1. 21

Submitting this as it offers a good example of the clashing of corporate and open source spheres.

  1.  

  2. 7

    Its stuff like this that makes me nervous when any large company starts / gains control of an open source project. At some point you stop dealing with developers when discussing issues and start dealing with the influence of management. If management wants to pull support for it, and the community isn’t large enough to save it your stuck with another piece of technical debt you have to remove.

    1. 10

      This is the peril of putting code you don’t control at the center of your architecture

      It’s called an anti-corruption layer for a reason. :)

      1. 3

        What happens when a developer gets tired of working on a project that isn’t controlled by a large company?

        1. [Comment removed by author]

          1. 3

            So… Exactly what would/should happen here?

            1. 3

              the ideal case would be for a foundation that can hire full or part time developers and maintainers, paid for by contributions from companies that depend on the project. in real life i suspect that even if the frictional costs of doing so were handled, there’d be too many companies just sitting back and hoping that the rest of the world would pay so that they needn’t.

        2. 2

          I wouldn’t say that a solo maintainer abandoning the project because of $REASON would make me happier. I think what open source lacks are organisations structures around projects (like the Python Software Foundation). Engineering time is expensive. You also need time and money to support the community, write documentations, promote and market your software. You need to attract funding (dual-licensing, sponsorships, donations, etc.). If you register a non-profit there’s some administrative burden.

        3. 6

          The license says it’s MIT, so why is this an issue at all?

          Fork it and have people send patches to the new project. Not ideal, but better than writing off the whole project as dying, right?

          1. 8

            Gathering a critical mass of developers you trust to take it over isn’t easy if you don’t have pre-established relationships. Part of what keeps me in the communities I work in is that I have people I know and trust. Also that I know where everyone stands.

            1. 4

              I understand that, and admit I’m not familiar with this case at all (I don’t even know what Express is TBH), but reading through the comments it seemed like most of the community leaders are on the same page but they’re having problems with corporate “ownership” and decision making related to the project.

              So at a glance, it seems like a fork would have an easy time because a lot of the community is disappointed with the current situation.

              1. 2

                seems like a fork would have an easy time

                Unless your name is Tom Sawyer and you are legendary in your ability at getting people to work for free, I would hesitate to describe getting a fork going in OSS as easy in any context.

                1. 3

                  Unless I’m reading it wrong, as far as coding goes, the main contributor is already working for free?

                  It looks like nobody else is volunteering to help out to work on documentation or anything else because the corporate sponsors keep saying they’re going to dedicate resources but never do. Seems like if Doug Wilson forks and just starts committing changes to a different repo other people would probably follow him. Doesn’t seem it could be any worse than the current situation.