> There was no rug pull! [...] You can keep using your current version! You can even fork at that version. Calling it a rug pull is so entitled.
This is a dishonest perversion of the commonly accepted definition of a "rug pull".
I'll copy what I said in a previous thread:
When Redis changed licenses to SSPL/RSAL, users were also free to continue using the BSD-licensed version. Was that not a rug pull? Same with MongoDB, Elastic, HashiCorp, etc. These are quintessential examples of the "OSS rug pull".
The idea is that users were relying on a functionality to be maintained (the "rug"), and the Datastar developers decided to continue maintaining it behind a paywall (the "pull").
Nobody is claiming that developers physically took the feature away from users, as that would be ridiculous. But users of these features are now forced to either maintain it themselves, wait for someone else from the community to fork and continue maintenance (which has its own set of issues), or pay up.
You can argue how it's "only" a few hundred lines of code; criticize "incapable" developers who can't check out a Git commit or do maintenance work they previously didn't have to; that the features don't require maintenance at all; and come up with other defensive arguments. But none of it matters. The size of the "rug" doesn't matter. It's the principle and precedent it sets for any users who were potentially interested in the project.
To say nothing about putting essential features like a bundler and debugging tool behind a paywall. These are not "Pro" features.
Nope, at least following a common definition of "rug pull" outside of FOSS. A "rug pull" refers to a specific type of scam where the rug-puller absconds with funds. Wikipedia even redirects "rug pull" to "exit scam": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/rug_pull
If you're standing on a rug that you didn't pay for in any way, and you're nonetheless surprised and angry when the rug-owner eventually decides it is no longer practical for them to continue maintaining the rug for free, that's just entitlement.
Nothing in FOSS licenses says anything about future maintenance expectations, and in fact nearly all of them contain all-caps clauses shouting at you that the software is delivered as-is.
> These are not "Pro" features.
If you didn't create a piece of software, or pay for it, or directly contribute to it, then you certainly don't get to decide which features are "Pro" features. Instead, you can vote with your feet and your wallet and decide not to use it, that's fine; that's the model with all other products in life. Why should software be any different?
Simply using a piece of free software doesn't entitle to you have any control over the future activities of the software's creators!
> Nope, at least following a common definition of "rug pull" outside of FOSS.
The current context is within FOSS, however. And it has a widely known definition[1].
> If you're standing on a rug that you didn't pay for in any way, and you're nonetheless surprised and angry when the rug-owner eventually decides it is no longer practical for them to continue maintaining the rug for free, that's just entitlement.
So, let me get this straight. You're saying that because users didn't pay for the software, they're not allowed to be surprised and angry when they're forced to either continue using unmaintained versions, take over maintenance themselves or wait until someone from the community does, or pay up? And you're saying that paying for the software buys you these privileges?
So, essentially, if the author of cURL decided tomorrow that it's no longer "practical" for him to support ancient and obscure protocols like Gopher and Telnet for free, and he decided to put them up behind a paywall, that the people depending on these features don't have any right to be upset about it? And if they are, they're being entitled?
Or, from a social perspective, if the people making meals at a community kitchen decide that it's no longer "practical" for them to supply eating utensils for free, and start selling them at $10 a pop, that the people relying on those meals are being entitled if they're upset about this change, because they're not paying customers?
Don't you realize how hostile this is?
Forget about open source. This has nothing to do with licensing. The libre software philosophy is orthogonal to monetization practices, and every author can choose how they wish to make development sustainable, if at all. As I've said before[2], I'm in favor of F/LOSS projects having commercial tiers or subscriptions, as long as it's done fairly.
What I am arguing for is having basic decency to treat all users of your software with respect. The moment you decide that users not paying for your work are not worth listening to, that they're entitled, etc., and that your attention and respect can only be bought, you've corrupted the entire ideal of why we build freedom-respecting software in the first place.
The sad irony is that I'm 100% sure that most people arguing against this, including Datastar authors, rely on tools like `curl`, `grep`, and other libre software whose authors never have and never will pull these shenanigans. So they're quite happy to "leech off" other people's work, but not happy to let others do the same off theirs. This double standard is what's ruining open source, not entitled users.
I won't bother responding to the other comments, as they boil down to this same point. And I'm really repeating myself here, so feel free to talk amongst yourselves.
> You're saying that because users didn't pay for the software, they're not allowed to be surprised and angry when they're forced to either continue using unmaintained versions, take over maintenance themselves or wait until someone from the community does
Surprised maybe depending on how long the software has existed, but angry? 100% they are not allowed to be angry.
Anyone who thinks that a maintainer of open source software is required to maintain that software for free forever is an entitled brat.
Don't you realize how hostile it is to have a bunch of non contributors demand and entitle themselves to things and burn out OSS organizers at an increasing rate so much so it's been cited as an ongoing critical concern to the entire software supply chain?
Your attitude ignores the real financial and time constraints that OSS has been facing forever and people are rightly starting to get tired of this shit.
We're well past the stage where its little well meaning communities trading cool bits of code with one another OSS is a completely economy defining thing now and people shouldn't settle for being worked to the bone, they should be setting proper safeguards, like Datastar has done here, to ensure their project does not burn them out and they can continue to grow and direct it in a way that accords with their own interests and desires.
> The current context is within FOSS, however. And it has a widely known definition[1].
Yes, and my argument is that definition is wildly inappropriate. It takes the perfectly-legal actions of software authors and equates them with an illegal financial scam.
> You're saying that because users didn't pay for the software, they're not allowed to be surprised and angry when they're forced to either continue using unmaintained versions
Correct, except no one is "forced" to do anything. That includes the software authors, who are not forced to continue maintaining their software, for free or at all, if they so choose.
> And you're saying that paying for the software buys you these privileges?
Potentially, yes. But that depends entirely on the terms of the license, product offering, payment method, etc. Just like anything else you buy, if the product is deficient (potentially within a set timeframe), you may have some recourse available but it varies.
> if the author of cURL decided tomorrow that it's no longer "practical" for him to support ancient and obscure protocols like Gopher and Telnet for free, and he decided to put them up behind a paywall, that the people depending on these features don't have any right to be upset about it?
Correct. If you are not the employer of the author of cURL, and you are not a customer of the author of cURL, why do you think you have any right to tell him what he can or cannot do with his software or his free time?
> And if they are, they're being entitled?
Absolutely, 100% this is unquestionably extreme entitlement.
> if the people making meals at a community kitchen decide that it's no longer "practical" for them to supply [...]
Open source developers are not even remotely similar to soup kitchens, and open source software users are not impoverished starving people.
> Don't you realize how hostile this is?
After the previous analogy, perhaps you should ask yourself that.
> I'm in favor of F/LOSS projects having commercial tiers or subscriptions, as long as it's done fairly.
The issue here is that your definition of "fairly" is completely subjective, and seems to involve you having a say in what other people do with their time and intellectual property.
> The moment you decide that users not paying for your work are not worth listening to
That simply isn't what I said, nor what any of the sibling comments said.
> So they're quite happy to "leech off" other people's work, but not happy to let others do the same off theirs.
I believe this is a complete logical fallacy, as I don't see the Datastar authors (or anyone else in this thread) complaining about leeching anywhere. But please link me to this if I'm mistaken.
You don't get to decide what they want to maintain. They could have just deleted the features. This entire saga has made it so clear to me people that can only see what is in it for them versus being able to step into the shoes of a maintainer offering something for free.
There is literally no obligation to support you at all. Sucks if it puts you in a bad position that's not on the maintainer, there's no legal or social contract they broke in fact that's entirely in the spirit of what OSS is supposed to be. It's not so a bunch of mediocre free loaders can demand continued access to a library they never contribute to and only consume.
The correct way to look at this is you have the privilege of consuming the hard work of another person for free and you should be greatful they put in work to make your life easier in an open way when they did not have to ever and at all and understand when the burden on a small team makes it hard for them to continue to support a feature set. There isn't a sacred duty to people who consume something another group opened because they wanted it to exist.
That's what the licenses and all the legal bits say. They do it because they want to and if they stop wanting to you can all get bent. Instead they looked for a sustainable middle ground.
At least the controversy is making them even more popular.
> The idea is that users were relying on a functionality to be maintained (the "rug"), and the Datastar developers decided to continue maintaining it behind a paywall (the "pull").
Why were the users so entitled to free ongoing maintenance that its end is worth describing using a term from financial fraud?
This is a dishonest perversion of the commonly accepted definition of a "rug pull".
I'll copy what I said in a previous thread:
When Redis changed licenses to SSPL/RSAL, users were also free to continue using the BSD-licensed version. Was that not a rug pull? Same with MongoDB, Elastic, HashiCorp, etc. These are quintessential examples of the "OSS rug pull".
The idea is that users were relying on a functionality to be maintained (the "rug"), and the Datastar developers decided to continue maintaining it behind a paywall (the "pull").
Nobody is claiming that developers physically took the feature away from users, as that would be ridiculous. But users of these features are now forced to either maintain it themselves, wait for someone else from the community to fork and continue maintenance (which has its own set of issues), or pay up.
You can argue how it's "only" a few hundred lines of code; criticize "incapable" developers who can't check out a Git commit or do maintenance work they previously didn't have to; that the features don't require maintenance at all; and come up with other defensive arguments. But none of it matters. The size of the "rug" doesn't matter. It's the principle and precedent it sets for any users who were potentially interested in the project.
To say nothing about putting essential features like a bundler and debugging tool behind a paywall. These are not "Pro" features.