[securesaml]

The problem is more so maintenance.

The expectation of FOSS is that the users and maintainer work together to resolve bug fixes/features/security issues.

However many companies will dump these issues to the maintainer and take it for granted when they are resolved.

It's not a sustainable model, and will lead to burnout/unmaintained libraries.

If the companies don't have the engineering resources/specialization to complete bug fixes/features, they should sponsor the maintainers.

[strongpigeon]

It’s OK to say “No” or “Pay me and I’ll do it right now” to companies doing this.

[carllerche]

I 100% agree with this. It also is 100% OK to fork aggressively and patch yourself.

[Dilettante_]

(And on the flipside, nothing is owed for a bugfix the maintainer made out of their own free will. Again, a gift.)

[securesaml]

Correct, maintainers can say that and get shamed.

And it leads to unmaintained libraries, since companies don't want to pay.

At some point, is open sourcing your work a liability?

[eddd-ddde]

A company finding a bug and opening an issue on an open source project _is_ contributing.

What happens next is completely irrelevant. The maintainer can 100% decide to just ignore the issue or close it.

Opening issues doesn't create unmaintained software. In fact it helps.

[lifetimerubyist]

No the expectation of FOSS is that code is provided AS-IS with NO WARRANTY because that’s what it says in the license.

[jandrewrogers]

People's expectations are not constrained by the license. They are free to exercise a sense of entitlement beyond the terms of the contract and empirically they often do. The license does not prohibit them from engaging with the authors or maintainers for any reason whatsoever, including requesting free labor.

You could perhaps add a clause in the license that restricts this behavior but then it would no longer be FOSS.

[dwaite]

> The expectation of FOSS is that the users and maintainer work together to resolve bug fixes/features/security issues.

This depends a lot on the users, and then somewhat on the maintainers.

I have seen a lot of end-user facing software where people do not understand that features and fixes do not magically materialize - that there is a person on the other end likely working on this in their free time, with their own prioritization on how they will use that limited time.

[ssdspoimdsjvv]

You, as a maintainer, are free to ignore any such expectations and do what you want. There are no obligations. You only risk disappointing people (or corporations), and losing Github stars. If that leads to unmaintained libraries, that probably means the open-source model doesn't work for this project. And that's fine.

[vlad-roundabout]

The software can't have a price, but the service of maintaining it and adding someone's desired features can.

[nextlevelwizard]

What are these many companies? And how are these mysterious companies forcing you to work on their issues?

If you have companies name and shame them, but often these are just hypotheticals or few entities.