RAD'ST

Cream of the Crop
curated by LeviFig

Oct 16

Oct 9

Sep 11


Aug 24

Aug 23

Aug 22

Aug 8

Open source and its broken ownership model

This article is an exception. This blog is/will remain a tumblelog, focusing on short bits and pieces I find around the web and wish to comment and share. Since my new blog is still in development, I don’t want to post on the old one, and I’m tired of keeping drafts/ideas sitting around, I went ahead and published it. Thanks.

For as long as I remember, I’ve wondered what happens when a main developer/author of an open source project wants to call it quits. Not the big, huge projects with a management team and core team of committers or even a board. I’m talking about those little projects that we use daily or serve as back-end for bigger projects. What happens?

CentOS just went through some troubled times, that led to an open letter from the core team of maintainers to the author/owner of the project. It wasn’t pretty and revealed some of the problems with open source and its maintainability. It didn’t kill CentOS, but it did hurt it. In a few weeks (probably by now) no one will remember it besides a few couple of geeks like me. But this is just an example, and it doesn’t prove the rule.

The Issue of Ownership

Over time, I’ve noticed most projects are transitioned from one main developer to another, after a period of training. Then an official note from the author/old developer comes out stating how he’s gonna cease participation in the project, who’s taking over and how the project will continue forever and ever. This brings up the issue of “ownership”. Regardless of what those hardcore open-so(u)rce(rers) say, it is an issue. Saying that “everybody owns it” does not settle it. No, not everyone owns it. No, contributing with patches doesn’t make you “own it”. It shouldn’t.

To me, one of the main motivations in any project I start, is having a sense of ownership: “yes, I created this”. Don’t get me wrong, I love working in a team setting, on the same project but, if it was my idea, regardless of how many developers come in and help, it’s still my idea. To me, the idea guy, it’s very frustrating not being sure how to deal with contributors (open or private source). I rather pay the person to help, than having him/her take over the project as “his/hers”. And, my bad, I rarely bring up the issue… mea culpa

Jamis’ Capistrano

It’s been a while since Jamis Buck announced the end of a few, very visible, of his open source projects. He created them and as now decided to bring their development to a term. Hell broke loose and a bunch of users (especially Capistrano’s, obviously) raged and accused Jamis of giving up on the project, to mention one of the few “PG-rated”. Discussion went on everywhere, but just today did I read Jamis’ comment on HackerNews on the subject, which I think it’s brilliant:

If you’re this traumatized by my decision, then honestly, I blame you (and people like you) for my burn out. Where were your contributions to the library, your documentation patches, your discussions of better ways to implement things? Have you been in the IRC channel, daily, helping people troubleshoot problems? Have you posted frequently on the mailing list in response to questions? If you’re so dependent on Capistrano, where have you been? If your silence was because it all “just worked”, then why are you so disgusted now? It all still “just works”.

It (still) works!

Capistrano works. Jamis will keep hosting the project and website, with all its documentation. No major known bugs, as of now. And Capistrano is Jamis’ work. Regardless of the help the project got, all contributors should know that they did so in the true spirit of open source: “no attachments, no compensation” (other than their own use of the tool). That’s what open source really is. You don’t get to own a project by contributing to it. The name should always be owned (trademarked, if reasonable) and kept by the owner. If the project got bigger than its author, and he wants to give up its name/trademark, that’s fine. But that should be the exception, and only in really big projects (the CentOS example was one of these). Besides, if a developer (or a team of) wants to continue the project, just fork it, call it a different name and keep it going. Again, there are exceptions, but I’m talking about 95% of open-source projects. Not the 5% that have thousands of contributors and users (eg. major Linux distros/packages, programming languages and a few more).

This is exactly what should happen with any open source project when its author wants to call it quits: it ends.

Call to Ideas

So don’t keep your ideas in the drawer. Bring them out, get people around and develop them. And, above all, make sure you own them. Make that clear early. It’s your idea and development with no good ideas is a pointless and stupid effort. This also applies to teams starting the idea, as a group. Yes, it’s collectively owned. No, it’s not world-and-their-mom-owned.

Now let us have great ideas, pull them out of those drawers and get some buzz around them, shall we? :) And let us not be afraid of opening the source code, sharing it with the world and getting other developers to help and contribute! It’s our idea, it’s our project!

NOTE: Feel free to comment here.


Aug 6

Aug 3

Jul 31

I can’t really tell you how much sense he makes… The frustration I’ve always had with the educational system is explained brilliantly by Sir Ken Robinson.

It’s an old talk (TED 2006) and many might’ve seen it, but I stumbled across it today (again) and it reminded me how brilliant this is.



Jul 29

Jul 24

Jul 23

Page 1 of 4