>> “ 2. Open source participants are volunteers and owe you nothing.”
> They are compensated with
> prestige,
That seems associated with the popularity of a project which is largely outside the control of an author. So: how could one publish code (just in case it's useful to somebody else, which seems to be a nice thing to do) and opt-out of the popularity contest?
> enjoyment,
People can have the same enjoyment without publishing the code, so there's nothing open source about that.
> decision-making power,
In their own project? Of course. Again, they could just keep it private, with exactly the same decision-making power - nothing open source about that.
> future employment rewards,
If a developer ships crap code, that issue seems to sort itself out automatically (who would hire a proud author of unsafe code?)
> and sometimes even money,
Those paying money certainly can and do make demands. I haven't heard claims about breach of contract in this case, so that's probably not a factor here?
> They are compensated with
> prestige,
That seems associated with the popularity of a project which is largely outside the control of an author. So: how could one publish code (just in case it's useful to somebody else, which seems to be a nice thing to do) and opt-out of the popularity contest?
> enjoyment,
People can have the same enjoyment without publishing the code, so there's nothing open source about that.
> decision-making power,
In their own project? Of course. Again, they could just keep it private, with exactly the same decision-making power - nothing open source about that.
> future employment rewards,
If a developer ships crap code, that issue seems to sort itself out automatically (who would hire a proud author of unsafe code?)
> and sometimes even money,
Those paying money certainly can and do make demands. I haven't heard claims about breach of contract in this case, so that's probably not a factor here?