[bachmeier]

> Open source is a no-strings-attached gift, and all participants should recognize it as such.

I've always felt this is incorrect. First, because lots of people use open source to further their careers, it isn't. Open source contributions are paid work if you benefit from them in any way. Second, if you use open source yourself, your work is no longer a gift. You're contributing back to the community you've taken from. The person you're being a jerk to because it's a "gift" might be the author of other software you've used.

[yunnpp]

Why is this down-voted? Everything we do in this industry rests upon somebody else's gift of free/open software, that is the reality of it. I do feel an inclination to contribute back however I can, even if it's just documentation, or submitting a (properly detailed) bug report, for precisely the reason described here.

[ragall]

It is correct. Just because your livelihood might hinge on a specific project doesn't mean that its developers have any obligation to accept your patches. It means you have to be very careful in choosing which project you hitch your wagon. Obligations are created, in order, through law, contracts or personal relationships. If you have neither, you have nothing.

[bachmeier]

> It is correct. Just because your livelihood might hinge on a specific project doesn't mean that its developers have any obligation to accept your patches.

I think you responded to the wrong comment, since I didn't say anything about being obligated to accept patches.

[ragall]

I responded to "You're contributing back to the community you've taken from" which implies that one has some obligation to accept a patch (calling it a contribution). Just because you're offering doesn't mean that others are obliged to accept or even review it.