Fairly recently I started maintaining my own open source JavaScript library. I created it to solve a pretty specific need but fairly regularly see questions that can be solved (in whole/part) by using my library.
I post my answer and make sure to always include that I maintain the library.
I feel for open source projects this may not be such a big deal but where do you draw the line? (ex: commercial products) Is it ethical for a programmer to promote his/her own library? When is it not?
Why would it be unethical? You are not making financial gains, and it also lets readers know that:
I suppose if you are really worried about it, you could always try to mention any similar library that might be used to solve the same problem, and quickly compare yours to theirs.
This has been discussed on Meta Stack Overflow.
On these sites, you should suggest your software if it's a good and appropriate solution. Suggesting it when it isn't is going to be seen as spam. You do need to disclose your relationship.
This applies regardless of whether the software is F/OSS or proprietary commercial, although people may be more forgiving of honest error for F/OSS.
If you really believe that your library is a good solution for a specific case, I don't see anything wrong with promoting it. Since you developed it, you probably have a good understanding of the domain and of other solutions so that makes you more qualified to suggest a solutions than others who have no such experience.
It depends....
When answering, do you only say to yourself, "my library could solve that problem" or do you say "my library is a great solution for that problem"?
The second is definitely OK. The first could be slightly unethical, even with your disclaimer, in the sense that you ought to be answering questions with the best answer possible. If not, you're selling, and Q&A shouldn't be used for selling (even if no money is at stake).
Keep in mind that a library won't be a great solution if much of it will go unused.
Sure it is ethical... That's what the open source developers do in conferences, to promote they own products. After all, if you don't care of your own products, who will? The competition? Anyway the user is the one that is going to have the final say, and ultimately the choice is in their hands.
The only time it would not be ethical is when you work for a company and "convince" (notice the quotes?) the management to buy your own product.
With everything free you lose a lot of liabilities.
Besides, eating your own dog food is regarded as a proof of value
If it solves the problem at hand, then it is mechanically relevant, there's no doubting that.
I'm sure people would appreciate some disclosure like "I am the author of this library". Not necessary per se but strongly, strongly encouraged and expected. The doubt of ethics isn't the inclusion of the library but the reveal of you authoring it. Which you should always do.
It is definitely ethical. Sometimes it is better to receive support directly from author of the technology, especially, if the author offers better solution.
On the other hand the current form of disclosure of affiliation is like an excuse: "Sorry, I am an author of this technology..., but the right answer is...". I think it is better to have special icon for the answer "Answer from author". This is wont be an excuse, but Additional information for participants.
