainers. Meaning, the whole concept of FLOSS is based on community modifying and redistributing their own contributions, as a form of giving back to the community.
The same principle applies to wikis. You can take it or leave it, but the whole notion of a wiki lies on your ability to make it your own.
WARNING: Putting some code on the internet may yield curiosity and contact from other like-minded humans. The more potentially useful it is, the more people you may hear from. Gasp!
A simple "I put this up but please do not contact me" solves the problem.
A software license is not a social contract but that doesn't mean you can't bring some kindness and common sense to the situation.
Yes, exactly. Especially when a lot of open source projects seem to be resume padders. They're presented as if they're the most useful library in the world with implied support, and then when your first issue is closed immediately with "yea, we don't care about that", you realize the reality.
It goes a long way if a "maintainer" simply states upfront about their mode of operation and sets expectations accordingly.
> that doesn't mean you can't bring some kindness and common sense to the situation
It doesn't mean you have to either. There's no social contract either way, so there's nothing to debate. Doing whatever you want is the correct thing to do regardless.
