Dumb ways for an open source project to die

The work of running an open-source project (issue triage, security disclosures, contribution guidelines, CI, release cadence, dependency maintenance) is way higher than the work of solving the original problem. People with the "here's my private workflow tool" mindset increasingly don't publish at all because they can't afford that tax. Meanwhile, anyone seeking brand-building benefits IS willing to take it on, because the brand-building is the point.

So the visible OSS landscape over-represents the brand category not because solution-sharing died, but because solution-sharing acquired a 10x maintenance overhead that most people now opt out of. I see it in my own dotfiles — full of small tools I'd happily share if "share" still meant "drop a gist." It doesn't, anymore.

For example C was shared, C++ was evangelized. The difference is the effort put into convincing people to adopt your stuff.

Java for instance was mega evangelized, Sun thought it might reverse their fortunes.

Linux was initially “here you go, hope it works for you” but then it attracted many people who decided to create an ecosystem around it.

Linux, MySQL, PostgreSQL, Apache, Python, most web browsers, and large swaths of server code used across the internet have been "open source projects" for years that were more than people sharing their solution as-is. Useful projects have always developed communities.

Some people do try to make open source projects for exposure or resume content, but that's usually orthogonal to the projects that get enough traction to have to worry about maintainers disappearing.

I think you're mixing two different concepts up

If the code is indeed Open Source, with an OSS license, then you can use it as-is, or just learn from it and write-your-own. You might even fold it as-is into your app. Keep the code, but remove the dependence.

Free Software on the other hand is a different animal. The GPL et al is viral. Doing any of the above with GPL software has consequences. Even learning and rewriting is risky- the rewrite better be more than just variable name changes.

If you're old school, and you want to share on a "do what you like, I'm not turning this into my day job" basis, where you want folk to actually benefit, yhen I recommend an OSS license over a Free license.

On the other hand if your target audience are other Free developers, then a Free license makes complete sense. And if you plan to commercialize your project down the road an aggressive Free license (like say AGPL) is a good choice.

Ultimately your choice of license should match your goals.

However, the amount of devs have grown exponentially, and the number of non-niche problems without a solution have dramatically decreased.

In my experience you can pretty much always bet on greed, money, and psychopathy to ruin anything that reaches beyond Dunbar's number.

It's sad when your playground gets overrun by drug lords (metaphorically speaking); I don't really have an answer to that. It's my central trauma.

Or, Perhaps the invention of the rocket emoji most likely was the cause of this phenomenon.

Company wants to get customers so it lures them into an almost-useful "open source" application that happens to be unisable when wanting to do anything serious.

where do people get this idea? AFAICT it's made up.

The io.js fork from node back in 2014 or 2015 springs to mind. IIRC there were a bunch of changes/improvements that needed to be made to move node forward and Joyent were dragging their heels (a V8 upgrade might have been one of them but it's been so long I can't remember for sure). Some of the core devs were getting fed up with how long all of this was taking.

So a group of them forked off io.js from node, did the upgrade and a bunch of other improvements, and eventually all of that was folded back into core node, and everyone was happy with the final result.

But I think we could have found ourselves in a world where we'd all be using io.js rather than node had it turned out slightly differently.

It's not a bad idea but it ends with just a huge mess of crap.

AI has just made this so much worse.

Since Github has been asked to change this policy since time immemorial and has not responded, another possible response is to host your project somewhere else that doesn't have the same policy and/or doesn't have the same volume of spammers. Of course that means that you don't get the benefits of hosting at Github, but the cost/benefit ratio of hosting there has changed over time.

Framework authors have their own incentives (relevance, employment, hiring funnel) and aren't optimizing for your project's longevity. The only way to write 20-year code today is either (a) work in an ecosystem that genuinely values stability (Lisp, C, parts of Erlang/OTP, Postgres) or (b) accept the tax of a modern stack and budget for it explicitly.

Most teams do neither, which is when projects rot fastest.

If a clojars package hasn’t been updated in 6 years, I don’t even think about it!!

The fact is because they themselves are not capable of producing perfectly reliable software, they assume that everyone else is the same. With this narrow-minded worldview, you would expect software to require constant updates as the maintainer is essentially playing a never-ending game of whac-a-mole.

Not all technologies change. Often, low-level engine APIs are very stable and essentially never change... So why should the software built on top change?

According to OP, the kind of reliable software that we need in the AI slop era would fall in the category of 'dead project'. So they are doomed to create AI slop on top of other AI slop. Good luck to them.

Main reason I avoid buying anything that requires an app. Because one day that app won't be maintained anymore and it just wont work, bricking the hardware in the process.

They can be as hostile as they want; that seems nearly irrelevant to the fork decision. If the mainline won’t take a patch or wants to go in a different direction, forking seems perfectly valid and they can keep their empire. That seems fine; they didn’t want to go east, the fork going east means that those users who also want to go east can be served.

Death is not the worst thing that can happen to an open source project.

You also run into trouble if your language has side effects (ie, almost all of them). A leftPad that launches a fiber to mine cryptocurrency or sends an http call that fires nuclear missiles can still pass tests. It's hard to guarantee hygiene via tests alone.

These are problems that are hairy enough that I don't want to write my own solution, yet tractable enough that there ought to be a solution that never needs to be touched again. Maybe someone finds a better way of doing it, but the way they're currently doing it will never be wrong.

(Then they seem to also have added their own kind of dependency management thing to update components, which seems to me to kind of defeat the purpose..)

Like leftpad?

FTFY, e.g nvim-treesitter:

https://github.com/nvim-treesitter/nvim-treesitter/discussio...

one project i am working with got a grant that was conditioned on the project being published as open source. it motivated the developers/researchers to reach out to the wider community and even package the project for a linux distribution. that's how i was able to find out about it. i got involved and i am still using it 20 years later. but without that grant this likely would not have happened.

Open source is altruistic, remember. You explicitly tell the world that you are happy for anyone to only take from the code what they want for their own needs and never contribute back. If you don't want to help users or develop your software alone, an alternative is to sell the software and support service to users and use the money to hire developers.

so, just be safe about it, i guess.

For me, this is a red/green flag on management. The clause is legal boilerplate, inserted because it's standard and they can. They don't actually care that much about anything you might build outside of work. If they won't (or can't) remove it then the organisation is inflexible and the people who are hiring me have no power within it. Or the people who are hiring me don't understand my point of view. This is a bad sign either way.

I have had one "win" with it; I worked for a company run by a trio of absolute arseholes. One of them called a meeting and tried to bully me into handing over one of my projects because of this clause. I explained that my contract didn't have that clause because they removed it before I signed it. He got angry. But couldn't actually do anything about it.

PSA: If you're in California, these kinds of employment contract terms are (mostly) illegal and unenforceable.

Labor Code 2870 outright invalidates any employment contract provision which attempts to claim ownership of IP rights to anything “that the employee developed entirely on his or her own time without using the employer’s equipment, supplies, facilities, or trade secret information” unless it relates to the employer's business or results from other work performed for the employer.

Labor Code 96(k) prohibits employers for disciplining or firing an employee who engages in “lawful conduct occurring during nonworking hours away from the employer’s premises,” with an exception for contracts that prohibit conduct by the employee that is in direct conflict with the employer’s “essential enterprise-related interests.”

So blanket prohibitions are out. If you're doing something that closely relates to your employer's products/business or could be construed as a conflict of interest, that's when you should consider written permission, but a company can't say “no” unless it actually relates to the company's business.

California is relatively unique in these worker protections, and they're a big reason why Silicon Valley became what it is.