I don't agree with everything here. Open source really does mean that you just have all the code to rebuild the thing from scratch under the right sort of license. Open source doesn't mean anything else, like having access to design decisions.
That is acknowledged in the article. But the fact is that you can BE open source without doing the things that make open source WORK.
[...]
Elm users who are not happy should fork the code --- everything, including the ecosystem's dependencies on an ELM internet domain --- and maybe produce something that is completely self-contained. Software that relies on "phoning home" is a risk regardless of where that is hosted and whether the people are nasty or nice.
Why should unhappy Elm users do this instead of going to a language+environment that they don't have to fork to get something usable for them?
Leaving, even leaving with a long essay like this one, requires a lot less energy and commitment. And being in an environment where you can benefit from the future work of others is part of what makes open source work.
That is acknowledged in the article. But the fact is that you can BE open source without doing the things that make open source WORK.
[...] Elm users who are not happy should fork the code --- everything, including the ecosystem's dependencies on an ELM internet domain --- and maybe produce something that is completely self-contained. Software that relies on "phoning home" is a risk regardless of where that is hosted and whether the people are nasty or nice.
Why should unhappy Elm users do this instead of going to a language+environment that they don't have to fork to get something usable for them?
Leaving, even leaving with a long essay like this one, requires a lot less energy and commitment. And being in an environment where you can benefit from the future work of others is part of what makes open source work.