| > You can do things anonymously, but big companies / projects also don't have an obligation to use your code. You're not wrong here, but I'm not forcing anyone to use my code bases or contributions. Also, think about how many systems you blindly trust on a daily basis. When you drive over a bridge, did you research the maitenance procedures and compliance was up to date? When you got a house or apartment, did you look into the engineering sign offs and construction companies? And that maitenance has been done up to snuff? Even down to hoping the inspector knows what they're doing? When you step into an elevator do you check the recent inspection plaque? When you get on an airplane are you aware of its maitenance history? And to further my point by refering back to the house example, did the company even QA the plane before they shipped it? And most importantly, did you check into whether the people actually did these things versus just saying they did them? What kind of trust does having a persons name attached to the project actually provide? I would argue its a psuedo-facade trust basis that gives a false sense of security. The truth of the matter is that you blindly trust millions of things on a daily basis. Including the very system you type from, which I guaruntee you has more than one anonymous maitainer attached to its underlying software. I totally get where you're coming from, but the same problems exist in every industry, supply, politics, every facet of your life is based on many blind trust principles. The one difference here with anonymous open source contributors is that they give you the code to read through yourself (and hope that you help ;) ) Very much unlike the proprietary software you're running beside it. |