Please stop spamming (almost) every project!

[sstok]

I am going raise my voice here, because this is without doubt the most horrifying idea I have seen in a while. Your basically adding DRM or Net-neutrality slowdowns to open-source for no gain what so ever.

The idea of someone adding a plug-in (which btw is incredible easy to bypass with --no-plugins or by adding a replace section in your root composer.json file) to generate money for open-source projects by delaying the installation process? REALLY?!

The great thing about open-source is that we (the users) are in full control of what the software does; adding a slowdown unless I pay for a proper speed? takes away this freedom and only creates separation within in the community (as some issues suggest). It doesn't encourage us to help people, we are forced to pay even though the project's we develop are free and even for charity organizations! This whole concept undermines the very foundation of Free software.

Yes, we need to make money like anyone else, but does that mean we should force this burden on our users? What if they can contribute in other ways, it's not all about money for a project. Most developers are actually working for a company and making money. Only a small group struggles with a project because of financial reasons, but they are better ways to ask for help rather forcing this!
Premium support, exclusive extensions, voluntary donations (does actually happen for some projects), sponsoring, you name it.

And if donations are actually needed but not provided, the project dies. Sad but true, maybe someone will fork the project and they will make money of it? If this is really a concern choose a proper license like (L)GPL or MPLv2.0 (which I am using for a big project) so anyone always needs to contribute back the community.

Instead of adding a slow-down feature, why not show a banner that the listed projects accepts financial donations? This could even be added Composer itself 👍

And finally, please stop spamming (almost) every project. It's better to ask feedback from the community using Twitters, Slack channels or something but not by opening pull requests with something that slows down Composer. You will only receive the rage from the community, I love the idea of helping other open-source projects, but not like this, not like this...

[ciaranmcnulty]

The outcome of adding this project to any open source software will presumably be an immediate fork

[vcapretz]

#7 @sstok I think we can fix this project with my PR, let me know if there are any other improvements I can work on

[PatchRanger]

First of all, I want to say sorry about "spamming": please excuse me those, who was inflicted or offended - as I've mentioned in johnbillion/extended-cpts#96 (comment), I need statistically reasonable sample of feedbacks in order to make conscious decision and making PRs was my best thought. Thank you @sstok for suggestion about looking for developers' slack or something - I am going to switch to that way.

Secondly, thank you for detailed feedback - if you wouldn't write, I wouldn't know about your opinion.

adding a slowdown unless I pay for a proper speed? takes away this freedom

Disagree. This argument looks the same to me as "advertisement takes away watching TV" or "paying taxes takes away our voting right". It's not only "not true" - moreover, the opposite is true: "advertisement makes it possible to watch TV", "paying taxes helps to ensure possibility to guarantee our voting rights" - and finally "adding a slowdown unless I pay for a proper speed" (in my view) would turn open-source development into sustainable from time-to-time basis.

and only creates separation within in the community (as some issues suggest)

Partially agree. I mean, looks like it would happen - but I don't see a tragedy here. Let me emphasize: freedom of nobody is going to be restricted, everybody would still have an ability to get the sources at Github, all the packages still remain free (at no cost) to use - the only difference is speed of access. Do road signs (limiting your speed) take away your freedom of movement? No, they just ensure everybody safety, right? The same is here: limitation in order to provide sustainability - for the greater good to the end.

It doesn't encourage us to help people, we are forced to pay even though the project's we develop are free and even for charity organizations!

"Forced to pay" is not entirely the same as "forced to choose between paying or waiting", isn't it?

This whole concept undermines the very foundation of Free software.

I understand your point - but my opinion is the opposite, let me explain. I believe, every freedom is based on restrictions to provide such freedom. What if we would proclaim freedom - without force or power to ensure it's respected? I believe, that open-source began by restrictions made by legally-formed license, created by Richard Stallman and others. Before that moment there was "wild west" - while after that moment freedom and open-source began. Someone could consider "wild west" as totally correct implementation of the freedom - but I disagree, I am sure that proclaimed freedom or rights without legal way to enforce them costs nothing, just words.

Back to the topic: I believe, that this concept emphasizes the freedom of everybody to use debugged and stable software - because it is based on self-regulating principle, allowing to fund the most downloadable (usable) programs. That freedom is guaranteed by the restrictions. That's my subjective opinion.

Yes, we need to make money like anyone else, but does that mean we should force this burden on our users?

I believe that burden wouldn't be noticable for most of the users. I believe that it would become as little as 1 second for each package - or even less. I believe, that it would be real burden to the corporations, who uses the open-source software - because their setups are complex (consist of many packages) and they need many builds quickly in order to ensure proper work of their Continuous Integration. I believe that #2 could handle it.

Only a small group struggles with a project because of financial reasons, but they are better ways to ask for help rather forcing this!
Premium support, exclusive extensions, voluntary donations (does actually happen for some projects), sponsoring, you name it.

Of course, there are. The question is: why do you think asking is better than actually selling? Would you mind that mobile applications are not cost-free? Moreover, I don't suggest selling the programs themselves - I suggest to sell the comfort of usage.

Instead of adding a slow-down feature, why not show a banner that the listed projects accepts financial donations? This could even be added Composer itself 👍

I don't believe that donations could sustain open-source development, do you? I mean, there are several examples - and that's it, it can't do it in mass. I explained it in detail in #7 (comment) .

[PatchRanger]

The outcome of adding this project to any open source software will presumably be an immediate fork

@ciaranmcnulty Nice catch, thank you! There is an issue for that: #5 .

[soullivaneuh]

Do you know that blocked users exist on GitHub @PatchRanger? Please continue to make PR like that, and you will finish to be the most blocked user of the platform.

Proposing automatic pull request to propose a tool you made that can improve the targeted project can be an idea, but your tool does not improve anything at all.

In any cases, you can immediately remove sonata-project, Nexylan and my namespaces from your list, thanks.