Eh, this kind of project is begging to be forked, and the original branch deservedly forgotten about. If the intent was to make money out of fixes to the project, it's absolutely going to backfire instead.

[–] nan@lemmy.blahaj.zone 19 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (5 children)

I’m not so sure. I think he has a point that if someone forks, he can still merge those changes back in and still work on things for his paying customers too. I think the number of people who are willing to write patches is a lot smaller than the number who are going to complain. He seems to welcome forks anyway (I’m sure his attitude would be, “let them provide the free support!”). This post is two years old, it might be interesting to see how his project is doing and how many forks there are.

There are a lot of users of open source projects who do act as if they are owed a resolution to every issue they encounter. While I don’t agree with the nuclear option I can’t really blame him.

[–] brayd@discuss.tchncs.de 4 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Well it looks like nowadays they have public issues in their repo which seems like the authors decision and opinion changed. I think both ways are valid ways.

[–] nan@lemmy.blahaj.zone 4 points 2 years ago

He actually complains about that too in another follow up post last year: https://raccoon.onyxbits.de/blog/case-against-public-bug-tracker-for-open-source-projects/

I suspect it is mostly ignored.

load more comments (3 replies)