https://gist.github.com/richhickey/1563cddea1002958f96e7ba9519972d9

Skip to content
 
[                    ]
All gists Back to GitHub Sign in Sign up
 
Sign in Sign up
{{ message }}

Instantly share code, notes, and snippets.

@richhickey

richhickey/OpenSourceIsNotAboutYou.md Secret

Last active Jul 2, 2022

  * Star 994
  * Fork 54

Star
Code Revisions 3 Stars 994 Forks 54
Embed
What would you like to do?
">Embed Embed this gist in your website.
Share Copy sharable link for this gist.
Clone via HTTPS Clone with Git or checkout with SVN using the
repository's web address.
 
Learn more about clone URLs
[<script src="https:/]
 
Download ZIP
Open Source is Not About You
Raw
OpenSourceIsNotAboutYou.md

 Open Source is Not About You

The only people entitled to say how open source 'ought' to work are
people who run projects, and the scope of their entitlement extends
only to their own projects.

Just because someone open sources something does not imply they owe
the world a change in their status, focus and effort, e.g. from
inventor to community manager.

As a user of something open source you are not thereby entitled to
anything at all. You are not entitled to contribute. You are not
entitled to features. You are not entitled to the attention of
others. You are not entitled to having value attached to your
complaints. You are not entitled to this explanation.

If you have expectations (of others) that aren't being met, those
expectations are your own responsibility. You are responsible for
your own needs. If you want things, make them.

Open source is a licensing and delivery mechanism, period. It means
you get the source for software and the right to use and modify it.
All social impositions associated with it, including the idea of
'community-driven-development' are part of a recently-invented
mythology with little basis in how things actually work, a mythology
that embodies, cult-like, both a lack of support for diversity in the
ways things can work and a pervasive sense of communal entitlement.

If you think Cognitect is not doing anything for the community, or is
not listening to the community, you are simply wrong. You are not,
however, entitled to it being the effort, focus or response you
desire. We get to make our own choices as regards our time and lives.

We at Cognitect have to show up to work, every day, to make a living.
We get no royalties of any kind from Clojure. We are in no way
building Clojure for profit. Far fewer than 1% of Clojure users are
our consulting or product customers, and thus contributing to our
livelihood.

We take some of what we earn, money that could e.g. go into our
retirement savings and instead use it to hire people to work on
Clojure and community outreach, some full-time. To be honest, I could
use that money in my retirement account, having depleted it to make
Clojure in the first place. But I love working with the team on
Clojure, and am proud of the work we do.

Alex Miller is extremely attentive to and engaged with the Clojure
community. He and Stu Halloway and I regularly meet and discuss
community issues. Alex, at my direction, spends the majority of his
time either working on features for the community or assessing
patches and bug reports. I spend significant portions of my time
designing these features - spec, tools.deps, error handling and more
to come. This is time taken away from earning a living.

I am grateful for the contributions of the community. Every Clojure
release incorporates many contributions. The vast majority of the
user community doesn't contribute, and doesn't desire to contribute.
And that's fine. Open source is a no-strings-attached gift, and all
participants should recognize it as such.

The Clojure process is not closed, but it is conservative. I think
Clojure benefits greatly from that conservatism, in contrast to some
other projects with high churn rates and feature bloat. If you
disagree or imagine otherwise, that's too bad. It's my life and I'm
not going to spend it arguing/negotiating on/with the internet. Write
your own things and run your own projects as you see fit.

We can always do more, but it is specious to claim that the core team
is standing in the way of meaningful contributions to Clojure, as
opportunities abound: in library development, outreach, training,
tutorials, documentation, giving talks, tool building etc.

And yes, on patches to core. Did you know that most patches/issues
have poor problem statements, no description of the plan (read my
code!), no consideration of alternatives, no tests, no designs, and
are ill-conceived and/or broken in some way? Community efforts to
triage matter a lot in moving things forward - thanks Nicola, Ghadi
and many others!

The time to re-examine preconceptions about open source is right now.
Morale erosion amongst creators is a real thing. Your preconceptions
and how you act upon them are your responsibility and yours alone. I
am not going to answer for them or to them.

If the way Clojure works isn't for you, a process which produced
Clojure in the first place, paradoxically, so be it. I'm sure you
know better about the one true way to write software. But kindly
don't burn the community down on your way out, with self-serving
proclamations. Yes, everyone is entitled to an opinion, but, tragedy
of the commons and all that.

I encourage everyone gnashing their teeth with negativity at what
they think they can't do instead pick something positive they can do
and do it.

Rich

p.s. My partners and coworkers at Cognitect were not consulted
regarding this message - I am certain they would have dissuaded me.
These opinions are mine alone.

p.p.s. I think the vast majority of people in the Clojure community
are wonderful and positive. If you don't recognize yourself in the
message above, it's not for/about you!

Load earlier comments...
Copy link

ghost commented Nov 30, 2018

I appreciate your honesty. I think it's really important to know your
personal views because it sets expectations fairly. The more clear
your positions are, the easier it is to figure out how to make
progress. And you should be able to run the project the way you want
to.

Just today I was reading one of the negative discussions about patch
submission on ClojureVerse and I finally got to the page where you
said that patches were just faster for you to process and that was
that. I could accept that easily. Helps to know it and move on.

I happened to be thinking earlier today about the very issues you
discussed here and I concluded the same thing you said: there are
plenty of ways to contribute and help improve the things you want to
improve in Clojure, and it's a matter of picking something and doing
it.

Believe me, every time I use Clojure I appreciate the good design
decisions and the work that has been put into it. Thank you for that!

Sorry, something went wrong.

@mwpowellhtx
Copy link

mwpowellhtx commented Dec 1, 2018

So, in a few thoughts, I would say, capitalism, entrepreneurial
spirit, and boundaries. Lots and lots of boundaries.

Sorry, something went wrong.

@dgustaf
Copy link

dgustaf commented Dec 3, 2018

Thank you Rich! For this and lots that came before. Your effort is
immensely appreciated.

Sorry, something went wrong.

@dnando
Copy link

dnando commented Dec 3, 2018

The work of Jordan Peterson might provide some perspective. There is
a tendency, especially among educated people, to give more weight and
value to liberal attitudes of openness and freedom than they
practically deserve. I'm writing that as a very liberal-minded
person.

A conservative attitude values borders and restrictions, structure. A
liberal attitude values openness, permissiveness, creative chaos.
Peterson would say that there is always a discussion needed between
the conservative viewpoint and the liberal viewpoint, as the balance
between them often needs to be adjusted. Too liberal, and order
breaks down and bad things happen. Too conservative, and innovation
suffers and bad things happen. Each can tend to go too far.

A successful negotiation regarding that balance has to have an
understanding and appreciation of the value of each viewpoint as its
basis, or it can't succeed.

Rich's main point seems to be that there is value in conservatism.
And I think that may fly over the heads of some of us with a more
liberal bent. Peterson points to what happened with marxism as the
most glaring example among many where the liberal viewpoint went too
far. The enticing idea to overthrow order so everyone can be free has
never worked. Elements of a community or a society reimpose order in
the midst of the chaos of any revolution, big or small, and the
result is almost invariably worse than what you had before the
revolution. And yet the general idea that things will be better if
order, structure and hierarchy is dissolved or overthrown, strongly
persists in our culture. Peterson is saying that is simply not true,
and he's right. He's making the point with dozens of obvious
examples.

In any case, it struck me that this tension between conservative and
liberal viewpoints is much larger than open source software. I think
we can learn something by seeing it from a larger perspective, and
recognizing that a conversation regarding the balance between them
must be undertaken with much more care and seriousness than - "I'm
leaving. I want more freedom." I think Peterson would say that a
better society, a more healthy community, would endeavour to take
responsibility for maintaining that balance by carefully and
deliberately exploring options, small carefully thought through
adjustments that might practically work out, rather than disowning
responsibility, walking away, or reducing the always present tension
between conservative and liberal viewpoints to some leveraged
caricature rather than exploring the nuances of the balance in depth.

Sorry, something went wrong.

@belucid
Copy link

belucid commented Dec 3, 2018

I agree with 99% of what you wrote Rich, especially about the
conservative approach. It's exactly your conservative approach and
dedication to avoiding bloat that has led me to bet my career on
Clojure and to self-define as a Clojure programmer.

Where I have to quibble is with this:

    We get no royalties of any kind from Clojure. We are in no way
    building Clojure for profit. Far fewer than 1% of Clojure users
    are our consulting or product customers, and thus contributing to
    our livelihood.

    We take some of what we earn, money that could e.g. go into our
    retirement savings and instead use it to hire people to work on
    Clojure and community outreach, some full-time. To be honest, I
    could use that money in my retirement account, having depleted it
    to make Clojure in the first place. But I love working with the
    team on Clojure, and am proud of the work we do.

This just doesn't seem genuine. Congnitect would not exist as it does
today without Clojure. It may be more successful, it quite likely
would be less successful. In any case, it would be very different.

I can't agree with this characterization of Clojure as some self-less
gift to the world. Clojure is an investment by you and by Cognitect,
not a gift. It's an investment made w/ some expectation that some
very small percentage of the Clojure community will be interested in
Clojure-related products and services from Cognitect.

Yes, the overwhelming majority of the Clojure community will never
buy anything from Cognitect, but it is still the entire community
that makes the small percentage that will buy something from
Cognitect interested and comfortable in using Clojure. I don't think
your post conveys the humility and thankfulness that it should. Every
last person that makes a bet on Clojure helps you and helps
Cognitect, and Cognitect owes as much to them as they do to you and
to Cognitect. That's what makes it a community.

I agree with you that it's a community that is best run the way you
are running it right now. I have no complaints actually, other than
about the tone of this message and about the characterization of
Clojure as a gift.

Sorry, something went wrong.

@michael-okeefe
Copy link

michael-okeefe commented Dec 4, 2018

Thank you, Rich! Thank you so much for what you've done with Clojure
and for your generosity in sharing it with us. It has truly been a
joy to use and learn. You definitely have my support and agreement
with this article.

Sorry, something went wrong.

@krisleech
Copy link

krisleech commented Dec 4, 2018

    I can't agree with this characterization of Clojure as some
    self-less gift to the world. Clojure is an investment by you and
    by Cognitect, not a gift. It's an investment made w/ some
    expectation that some very small percentage of the Clojure
    community will be interested in Clojure-related products and
    services from Cognitect.

It is a gift, you didn't pay for it. They could have kept it closed
source or licensed it commercially.

Sorry, something went wrong.

@Vinai
Copy link

Vinai commented Dec 4, 2018

Thank you for all the labour of love you and so many others put into
Clojure and for sharing it with us!
You have enriched my life as a developer a lot, and I'm very
grateful.

Sorry, something went wrong.

@belucid
Copy link

belucid commented Dec 4, 2018

@krisleech no, it's an investment. Yes, they could have kept it
closed source or licensed it commercially, but then the adoption of
Clojure would be extremely negligible, and there would be no market
for Cognitect's Clojure development services or Datomic. Basically
they'd need to be in a different business then they are in today. To
think that Cognitect actually thinks of Clojure as a gift and not an
investment is just not accurately describing the situation.

Cognitect invests in Clojure
The Clojure community invests their time and attention and technical
risk in Clojure by using it
Together we make a community

There are no gifts here. Just self-interested investment by both
sides.

Sorry, something went wrong.

@schneems
Copy link

schneems commented Dec 6, 2018

Regarding the need to triage issues. If anyone wants to get started
helping an open source library, check out https://www.codetriage.com
it sends you issues to triage in your inbox.

Sorry, something went wrong.

@GitMoDu
Copy link

GitMoDu commented Dec 12, 2018

    Saying that users aren't even entitled to an explanation of why
    they're not entitled to support is childish in the extreme.

So, someone makes free software, then they become "childish in the
extreme" for not doing more work for free? You sir, are one entitled
brat.

Sorry, something went wrong.

@thiru
Copy link

thiru commented Dec 16, 2018

Thank you so much for Clojure Rich! It's my favourite language to
program in. I appreciate you and your team's hard work. The careful,
considerate way it's evolved is a rare gift.

Sorry, something went wrong.

@KingCode
Copy link

KingCode commented Dec 18, 2018 *
edited

Well said Rich, thank you for sticking to your vision and
standards...Clojure put the fun back in programming, and I will
always be grateful for your (and team's) work!

Sorry, something went wrong.

@AlexKVal
Copy link

AlexKVal commented Jan 5, 2019

Thank you, Rich, for writing and sharing this.
Thank you and all the contributors for Clojure 

Sorry, something went wrong.

@mlanza
Copy link

mlanza commented Feb 4, 2019

Few things have impacted my view of programming as a whole more than
the Clojure way. Thanks for inventing it and sharing it.

Sorry, something went wrong.

@johnlawrenceaspden
Copy link

johnlawrenceaspden commented Feb 22, 2019

Rich, I've no idea what this is really about, but you made a
beautiful thing and I love it and use it lots. Thank you very much,
and of course you don't owe me anything. Thank you for your wonderful
gift!

Sorry, something went wrong.

@akyoto
Copy link

akyoto commented Feb 25, 2019

Well written, thank you.

Sorry, something went wrong.

@MalloZup
Copy link

MalloZup commented Apr 8, 2019

thank you

Sorry, something went wrong.

@mmeroberts
Copy link

mmeroberts commented May 6, 2019

My feeling as I have dabbled in Clojure is that I fear it becoming
too big, more features, more complex less easy to use. I, therefore,
like to conservative approach. I look with horror at the underlying
morass that Java has become, I remember when I could read it and
understand it, I no longer find I stand a chance. I do not want
Clojure to go that way. I have found that constraints are the key to
creativity, unbounded options lead to paralysis and not progress.
Having to work with constraints, as long as they are not severe,
enables you to focus on finding a solution within a walled garden. I
find as I learn more about the Clojure, my view changes and I have a
little more space to work, but lifting those constraints would make
me exposed to having to face continual choices. In a world where
coffee is no longer coffee, but an endless list of choices, the joy
of working with something that is simple, constrained, well thought
out, does not change on a whim, has what I believe to be the most
under-rated quality - "conceptual integrity", is a joy. Yes, I still
have to dig through the weed pile of error messages.

The fact that Rich and Cognitect both contribute and gain from the
success of Clojure, I can not begrudge. Having a practical, usable
LISP is a gift I receive with thanks and hope that we can enjoy what
we have even with the weeds.

Sorry, something went wrong.

@wildermuthn
Copy link

wildermuthn commented Sep 20, 2019

Clojure's open-source nature, as Hickey so clearly states, is simply
about licencing. But Clojure itself is a tool. Is it also a product?

    "Product' is from the Latin producer: "lead or bring forth, draw
    out," figuratively "to promote, empower; stretch out, extend."

In the context of users (those who are empowered), Clojure is a
product.

In isolation from users, Clojure is merely a tool - an idiosyncratic
invention birthed as a labor of love.

    Just because someone open sources something does not imply they
    owe the world a change in their status, focus and effort, e.g.
    from inventor to community manager.

Perhaps Hickey really does view Clojure as an invention, as merely a
tool?

    We are in no way building Clojure for profit . . . I love working
    with the team on Clojure, and am proud of the work we do.

Hickley doesn't seem to see Clojure as a product. Unfortunately, this
means he is more likely to see Clojurists as followers of a tool
rather than users of a product. Followers can be told that we are a
drain on Hickey's morale and bank-account. Followers can be scolded
that we are entitled. Even an important follower can be beat-down in
public until he issues a public apology.

Users will simply find another product.

Many years ago, I switched from Common Lisp to Clojure for precisely
one purpose: Clojure had a growing ecosystem that extended the power
of the language itself. But Hickey's letter reinforces the fact that
the ecosystem is an accident, not an essential. Clojure core seems to
be in competition with the ecosystem rather than enabling it. I'll
always love Clojure, and admire the technical brilliance of Hickey,
but I can't responsibly invest into an idiosyncratic invention that
treats its ecosystem as ancillary rather than primary.

Sorry, something went wrong.

@loganpowell
Copy link

loganpowell commented Oct 30, 2019 *
edited

I love Clojure. I love it. Rich Hickey has "gift"ed it to us and I am
thankful for that. I also can tell that there's an underlying pattern
to the nature of the responses to PRs or contribution in general.
They're short. I get the feeling this culture derives from the top.
Perhaps the policy should move from "respond to everyone, but be
brief" to "don't respond to everyone". Less people will find
themselves going down a path that has a dead end, because they won't
be encouraged by any feedback. This would also prevent people from
feeling hurt when they spend hours/days/weeks on something only to
get a two-second response. At least until the command-line becomes
less pyramidal.

This is not the first project to have a BDFL. Many other great
projects follow this same model (Linux, Python [until recently],
Apple [until recently], the great architects [e.g., Mies van der
Rohe, Le Corbusier, Frank Llyod Wright], etc.). In fact, I believe
this focused thought leadership is why Clojure is so great. Rich is a
Shepherd. There's a very clear goal that Rich has and he leads from
the front to execute it, but it obviously doesn't scale.

One day our benevolent dictator (emphasis on benevolent) will have to
come up with a succession/committee model. Perhaps some of this
energy could be directed at that plan. Doing so would give
contributors an outlet for their frustrations and might even give
Rich some good ideas for how to "share the load".

share the load

Sorry, something went wrong.

@Kah0ona
Copy link

Kah0ona commented Dec 16, 2019

Just wanted to say: I agree, and thanks! I, as a programmer, had my
views turned upside down in 2015, and since then I haven't looked
back. I write clojure for a living, and 'snuck' it in in a handful of
companies, in one it actually became a full on saas product with a
small team working on it now. And I now run a profitable bootstrapped
startup saas fully written in clojure/script.

Truly feel I am living the dream.

Thank you.

Sorry, something went wrong.

@StanleyMasinde
Copy link

StanleyMasinde commented Jun 9, 2020

Hehe sounds right

Sorry, something went wrong.

@edtsech
Copy link

edtsech commented Jun 9, 2020

Some open-source etiquette to think about https://github.com/
kossnocorp/etiquette

Sorry, something went wrong.

@Malsasa
Copy link

Malsasa commented Jun 10, 2020

"If you disagree or imagine otherwise, that's too bad. It's my life
and I'm not going to spend it arguing/negotiating on/with the
internet. Write your own things and run your own projects as you see
fit."

Hello, Rich. I do not know Clojure, but I got this article from
RuboCop's developer, and I really like your words above. I agree and
thanks, you made Clojure great.

Sorry, something went wrong.

@g1eny0ung
Copy link

g1eny0ung commented Jul 4, 2020 *
edited

Thank you Rich, this inspired me more.

Sorry, something went wrong.

@guruma
Copy link

guruma commented Jan 18, 2021 *
edited

Thank you Rich. I love Clojure from which I have learn a lot.

Sorry, something went wrong.

@jaimeagudo
Copy link

jaimeagudo commented Jun 3, 2021

God's word  (no kidding) Thanks a lot for sharing once more!

Sorry, something went wrong.

@nickdex
Copy link

nickdex commented Sep 5, 2021

    I think we can learn something by seeing it from a larger
    perspective, and recognizing that a conversation regarding the
    balance between them
    Completely agree. I'm constantly amazed how people don't even try
    to gain that perspective. People (maybe not all but many) have
    good intentions, they are coming in from different directions.
    Being polarized is just wastage (attention, time, resources etc).
    Good to see that is not the case here 

Clojure is indeed a gift, and a very addictive one at that  Thank
you @richhickey for the clojure and all the meta talks. Some even
provide great oneliners 

Sorry, something went wrong.

@hinell
Copy link

hinell commented Dec 29, 2021

This blog post is nice, but could have been much shorter. Really.

Sorry, something went wrong.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an
account? Sign in to comment

Footer

 (c) 2022 GitHub, Inc.

Footer navigation

  * Terms
  * Privacy
  * Security
  * Status
  * Docs
  * Contact GitHub
  * Pricing
  * API
  * Training
  * Blog
  * About

You can't perform that action at this time.
You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your
session. You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh
your session.