Interesting - it may be a nice thing to do, but I don't agree that there is any sort of obligation to the project just for using the project.
> I certainly do. A red line, I-will-quit condition is and always has been "I won't participate in the development of private forks of open-source software" and I have at multiple employers gotten checks straight-up cut to open-source software maintainers. I have also entreated (and in two cases succeeded in convincing) maintainers to start up maintenance programs so we could pay them a yearly fee--because donations are way harder to push than support plans.
I have also worked at companies that funded open source projects through donations or maintenance, but there was never a moral obligation there. It was more a method of risk management than altruism.
> I consider not paying forward kindnesses paid to you way, way more unfair and unreasonable.
Paying forward kindness and being morally obligated to maintain an open source library just because you use it are different things in my mind. It seems like being paid a kindness creates an obligation, which is not that nice.
---
Interesting perspective even though I strongly disagree. I'll continue to use open source projects 'AS IS'[0] and I still wont feel morally obligated to maintain them. Similar to how I use linux/BSD and don't feel obligated to maintain the kernel. I'm certainly grateful of course, but I don't feel like there was any sort of contract/exchange between myself and the maintainers that creates an obligation on my part.
[0] https://github.com/eropple/auster/blob/master/LICENSE.txt
There's really no way around this; it's a straightforward practical problem.
Yes, and it always has and it can't be discharged. Pay-it-forward is the right thing to do.
> Do we say the same thing about any large company that uses openssl or any other open source libs that people use or depend on?
I certainly do. A red line, I-will-quit condition is and always has been "I won't participate in the development of private forks of open-source software" and I have at multiple employers gotten checks straight-up cut to open-source software maintainers. I have also entreated (and in two cases succeeded in convincing) maintainers to start up maintenance programs so we could pay them a yearly fee--because donations are way harder to push than support plans.
And, in turn, I open-source useful tools[1][2][3], including major parts of my consulting business, because it, too, is the right thing to do.
You should do likewise, because it is the decent and human thing to do.
> That doesn't seem fair or reasonable.
I consider not paying forward kindnesses paid to you way, way more unfair and unreasonable.
[1] - https://github.com/bossmodecg
[2] - https://github.com/eropple/auster
[3] - https://github.com/eropple/cfer-provisioning