←back to thread

MinIO stops distributing free Docker images

(github.com)
672 points LexSiga | 2 comments | 22 Oct 25 06:17 UTC | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
imiric ◴[22 Oct 25 09:41 UTC] No.45666757[source]▶
Shame. Textbook OSS rug pull. These people love to rely on OSS, and claim how committed they are to contribute to the ecosystem and to their community, but as soon as people are drawn to the project, start relying on it and using it in the same spirit of OSS that they enjoy themselves (which their chosen license allows, mind you), then it becomes a financial burden, priorities shift to their commercial offering, there's no "bandwidth" to maintain and support the "community" edition, and so on.

STOP ABUSING OSS AS A MARKETING GIMMICK.

Or perhaps an advice to people who might actually listen: stop being attracted to open source projects because of the word "open", and because you can use it gratis. There are plenty of good proprietary and commercial software whose authors treat their users with more respect than these leeches of good will and abusers of trust.

I'm not against OSS being commercialized. In fact, I think that it's crucial for maintaining a healthy project in the long-term[1][2]. But this lingers on the developer having respect and equal regard for all their users, regardless of how much they're paying them. Yes, nobody working on software should be expected to work for free. But there is a philosophy behind this movement that goes beyond a financial transaction. It only works if everyone in the ecosystem is honest, and first and foremost has the intention of making the world a better place for everyone, by not only depending on others who have this mindset, but by adopting it themselves. Claiming to be part of the OSS community, but being hostile to your OSS users is dishonest at best, and worthy of all criticism.

[1]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45540307

[2]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45537750

replies(2): >>45666980 #>>45666992 #
1. jinkylist ◴[22 Oct 25 10:16 UTC] No.45666992[source]▶
>It only works if everyone in the ecosystem is honest

In general, applying this to anything with the general public, I don't expect it to work. This is why we have laws, licenses and rules in the first place. You can preach all you want but it won't change humanity, you need something concrete, something written and agreed, like a license.

Not all licenses protect the freedoms and rights you're used to in other licenses, and it needs to be taken into account when adopting any project. License terms that don't guarantee any sort of support or updates when you need them aren't in consideration at that point.

replies(1): >>45667349 #
2. imiric ◴[22 Oct 25 11:08 UTC] No.45667349[source]▶
If you don't trust people, then OSS is not for you.

You can't claim to provide software as a public good, while also gatekeeping it only for specific groups of people. If you want to do that, then choose a restrictive license, with the exact terms of use you're comfortable with, and don't work in the open to begin with. That is a valid strategy if your main priority is getting paid.

My objection is towards people who use OSS licenses, but then take issue when others actually use the freedoms they've granted, and proceed to enshittify the project by removing features, putting them up behind a paywall, and in general being hostile and ignoring the user base they've gained in large part thanks to OSS. This is using OSS as a marketing tactic, which undermines the whole point of open source and the free software movement.