[pdonis]

> because they report bugs in the same place that all the other people do, they create spam accounts, they concern troll, they divert conversations onto their pet issues, they do everything people have done to irritate other people on the internet for ages.

What this is saying that if your "free software project" includes anything more than providing the source code for free online--in other words, if it includes things like a bug tracker, a discussion forum, etc., that you are actually paying attention to--then it's not just a "free software project" any more, it's more like a "free website", and has many of the same issues people are discussing here relative to the latter. And the solution would be much the same: your time and effort isn't free, so if you're giving it to the project, the project shouldn't be free; you should charge for it.

[crummy]

Can you give me some examples of what you'd consider to be free software projects?

[pdonis]

What I would consider "free software" is beside the point. I'm not trying to propose a new definition of "free software" or argue for some particular way of labeling projects as "free software". I'm just pointing out that if a project author decides to provide anything more in relation to their project than their source code for free online, they are taking on a potential burden in time and effort, and if the burden becomes too much for them to provide for free, they will either need to start charging for it, or stop doing it. The SSLPing project has taken option number two.