MinIO stops distributing free Docker images

When a restaurant which you've been going to for years one day decides to serve you your favorite meal with a bit of poop on the side, do you not have the right to be upset about it? They're not under any obligation to serve you meals you're happy with. There was no contract or promise. The fact you're paying for their service doesn't buy you these rights either. Those are just the terms of service both parties have agreed to.

Similarly, open source software is much more than a license. There is a basic social contract of not being an asshole to users of your product, which is an unwritten rule not just in software and industry in general, but in society as a whole. The free software movement is an extension of this mindset, and focuses on building software for the benefit of everyone, not just those who happen to pay for it, or those who meet your specific criteria. Claiming you support this philosophy, while acting against it, is hypocritical, and abusive towards people who do believe in it. And your point is that that people who complain about this are entitled? Give me a break.

If you want to place restrictions on how your software is used and who gets to enjoy it, that's fine, but make those terms explicit by choosing the appropriate license and business model from the start. Stop abusing OSS as a marketing tactic.[1]

[1]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45666757

With this the solution becomes obvious. You select piece of technology to build on you are fully and ready to take over it for purposes you want to use for it. The code is shared and you should not expect anything more.

If there had never been an offer, they would not have built around it, and would have found another solution and, even if harder or more inconvenient, learned how to use that and built around that. Sure, no one is obligated to continue to provide them with the product, but saying that they are being unreasonable for expecting a little bit of warning time before having support pulled is a bit unrealistic.

I know we have done the metaphors to death already, but let's try another one: imagine if someone gave you a ride to work every day for years and one morning they didn't show up and you couldn't get in touch with them. You should have had a backup plan, and you shouldn't have depended on them, but it will take you a while to find a car and rearrange your schedule and learn how to drive or whatever you have to do, and all they had to do was notify you a month or two earlier that they wouldn't be able to do it anymore.

But MinIO didn't do any of that. They're still a 100% open-source project, with the proper license.

It certainly does. In the UK and many other countries (possibly not the US), as soon as you are paying for a good or service you are entitled that it is satisfactory quality, fit for purpose and as described. I think it's uncontentious that a meal at a restaurant that includes poo is not satisfactory quality. Businesses have less rights than consumers but this would still count. However, the restaurant is certainly free to refuse serving you at all (unless they're it's because of a protected characteristic e.g. because of your race or gender).

I'm not sure how much that affects your analogy since it was probably a bit too far removed from the original situation to be useful anyway.

Of course there is. Which is why many hostile projects get forked.

"That is the beauty of OSS", I hear you say. And I agree, but most people aren't developers. Even those who are, might not be familiar with the technology to continue maintaining the project. And even those who are, will still need time and effort to understand the codebase at a level that they're comfortable with maintaining it. And even those who are interested in all of that, might not do a good job at it.

So, ultimately, it is a very small subset of users who would not only have the capability to continue maintenance, but would manage to do as well as the original maintainers for the benefit of the entire community.

Most people saw an interesting piece of software, gave it a try and enjoyed it, and, if the project is successful, would probably like to continue using it. When the original developer ignores or is actively hostile towards these users, you're saying that they have no right to be upset about it? That's what I find ridiculous.

Yes, some people can be demanding and annoying, but that's true regardless if they're a paying customer, a contributor, or a "freeloader". The way you deal with this is by communicating and setting clear boundaries, not by alienating your user base.

Seems like the new definition of open source is not license, not code but What I need others must do for me

No, it doesn't. Yes, there are general safety regulations in any country, but there are no hard rules as to what "satisfactory" or "fit for purpose" means.

My analogy was contrived to make a point. Of course serving actual feces is not "satisfactory". But I imagine that you can extrapolate my analogy into an infinite number of possibilities where someone who once enjoyed certain services or products can find them not "satisfactory" anymore. That is a commonplace situation in any marketplace, and it is perfectly valid for the person on the receiving end to be upset about it.

The one hole you can poke at my analogy, which I anticipated, is that there is (typically) no financial transaction between users and developers of free software. But my response to this is that a financial transaction is not a requirement for the social contract to be established with users of any product or service, regardless of its distribution or business model. Those users can still expect a certain level of service, and understandably so. This expectation exists whether the person is a customer or not.

A closer analogy might be a community kitchen, or garden. But it really makes no difference to my argument.

The free software philosophy is agnostic to how software is monetized. It's true that it is more difficult to do so than with proprietary software, but it's certainly not impossible. Many companies have been built and thrive on producing free software. The crucial thing, regardless of the business model, is to treat all your users with the same amount of respect, dedication, and honesty. The moment you stop doing that, don't be surprised when the community pushes back. That's on you, not on "entitled" users.

And yet, most people who do decide to share their work in public, directly or indirectly reap the rewards of it. They get exposure and recognition, which in turn opens many doors. I'm not saying that exposure alone puts food on the table, but it's certainly not entirely negative. Many people would envy to be in that position.

Your analogy is akin to any public figure enjoying their work, but not enjoying the attention. That certainly happens, but the attention, and all its negative aspects, comes with the territory. That attention might even be partly responsible for getting them to where they are. People in such line of work must learn to live with their choices. Not be surprised when their audience has certain demands and expectations, which may or may not be within reason.

Sure but maybe the changed their mind or just got burned out.

But that is not what happened in the case of MinIO, and many other projects. They deliberately removed features from the software, and made it more difficult to use. They prioritized working on their commercial product, and used the "community edition" as a marketing funnel for it. This is what I'm objecting to.

In any case, I've made my point clear, and don't like repeating myself. Cheers!

Someone still can. They can't revoke the AGPL license of previous versions.

>They prioritized working on their commercial product

It's a company, not a non-profit. What else would you expect them to do?

I'm less understanding when a VC backed company does things like this, but many times its just a matter of "we were trying to make money by doing X. X is no longer working, so we're moving to Y".

I've also seen hostile mobs form when very small companies or individuals decide to start charging for things they used to give away for free, so it's not just that they are a VC backed company here.

That has got to be the most fallacious analogy I've seen in a long time, and that's ignoring the fact that serving poop would get you in serious trouble in most jurisdictions. "False equivalence" barely covers it.

There is a basic social contract of not being an asshole to users of your product

Nope, nope...you win. Even more fallacious. Being an asshole to your users is a meme in OSS it's so common. Someone should tell that Linus guy about this 'social contract' he agreed to and signed that he's in violation of. /s

Claiming you support this philosophy, while acting against it, is hypocritical, and abusive towards people who do believe in it.

You think there's a philosophy. Some other people here do. There is no consistent OSS philosophy. There wasn't back when Stallman was thinking "what should I call this thing that is Not Unix" and there isn't today. If that was remotely true we'd still be happily using GPLv2. Because at the end of the day there is what is written in the license, and then there is wishful thinking. Sometimes wishful thinking results in nice things, and sometimes...well...here we are.

If you want to place restrictions on how your software is used and who gets to enjoy it, that's fine, but make those terms explicit by choosing the appropriate license and business model from the start.

Ignoring the laugh-out-loud silliness of "you should pick all these things about your startup day #1 and NEVER CHANGE THEM", exactly what terms of their OSS license did they violate? Be explicit. Don't wave your hand and say "but social contract that doesn't exist!", "but philosophy I made up and want to apply to people who didn't agree to it!". Because a license only means what's written down in it, not what we want it to mean. I get that you think there should be a "No assholes, we'll never, ever pivot to meet market changes and we pinky swear we won't rug pull on you" license that people should be forced to use, but I don't think to many people will sign up for it. See: GPLv2.