It just seems to me that there's a give-and-take to being the maintainer of a popular open source project. You get help on the project in the form of people contributing patches, right? Doesn't simple human curtesy and a modicum of wisdom suggest that you should explain your rationale in accepting or rejecting them, to manage expectations, so that it doesn't end up like this? I know, I know. I'm taking my crazy pills again. Sorry.
> You get help on the project in the form of people contributing patches, right?
It seems like you're trying to make it seem like there is always a legitimate exchange, and so they owe you something. Some projects want help, others don't. In the latter case, it's just a gift from the author, and they don't owe you anything.
> You get help on the project in the form of people contributing patches, right?
Any open source maintainer will tell you that many PRs, even well-intentioned ones, end up being a net negative. Often they don't further the maintainers aims, they need detailed review, take sometimes a lot of effort to manage the communication tactfully, etc.
Yes, many PRs are a win and it can be really gratifying seeing your project become bigger and better than you could have made on its own.
And this is why I honestly don't ever want to release an open-source project.
At the very least, I'm not going to make it easy for people to contribute. I'll keep the git repo private, go without a ticketing system, and just post tarballs full of code on a self-hosted website (I guess like the NetHack team used to do before 3.6, but they had a ticketing system, and I wouldn't). Maybe I'll even use a non-free license just to reinforce my "you take what you can get" policy.
If I write something useful, I'm willing to share it with people when I can. It makes me happy knowing I contributed something that might make the world a smidge better.
That doesn't mean I'm willing to accept your patch. As soon as I accept collaboration, I need to worry about copyright on the contributions, whether they follow my coding style, and whether I'm willing to accept additional complexity for features I don't care about.
> Maybe I'll even use a non-free license just to reinforce my "you take what you can get" policy.
Consider CC0 instead.
As a veteran open source contributor, I totally understand that dealing with open source communities has a huge cost to go with the huge benefit. Even just vetting patches can be a pain when you care about security and architecture and don't want to spend time endlessly explaining your choices.
CC0 allows you to provide maximum benefit should you opt out of "social coding". People can go ahead and fork your stuff, or just use bits and pieces, without needing to deal with licensing or crediting headaches. (Significant consumers still have to track provenance, though.)
What is your objection? Do we have a disagreement about licensing, for instance because you'd advocate a copyleft license instead? Or do you disagree with the notion that open source contributors should have the option of opting out of social coding?
Certainly I would expect amyjess and anyone else reading to exercise due skepticism and perform their own research and I respect them enough to expect that they will "consider" my suggestion rather than "blindly" follow it.
I think people shouldn't ill-informedly attempt to waive their legal rights, especially not in ways that are legally murky, and I think people shouldn't ill-informedly encourage others to waive legal rights in murky ways they may not be aware of. You didn't even mention "public domain" once and implied "CC0" was a form of license, despite attempting a public domain dedication being a very different thing from licensing copyrighted works.
Well, for jurisdictions where dedication to the public domain is not possible, CC0 includes a fallback license. I suppose I could have used the words "public domain", and that would have made the intention clearer — so thank you for raising that point. However, if you are going to do a public domain dedication, you really should use CC0!
PS: Why assume everyone is "ill-informed"? We're all learning together forever: you, me, amyjess, other readers...
It's almost like watching lottery winners having their lives ruined.