Security vulnerabilities are different, especially when they also put a 90 day disclosure period in it which is more severe for a security exploit.
That disclosure bit, not in the article, is really what tipped this all over the edge. If it was just hey, here’s a bug then its really just flooding the backlog for the maintainers who need to triage that. Disclosures are often used so people are aware that they’re using libraries that the maintainer has refused to patch, but in this case its really just holding the maintainers hostage so they end up wasting their time going through irrelevant issues.
Also, many of these libraries get security audits to make sure they are actually triaging and working through their backlogs, so could lose actual funding they get.
Ideally, they would either use their supposedly capable and powerful AI code gen to just make a fix and send over a patch, or at least use LLMs on their own end to triage the issues and only send over the most sever X periodically.
No, it’s still open source work, completely voluntary in the free world.
Disclosures are often used so people are aware that they’re using libraries that the maintainer has refused to patch
No, they merely tell reality: an unresolved security issue was found.
How anyone handles that is their business.
There is no inherent duty.
People who would rather write a fix than write & maintain their own daunting library will send a fix.
could lose actual funding they get
If someone’s getting paid, and it’s not worth the work, then that is also their business.
It’s still open source.
If the solution saves more effort than doing it yourself, then the people who need it won’t just let it all go to waste.
This is entirely a social issue of managing & rebuffing unrealistic expectations.
It’s perfectly valid to set boundaries, remind folks beggars can’t be choosers, and tell them pitching in gets more done.
Security vulnerabilities are different, especially when they also put a 90 day disclosure period in it which is more severe for a security exploit.
That disclosure bit, not in the article, is really what tipped this all over the edge. If it was just hey, here’s a bug then its really just flooding the backlog for the maintainers who need to triage that. Disclosures are often used so people are aware that they’re using libraries that the maintainer has refused to patch, but in this case its really just holding the maintainers hostage so they end up wasting their time going through irrelevant issues.
Also, many of these libraries get security audits to make sure they are actually triaging and working through their backlogs, so could lose actual funding they get.
Ideally, they would either use their supposedly capable and powerful AI code gen to just make a fix and send over a patch, or at least use LLMs on their own end to triage the issues and only send over the most sever X periodically.
No, it’s still open source work, completely voluntary in the free world.
No, they merely tell reality: an unresolved security issue was found. How anyone handles that is their business. There is no inherent duty.
People who would rather write a fix than write & maintain their own daunting library will send a fix.
If someone’s getting paid, and it’s not worth the work, then that is also their business. It’s still open source. If the solution saves more effort than doing it yourself, then the people who need it won’t just let it all go to waste.
This is entirely a social issue of managing & rebuffing unrealistic expectations. It’s perfectly valid to set boundaries, remind folks beggars can’t be choosers, and tell them pitching in gets more done.