zlacker

>>mroche+(OP)
Open Source: you get to see the code, and you are allowed to modify and redistribute it. That's it, everything else is icing on the cake and be happy because with closed source you wouldn't have any of that.

>>jacque+Xy
Yep, exactly. The level of entitlement some commenters here seem to have is appalling. The project maintainers don't owe anyone free labor.

If their paying customers want something, then that's perhaps a different story, and is governed by whatever agreement (tacit or otherwise) is in place for the purchase.

But if you aren't paying, you aren't owed anything. Not a single thing.

>>kelnos+TG
It's insane. Somehow access to the code has transformed into '24x7 unpaid unlimited support, direct influence on the roadmap, the right to bitch and moan about everything that doesn't quite work the way the recipient needs and can I have a pony'.

I wished those people could be transferred back to the pre-FOSS days when your disassembler was one of the more critical tools in the toolbox if you wished to fix vendor bugs. I distinctly recall reverse engineering the ROM of a laser printer board to repair a bug that the manufacturer just couldn't be bothered to deal with (Tall-Tree systems Jlaser, I'll never forget). That would have been a lot easier if it had come with source code. These days for me it's either open source or you can keep it.