>I really don't understand this point of view - why release open source software if you don't care about your users, and only care about your contributors? To me you'd be better off NOT releasing it, and just keeping it all wrapped up and closed, then you wouldn't have to deal with the non-contributing users who want changes.
What is there NOT to understand?
You release it, because (not all at the same time):
1) You want and value the CONTRIBUTING users (that's your actual software's community).
2) You want it to be used by people but as it bloody is.
3) You want to make money off of it, and think the open source + support/extra services model works.
What I really don't understand are the complaints. Isn't one of the core benefits of open source that you can _change_ the source? If you don't like what DHH is doing, fork rails to your liking. But no, they want it there way AND in the upstream repository.
What is there NOT to understand?
You release it, because (not all at the same time):
1) You want and value the CONTRIBUTING users (that's your actual software's community).
2) You want it to be used by people but as it bloody is.
3) You want to make money off of it, and think the open source + support/extra services model works.
What I really don't understand are the complaints. Isn't one of the core benefits of open source that you can _change_ the source? If you don't like what DHH is doing, fork rails to your liking. But no, they want it there way AND in the upstream repository.