> One of the cool things about open source is that other people can do that for you!
This is a very valid point, but we should all recognise that some people⁰ explicitly don't want that for various reasons, at least not until they've got the project to a certain point in their own plans. Even some who have released other projects already prefer to keep their new toy more to themselves and only want more open discourse once they are satisfied their core itch is sufficiently scratched. Open source is usually a great answer/solution, but it is not always the best one for some people/projects.
Even once open, “open source not open contribution”¹ seems to be becoming more popular as a stated position² for projects, sometimes for much the same reasons, sometimes for (future) licensing control, sometimes both.
--
[0] I'm talking about individual people specifically here, not groups, especially not commercial entities: the reasons for staying closed initially/forever can be very different away from an individual's passion project.
[1] “you are free to do what you want, but I/we want to keep my/our primary fork fully ours”.
[2] it has been the defacto position for many projects since a long time before this phrase was coined.
> I/we want to keep my/our primary fork fully ours
The "primary" fork is the one that the community decides it to be, not what the authors "wants". Does it really matter what is the "primary fork" for those working on something to "scratch their own itch"?
Hence I said my/our primary fork, not the primary fork.
If I were in the position of releasing something⁰: the community, should one or more coalesce around a work, can do/say what it likes, but my primary fork is what I say it is¹. It might be theirs, it might be not. I might consider myself part of that community, or not.
It should be noted that possibility of “the community” or other individual/team/etc taking a “we are the captain now” position (rather than “this is great, look what we've done with it too” which I would consider much more healthy and friendly) is what puts some people off opening their toy projects, at all or just until they have them to a point they are happy with or happy letting go at.
> Does it really matter what is the "primary fork" for those working on something to "scratch their own itch"?
It may do further down the line, if something bigger than just the scratching comes from the idea, or if the creator is particularly concerned about acknowledgement of their position as the originator².
--
[0] I'm not ATM. I have many ideas/plans, some of them I've mused for many years old, but I'm lacking in time/organisation/etc!
[1] That sounds a lot more combative than I intend, but trying to reword just makes it too long-winded/vague/weird/other
[2] I wouldn't be, but I imagine others would. Feelings on such matters vary widely, and rightly so.
I don’t get it. What the community does has no bearing on your fork, so why do you care? You can open source it and just not accept patches. Community development will end up happening somewhere else, but who cares?
Whatever position you are trying to argue seems to be so antithetical to Free Software, I'd say those sharing this view are completely missing the point of openness and would be better off by keeping all their work closed instead.
> other individual/team/etc taking a “we are the captain now” position rather than “this is great, look what we've done with it too”
The scenario is that someone opens up a project but says "I am not going to take any external contribution". Then someone else finds it interesting, forks it, that fork starts receiving attention and the original developer thinks to be entitled to control the direction of the fork? Is this really about "scratching your own itch" or is this some thinly-veiled control issue?
I'm sorry, after you open it up you can't have it both ways. Either it is open and other people are free to do whatever they want with it, or you say "it's mine!" and people will have to respect whatever conditions you impose to access/use/modify it.
> if the creator is particularly concerned about acknowledgement of their position as the originator.
That is what copyright is for and the patent system are for those who worry about being rewarded by their initial idea and creation.
If one is keeping their work to themselves out of fear of losing "recognition", they should look into the guarantees and rights given by their legal systems, because "feelings on this matter" are not going to save them from anything.
> Is this really about "scratching your own itch" or is this some thinly-veiled control issue?
I wasn't attempting to veil it at all. It is a control issue for some.
Sometimes someone is happy to share their project, but wants to keep some hold on the core direction.
> > other individual/team/etc taking a “we are the captain now” position rather than “this is great, look what we've done with it too”
The scenario is that someone opens up a project but says "I am not going to take any external contribution". Then someone else finds it interesting, forks it, that fork starts receiving attention and the original developer thinks to be entitled to control the direction of the fork?
You are missing a step. I said that if someone has this concern then they might not open the project at all, until they feel ready to let go a bit. At that point “open source but not open contribution” and control over forks are not issues at all because the source isn't open and forking isn't possible.
> That is what copyright is for and the patent system are for
I don't know about you, but playing in those minefields is not at all attractive to me, and I expect many feel the same. If I had those concerns, and legal redress is the solution, I now have two problems and the new one is a particularly complex beast, it would be much easier to just not open up.
> I wasn't attempting to veil it at all. It is a control issue.
Then do not hide it behind the "people just want to scratch their own itch". It is a bad rationalization for a much deeper issue and the way to overcome this is by bringing awareness to it, not by finding excuses.
> wants to keep some hold on the core direction.
You are really losing me here. The point from the beginning is that the idea of "direction" is relative to a certain frame of reference. There is no "core" direction when things are open. The very idea of "fork" should be a hint that it is okay to have people taking a project in different directions.
> it would be much easier to just not open up.
Agreed. But like I said: you can not have both ways. If you want to "keep control" and prevent others from taking the things in a different direction, then keep it close but be honest to yourself and others and don't say things like "it's not ready to be open yet" or "I want to share it with others but I worry about losing recognition".
> Then do not hide it behind the "people just want to scratch their own itch"
You seem to be latching on to individual sentences in individual posts rather than understanding the thread from my initial post downwards. Start from the top and see if that changes.
Right from the beginning I was walking about people not releasing source for this reason, not releasing with expectations of control – while quoting more of the preceding thread might have made that sentence look less like an attempt to hide as you see it, that would bulk out the thread necessarily IMO (and I'm already being too wordy) given that the context is already readily available nearby (as the thread is hardly a long one).
> > it would be much easier to just not open up.
> Agreed. But like I said: you can not have both ways. If you want to "keep control" and prevent …
No, but the other end of the equation often wants the source irrespective of the project creator not being ready to let go of fuller control just yet (for whatever reason, including wanting to get to a certain point their way to stamp their intended direction on it). And they will nag, and the author will either spend time replying to re-explain their (possibly already well documented) position or get a reputation for not listening which might harm them later.
I don't want to keep this conversation going in circles, but to me it seems like you are trying to explain a behavior (some people do not want to release source before conditions X, Y and Z are met) and I am arguing that the behavior itself is antithetical to FOSS.
From the top of the thread: "it is difficult to take it seriously if you refuse to offer source code or a implementable specification.". If OP has reservations about building it the open, I'd rather hear "I am not going to open it because I want to keep full control over it" then some vague "I will open it after I complete some other stuff".
You mention the concern about "getting a reputation for not listening". To me, this has already happened. The moment I saw "when I realize it can be used by someone, it will be of course be open source", I'm already doubting his ability to collaborate, I already put him in the "does not understand how FOSS work" box and I completely lost interest in the project.
> Frankly, if I publish open sources now, I can't take care of them again. Because there will be no excitement. I say this because I know myself very well.
> When I bring my work to a certain stage, I would like to deliver it to a team that can claim it. However, I want to see how much I can improve my work alone.
Sorry, this is exactly why it seems that you don't understand FOSS.
1) Publishing the code does not mean that it is done. Software development is a continuous effort.
2) There is no "delivering it to a team that can claim it". When (if?) you release your code, you will see the possible outcomes:
- the worst case scenario, someone will find an issue on your design and point to a better alternative and you will be left alone with your project.
- The best case scenario, your work brings some fundamental breakthrough and you will have to spend a good amount of time with people trying to figure it out or asking for assistance on how to make changes or improvements for their use case.
- The most likely scenario, your work will get its 15 minutes of fame, people are going to be taking a look at it, maybe star at Github and then completely leave it up to you to keep working on the project until it satisfies their needs.
Like "everythingctl" said, you will see that few people will take you seriously until you actually show source code or an reproducible specification. But you will also see that is a "required but not sufficient condition" for you to be taken seriously. And while I completely understand the fear of putting yourself out there and the possibility of having your work scrutinized and criticized for things you know need improvement, I think that this mentality is incompatible with the ethos of Open Source development and I wish more people can help you overcome this fear than tried to excuse or defend it.
This is a very valid point, but we should all recognise that some people⁰ explicitly don't want that for various reasons, at least not until they've got the project to a certain point in their own plans. Even some who have released other projects already prefer to keep their new toy more to themselves and only want more open discourse once they are satisfied their core itch is sufficiently scratched. Open source is usually a great answer/solution, but it is not always the best one for some people/projects.
Even once open, “open source not open contribution”¹ seems to be becoming more popular as a stated position² for projects, sometimes for much the same reasons, sometimes for (future) licensing control, sometimes both.
--
[0] I'm talking about individual people specifically here, not groups, especially not commercial entities: the reasons for staying closed initially/forever can be very different away from an individual's passion project.
[1] “you are free to do what you want, but I/we want to keep my/our primary fork fully ours”.
[2] it has been the defacto position for many projects since a long time before this phrase was coined.