Slashdot Mirror
Assuring Users When Closed Software Becomes Open?
joeldg asks: "I just recently decided to go open source with a project I have been doing for some time. After initially going open source I have had an avalanche of questions from users about what 'Open Source' means and how it will affect them. Many are scared of the implications and the broad new sweeping changes others could make in the project. My question is how do you alleviate the fears of over 5,000 dedicated users and get them to accept the idea of the project going open source and also keep some track of the project so that you can direct the current userbase to new sites running the code?"
Write a FAQ like every other open source project in the world
I have had an avalanche of questions from users about what 'Open Source' means and how it will affect them. Many are scared of the implications....
Sometimes, people don't believe a thing's valuable unless they have to pay for it. (And often with good reason; ad-ware's a case in point.)
Some other people don't feel they have any control over you, without having paid you, and thus having something (theoretically) to sue about.
So offer to sell these doubters a support contract, or specialized installation or customization.
Opinions on the Twiddler2 hand-held keyboard?
"As long as you use MY version, it's the same as closed-source, except that I receive contributions more readily, and can't start charging you for it [or you'd get my version elsewhere]. But if I start fucking you over and my version starts sucking, because I'm trying to limit what you're able to do, then you can find a version of MY SOFTWARE that doesn't include my fucking you over, and it's totally legit. Imagine if Microsoft had to deal with the idea that if they did things to alienate their users, their users would run not simply WINE, which is okay at running SOME windows programs, but WINDOWS ITSELF, only without the crippling antifeatures. At the most basic level, open source means that if your "benign dictatorship" isn't all that benign, they can get the same dictatorship with all the benignity they want, for FREE, elsewhere. It's democracy. It's Freedom. It's.... OPEN SOURCE."
I think that it probably important to let them know that even though the source is now available, not just anybody will be allowed to access the "official" version. You are still the gatekeeper, and what gets done to the code goes through first.
When I want your opinion I will beat it out of you.
From the looks of things, you're not just releasing the sources but also getting away from hosting the system. I'd imagine that users are going to be a lot more concerned about who is doing the hosting from this point on than how the software is distributed.
One possibility would be to keep a page with a list of sites that offer the service. A nice plus would be to keep track of user ratings as well -- maybe even keep hosting one board (on your own site or even on SF) where users can discuss and review the options.
It would help to have a real summary of what the project is on the SourceForge Summary page. The way you have the Summary page set up now, when your (probably not-quite-as-geeky-as-you) users look at the pointer you provide them to SourceForge, they are going to be overwhelmed by how technical and intimidating it all looks.
I've seen a lot of SourceForge (and other, for that matter) projects that have this same issue. When you go to the Summary page to try to figure out what a project is all about, it instead says something like: Updated new version to fix build issues. Which is almost exactly the kind of content you have on yours now. Not very informative, and not very reassuring to normal users who tend to fear the unknown.
So while this would help your case a lot, I think it is also good advice in general for all SourceForge project owners: Write a blurb that clearly explains what your project is about! Hope this helps.