In fact, perhaps one might even go so far as to suggest that where an open source project’s policy disagrees with an individual’s preferences, the necessary reaction does not seem to be wounded antagonism. Surely when the project authors set policy, they are aware that they may exclude some desirable contributions; that project may be disinterested in certain contributions, does not require one to make a show of withholding (completed) work under the pretense of following established policy.
The project is, as we all agree, free to set policy as it sees fit.
Irrespective of said policy, nothing enjoins an individual from, say, posting publicly—“here’s a mistake I found”; “here’s a one line-fix I found.” (In fact, as I recall, websites hosting independently maintained patches were quite common prior to wide-spread use and centralisation around version control tooling…)
In fact, I would suggest that if one were to disagree with a project’s policies, and if one were to firmly believe that these policies were detrimental, then maintaining a site with all of the excluded contributions would be very strong corroborating evidence. I use an LLM frequently in my own work and studies, so I know that generating a Github-hosted <html><body><ul><li><ahref="patches/some-fix.diff">Fix for … issue in some-project</a></li></ul></body></html> is well within their capabilities… (In fact, if you write it by hand, you can even skip some of the closing tags!)
Altogether, I think the original comments we are replying to are still quite odd.
It is not.
In fact, perhaps one might even go so far as to suggest that where an open source project’s policy disagrees with an individual’s preferences, the necessary reaction does not seem to be wounded antagonism. Surely when the project authors set policy, they are aware that they may exclude some desirable contributions; that project may be disinterested in certain contributions, does not require one to make a show of withholding (completed) work under the pretense of following established policy.
The project is, as we all agree, free to set policy as it sees fit.
Irrespective of said policy, nothing enjoins an individual from, say, posting publicly—“here’s a mistake I found”; “here’s a one line-fix I found.” (In fact, as I recall, websites hosting independently maintained patches were quite common prior to wide-spread use and centralisation around version control tooling…)
In fact, I would suggest that if one were to disagree with a project’s policies, and if one were to firmly believe that these policies were detrimental, then maintaining a site with all of the excluded contributions would be very strong corroborating evidence. I use an LLM frequently in my own work and studies, so I know that generating a Github-hosted
<html><body><ul><li><a href="patches/some-fix.diff">Fix for … issue in some-project</a></li></ul></body></html>is well within their capabilities… (In fact, if you write it by hand, you can even skip some of the closing tags!)Altogether, I think the original comments we are replying to are still quite odd.
score 1 · canonical