
How Fritzing is killing itself - zdw
https://bowero.nl/blog/2019/11/13/how-fritzing-is-killing-itself/
======
justinjlynn
I've never understood software engineers and organisations who contribute
their code to the open source and free software worlds and then think they're
owed compensation for it. We're writing this code because we need this code
and think others might also need it and we have empathy for them and we
benefit from their empathy for us - that's why we share. That's why we're
here. Why do you share? Why are you here?

It might be an unpopular opinion but - to all you disgruntled open source/free
software developers threatening to take their code closed via licencing
shitfuckery ala "Commons Clause" nonsense and/or engaged in shady shit like
this:

If you feel you're owed compensation for your time beyond other people using
and building on your code - this is not the place for you and your toxicity
makes the open source and free software world a worse place. Please leave
quietly and quickly. Stop saying "uncompensated time" \- nobody owes you
anything. You don't owe anyone else anything either - leave and let other,
more reasonable, people maintain and carry on with the code you once freely
gave - just as they should, if they find it useful. That's how it's supposed
to work - that's how it should work. Thank you very much for your time and
code. It is deeply appreciated; now go away and stop being an asshole.

~~~
ci5er
I think I agree with you?

Way back when (not that far back, from my point of view, but longer than many
denizens of this site have been alive), we used to have usenet and ftp sites
and tarballs that compiled (usually) on some subset of Unixen.

I liked that. You could throw up period tarballs, with Readmes (they were
_.txt, not_.md, but close enough), and usually had instructions like
./configure; make; make install.

People could yell at you on comp.graphics. Usually they didn't - and often
discussions would ensue. Maybe I was young (if I ever was?), but it felt
pretty zen to me at the time.

More recently, I had a package - I forget what it was - I think it might have
been a python package that would take PlantUML-like-syntax things and turn
them into SVGs or something. I put it up on github thinking that this would be
the equivalent of throwing a tarball over the wall.

OMG! I was wrong. The tickets/issues/demands/complaints - not questions - were
beyond belief!

I've never asked for compensation for an open-sourced package - high or low
quality - but I could see that the shrill demands might drive one to want to
demand compensation!

These days I've more-or-less retired back to throwing tar-balls to people who
know me and ask me for them. I still ask for no money. I still respond to
emails with questions. But I refuse to be held hostage to "the community".

Serious question to Parent: Does that make me a selfish asshole?

~~~
justinjlynn
No, not at all. You don't owe anyone anything - but please consider their
demands an indicator of unmet need. Github and other platforms make it easy
for users and colleagues to contact project engineers and maintainers with new
demands and PRs. You also get so much more exposure and help - but it's not
without downside, as you say.

Of course, you're free to step up and solve their problems or ignore them.
Offer consulting services if you'd like. Thank you for your code and your
generosity either way you choose.

But, and this is key, if you choose to ignore the issues/requests and/or only
accept consulting contracts to fix them: be up front about it in your README.
Turn off issues on github and put the fact that you don't accept PRs in your
repo notice/description.

Now, if you do that, don't be surprised if someone forks your code and picks
up the maintainership. Don't try to take back your open source code. Don't
complain about the other party's stewardship - a role you explicitly chose to
abdicate. Don't sabotage the community.

Those are pretty much the very few things that would make you a selfish
asshole in my book, friend. Thank you for your code and I'm sorry other people
can be real assholes sometimes - especially to people who give their hard work
away to prevent others from maybe having to do the same.

Fortunately, there are usually others who will step up and help maintain the
project and deal with these demanding ungrateful bastards - seek them out
openly, they're invaluable friends. If we're upfront and honest with each
other about needing help - we're stronger together.

~~~
ci5er
Hell, I welcome the fork!

It's why I toss it over the wall: "This was useful to me for a moment. Maybe
it might be for you too. Good luck!"

~~~
justinjlynn
Perfection.

------
mikl
A button labelled “Download” that is in actuality a “Donate” button that takes
you to PayPal, that’s pretty scummy, probably even illegal some places. Glad I
don’t use Fritzing.

~~~
tptacek
Where exactly do you think a button labeled "Download" that detours you
through a Donation flow is illegal?

~~~
glofish
Would you feel the same way if the site implemented a feature where if you
clicked any link it would first detour you through a donation flow? Say the
link said Tutorial or Documentation but when clicked it would go to Donate
instead...

The point the OP makes is that when you ask for donation the button should say
Donate and not Download.

~~~
tptacek
I didn't ask how the parent comment felt. I asked where exactly this flow
might be illegal. If you want the subtext laid bare, I think it's pretty clear
that I doubt it's illegal anywhere.

~~~
glofish
Incidentally, I was asking you specifically how you felt about it, not the
parent or the OP. Also, in addition, the "how you feel about it" does not
really mean emotionally, it means what is your opinion on systematically
mislabeling links.

In my opinion, trying to hide the freely available version of open-source code
is not a "crime" but it is unethical and very likely breaks the spirit as well
as the requirements of the open-source license.

Thus I think what the OP means is that it is "illegal" in the sense of
breaking the license and it is unethical in how it misleads you.

~~~
tptacek
"Probably even illegal some places" clearly means that it's actually illegal
somewhere. I'd like to know where they think that is. That's my entire
engagement with this thread.

~~~
myrryr
It could be in New Zealand. The Consumer Guarantee act may trip it up, as
could our advertising laws.

Ah, it is the fair trading act.

here it is.... [https://www.consumerprotection.govt.nz/general-
help/common-c...](https://www.consumerprotection.govt.nz/general-help/common-
consumer-issues/misleading-prices-or-advertising/)

NZ has a LOT more protection than the US does.

This may fall under bait advertising.

------
bootloop
Is it a bug maybe? When you go to the page and select an amount of money it
will change the button text to "Pay&Download" instead of just "Download". So
maybe the default was just meant to send you to the file.

~~~
teraflop
The option to download without paying was deliberately removed:
[https://github.com/fritzing/fritzing-
app/issues/3548#issueco...](https://github.com/fritzing/fritzing-
app/issues/3548#issuecomment-545421808)

~~~
bootloop
Thanks!

For sure a list of real problems but I am wondering if one time donations vs a
solid income stream can solve this.

------
lwb
Not sure how others are viewing this page -- I get
NET::ERR_CERT_AUTHORITY_INVALID and a big warning page.

~~~
kohtatsu
Your certificate trust store doesn't have Lets Encrypt yet.

~~~
lwb
That's not it, I can access my personal site that uses Let's Encrypt.

------
JohnFen
Fritzing and I never got along very well, but if we did, this sort of nonsense
would change that.

------
crazypython
Eh-- this is completely allowed by open-source licenses. If you don't need the
library, don't use it. If you do need the library, download it another way
(it's legal) or pay for it.

