[Mo3]

> I have never given consent to this and I have no choice to opt out.

You have a public repository on GitHub. You are free to switch it to private, but otherwise this absolutely illogical. No one needs your consent to submit PRs to and highlight a public repository.

This is equivalent to having a website and then getting angry about linking to it, or putting your artwork up for public viewing and then getting angry at someone pointing out a small tear in the fabric.

Actually, now that I think of it, it’s better comparable to someone bringing in a handheld scanner with a company name on it, scanning the artwork and then pointing out the tear.

Which is still totally fine. You’ve given implied consent by making it available to the public. You have decided to make it possible for the public to view it, criticize it and link to it.

Quote Wikipedia,

> Open-source software (OSS) is computer software that is released under a license in which the copyright holder grants users the rights to use, *study*, change, and distribute the software and its source code to anyone *and for any purpose*

Case closed.

[throwaway290]

> Actually, now that I think of it, it’s better comparable to someone bringing in a handheld scanner with a company name on it, scanning the artwork and then pointing out the tear.

No, it's more like somebody sending to your lab, uninvited, an impersonal inspection bot with another company's branding on it, which doesn't only disclose potential issues to you but advertises them across the whole cyberspace.

And in case of OSS this lab may be my tiny garage where me and friends tinker on stuff.

Choosing to make the results of our passion or work free for all to study and use should not come with a liability of having to deal with hordes of such bots.

[Mo3]

Only if you establish your lab in a tent on the street and put a sign that says "for public display" on it.

> And in case of OSS this lab may be my tiny garage where me and friends tinker on stuff.

That's not OSS. OSS would be leaving the garage door open, putting your garage on Google Maps and freely allowing anyone to walk in and see what you're doing. That's OSS.

Then getting angry about it is what you and OP are doing.

[throwaway290]

> Only if you establish your lab in a tent on the street and put a sign that says "for public display" on it.

I don't get how your flawed analogy has evolved now. Care to expound?

Edit: I see your edit, thanks. Yes, if we leave garage doors open we still don't welcome these bots, sorry.

[Mo3]

But that is not up to you to decide in the case of OSS.

Public websites get crawled and indexed hundreds of times per day and sometimes linked to even with criticism. Would you not say this is the same concept?

[throwaway290]

Outside of my system vs. inside of my system. PRs count as the latter in my view. It's filing a task, for me to do, so it should not even seem like it is coming from a non-individual.

[grey_earthling]

> No, it's more like somebody sending to your lab, uninvited, an impersonal inspection bot with another company's branding on it, which doesn't only disclose potential issues to you but advertises them across the whole cyberspace.

GitHub isn't your lab. It's Microsoft's lab. (They just rent out space free of charge.)

[throwaway290]

I stand corrected. (You forgot that they also mine my lab for data subsequently used in paid solutions.)

My point is, we should cherish the culture that enables progress and learning by routinely opening works of passion to free use and contribution. We could cherish it by employing a sense of ethics and adherence to certain protocols of behavior, these don't need to be spelled out but those of us who know better can lead by example. Putting OSS maintainers under undue stress has come under fire before, and this looks like one of those cases.