The social contract of open source
Even though I gave a keynote with an accompanying blog post all about setting expectations for open source participation, I felt it was time to do another blog post to directly address the issue of entitlement by some open source users which is hurting open source, both for themselves and for others. I want to get the point across that open source maintainers owe you quite literally nothing when it comes to their open source code, and treating them poorly is unethical. And to me, this is the underlying social contract of open source.
If you prefer to listen to me discuss this topic, I spoke about it on the Changelog podcast (audio embed at the end of the post).
The legal contract
Let's start with what open source software is. To me,
Open source software is source code that is licensed in such a way that I can use it for free.
Do open source projects that produce open source code need to provide anything beyond this? I say no: open source software starts and stops with the software and its license. But what if you want to have a more social aspect to your open source project and somehow be reachable by users? In that case I believe there's a bit more to be expected in the exchange and it mostly revolves around treating each other like human beings.
What is the relationship between a maintainer and user?
To set the stage, I think it's important to establish what the relationship is between me as a maintainer and you as a user. I have been trying to come up with a real world example that maps well, and the best I have come up with is,
Open source code is like me putting a stack of USB drives with my open source code on them on my front lawn with a sign that says "FREE", and you coming by and taking a USB drive when you want the latest copy of my open source code.
That's the actual, typical relationship I have with most users of my open source code: I push out a new commit, you use it, and we never speak to each other.
With this example in mind, do you think it is reasonable to go up to my front door, knock, and then proceed to yell at me if you didn't like the software you chose to pick up off of my front yard for free? 🤨 How about leaving an angry letter in my mailbox? Or a flaming bag of 💩 on my doorstep? Or standing in the middle of the street in my town and yelling about how much you hate my software? This is what it's like when you email me angrily, open an issue in anger, or complain loudly on the internet. Does any of that seem reasonable? To me, this actually ranges from rude to unethical.
Remember that I didn't force you to take the software. The act of taking the software was done under free agency, so getting mad about the free gift of some open source code that you chose to take seems to be more your own problem than mine; you are totally capable of using that free agency again and stop using the source code. This is equivalent to me giving you a free ice cream, licking it, not liking the flavour, and then proceeding to scream that the free ice cream is horrible because you don't like it. Doesn't seem like a reasonable response to something you chose to pick up for free and try, does it?
Now this isn't to say you can't give constructive criticism or say why something didn't work for you. But if you saw someone walk up to me and begin berating me over some free ice cream would you view that as acceptable or unreasonable? There's a big difference between, "this isn't for me", and, "this is utter trash and you should be ashamed of the job that you have done" or "you had cookies & cream ice cream yesterday, why don't you have it today?!?"
The categorical imperative
You may have noticed I used a rather strong word earlier to label folks who abuse maintainers: unethical. That was very much on purpose. I actually have a bachelors degree in philosophy, and in reflecting on the idea of users chastising maintainers simply because they don't like something made me have an epiphany grounded in moral philosophy.
The philosopher Immanuel Kant had a moral philosophy system known as the categorical imperative. A key tenant of Kant's moral philosophy is summed up by the following from his work, Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals:
Act in such a way that you treat humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of any other, never merely as a means to an end, but always at the same time as an end.
Let's tease apart what is meant here by "means to an end" and "as an end". In the former case, using something as a "means to an end" is basically what it sounds like: using something in order to get something else. This could be something like I'm going to perform some action as a means to getting something specific out of it in the end.
As for "as an end", that is the concept of simply not using someone for an expected outcome. For instance, chances are the people in your life who are your friends not so because you expect to use them to get something, but because you simply like them for who they are. You are treating them as an end in and of themselves because you are not spending time with them with expectations you will get something specific in the end.
How does this play into open source? When you treat a maintainer as a means to getting something from their software you are not morally treating them appropriately as an end (in other words, you're simply using them), and thus not treating them morally as a human being. But when you treat a maintainer as a fellow human being who may be able to do you a favour of their own volition, then you end up in an appropriate relationship where you are not trying to use the maintainer for something specific.
An example
Let's expand on this free USB drive example and say that some of my C code happens to work with the Alpha chipset (which happened to be discontinued in April 2007; 14 years ago as I write this). You use my software and you like it, so you keep using it. Then one day I inadvertently stop supporting Alpha because I want to use Rust to be more productive, secure, and generally just happier when I write such low-level code than coding in C (yes, I'm a fan of Rust 😁).
Do you think it's reasonable to get mad at me just because I changed the software such that you can't use it anymore? Remember you have been coming to my front yard to pick up a USB drive every time I make a change; I didn't ask you to use my software. I'm the one doing all the work here in producing this open source code and I don't find supporting Alpha useful anymore, so why is it in any way reasonable to be mad at me for "dropping" Alpha support?
To me, it feels like if you get mad at me for no longer supporting some platform that is treating me as a means to an end for getting to use my software instead of as an end in and of myself. If you treated me as a human being you might ask if I would reconsider, but if I said "no" you would accept that and move on instead of getting mad at me.
To make this real for people, this entire scenario involving Alpha and Rust is based on an actual event in the Python community where a project got severely yelled at by some users who support Alpha and various other esoteric platforms because the project added Rust code to their project for Rust's security benefits (and for a project whose sole purpose is security, by the way).
How bad actors ruin things for you and themselves
The really sad thing in all of this is that those people who decide that yelling is acceptable and treat maintainers as a means to an end are actually hurting you as much as they are hurting themselves. Burnout for open source maintainers is a real problem. If someone constantly wrote you hate mail for some USB drives you left on your front yard you wouldn't want to bother putting things on your front yard anymore either. Every time an open source maintainer gets yelled at, the closer they are to doing something that makes things worse off for you.
There are levels to the ramifications (which are all ultimately reasonable since they are up to the maintainer to do what they want with their open source code). The most common one is open source code becomes less considerate of others' needs and more opinionated and focused on what the maintainer wants. That is reasonable, but it does mean someone's open source code has less of a chance of being useful to you since the focus is narrowed.
Probably next is having open source code but not open participation. This is when you're happy to share your open source code with others but you simply don't want the hassle of something like pull requests. This is very much like opinionated open source code, but now you're really at the mercy of the maintainer to implement it.
After this it's abandoning the project. The issue tracker is still open so people can collect issues with the open source code, maybe even coordinate on patches or a fork, but the maintainer is gone and the commits have ceased.
Next up is locking down the project. Now it's just an archive of a project and all you get is what's already there.
Lastly, there's full-on deletion. No more repository with releases yanked from PyPI; if you didn't keep your own copy of the open source code then it's gone forever for you.
All of this is what makes it frustrating when bad actors "get" what they want because they only sort of do. While some specific feature or bug fix might go in, they still pushed the maintainer closer to burnout due to their actions. That could lead to the project being eventually shut down which is likely worse than that single feature or bug fix the harasser wanted.
And it all sucks for you, too. This is why I try not to stand by when a maintainer is receiving abuse since there are impacts much wider than the single bad interaction. I'm not condoning stooping to the level of the person who's mistreating the maintainer to get them to go away, but stepping in and trying to defuse the situation and stick up for the maintainer is something I wish more people did (as well as simply banishing bad actors from their projects).
View every commit as a gift
If you wanted a short, concise point from all of this,
Every commit of open source code should be viewed as an independent gift from the maintainer that they happened to leave on their front yard for others to enjoy if they so desire; treating them as a means to and end for their open source code is unethical.
There should be no expectations toward the next commit, next release, etc. when you realize open source maintainers really don't owe you anything. If you view open source code from that perspective then you will view it as a gift when it exists at all. As such, hopefully you feel less frustrated when open source doesn't go the way you want since it was all a gift to begin with. And that then will lead you to treat maintainers as an end in and of themselves and thus as a fellow human being.
