[utopiah]

There are more than 2 ways to do OSS vs proprietary. You can do OSS and refuse all commits or even any comments, e.g. https://codeberg.org/y20k/escapepod/src/branch/master/CONTRI...

Using GPL or MIT or whatever open or free license you prefer does not mean it's OK to get bullied.

It's perfectly fine to not accept entitlement and still let others use or even build on your work, if you want to.

You have the freedom to shape the interactions you want even if nobody else does it this way.

[matheusmoreira]

It's totally fine to turn off issues and pull requests, and refuse all contributions. The problem is many maintainers create undue responsibility for themselves with snide responses like "PR welcome" to every issue or request. When people show up with the patches after a response like that, I'd say that they are very much owed some of the maintaner's precious time.

[utopiah]

Agreed, if a patch is offered after being suggested then some reaction should take place, even if to clarify that currently there is not enough resource to accept/reject it and thus it might be better to temporarily rely on their own fork.

[matheusmoreira]

> if a patch is offered after being suggested

I'd say it comes off as more of a challenge than a suggestion. "I don't care, do it yourself if you care so much". Most people just go away when they get told that. Some people actually rise up to the challenge.

> even if to clarify that currently there is not enough resource to accept/reject it

That's fine if clarified beforehand. The CONTRIBUTING.md from the above comment is an excellent example. It clearly communicates the maintainer's stance.

If it's coming from someone who previously "welcomed PRs", that sort of reply is extremely rude. Learning and modifying someone else's project is a major undertaking, and it's very disrespectful when maintainers don't match that effort, especially when they invited it upon themselves.