Register a SA Forums Account here!
JOINING THE SA FORUMS WILL REMOVE THIS BIG AD, THE ANNOYING UNDERLINED ADS, AND STUPID INTERSTITIAL ADS!!!

You can: log in, read the tech support FAQ, or request your lost password. This dumb message (and those ads) will appear on every screen until you register! Get rid of this crap by registering your own SA Forums Account and joining roughly 150,000 Goons, for the one-time price of $9.95! We charge money because it costs us money per month for bills, and since we don't believe in showing ads to our users, we try to make the money back through forum registrations.
 
  • Post
  • Reply
rotor
Jun 11, 2001

Official Carrier
of the Neil Bush Torch

 
 
 
 
teh butts


Cybernetic Vermin posted:

which is not fully comparable, but analogous in that that too is pretty hosed up.

its pretty similar.

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

rotor
Jun 11, 2001

Official Carrier
of the Neil Bush Torch

 
 
 
 
teh butts


if that's what MrMoo was talking about then yeah. That's definitely a thing, but at very least the industry has, over the last many years, explicitly called it out as deplorable.

rotor
Jun 11, 2001

Official Carrier
of the Neil Bush Torch

 
 
 
 
teh butts


qirex posted:

a lot of early career designers get caught up in spec work or contests/bakeoffs to try to build out their portfolios

i mean my sense of the situation is that this still happens, but not as much as previously, and it's roundly acknowledged as a lovely side of the industry, please correct me if I'm wrong

FMguru
Sep 10, 2003

peed on;
sexually

a lot of prestigious fields (showbiz, publishing, broadcasting, journalism, government, etc) require people to spend several years working as unpaid or barely paid interns before they build up their contacts and resume enough to land a real job

and surprise surprise, those fields are overwhelmingly made up of people who had the family resources to pay their bills (usually in an eyewateringly-expensive city like NY/SF/LA/DC) in their twenties while they basically gave up their work for free

rotor
Jun 11, 2001

Official Carrier
of the Neil Bush Torch

 
 
 
 
teh butts


idk i feel like its different from music industry internships but then when i actually think about it maybe it's really not. hmmm.

power botton
Nov 2, 2011



a kinda parallel situation is art galleries and artists. in my mind thats kinda spec work.

gallery does a show, artist needs to frame and ship everything over and pray it gets sold. gallery pockets 50 to 60% of whatever is sold.

artist is assuming just about all of the risk and up front effort hoping it pays out later

rotor
Jun 11, 2001

Official Carrier
of the Neil Bush Torch

 
 
 
 
teh butts


power botton posted:

a kinda parallel situation is art galleries and artists. in my mind thats kinda spec work.

gallery does a show, artist needs to frame and ship everything over and pray it gets sold. gallery pockets 50 to 60% of whatever is sold.

artist is assuming just about all of the risk and up front effort hoping it pays out later

the difference in this case is that the artist gets paid with actual money if things actually sell. This is a case i feel is distinct from just giving your stuff away.

rotor
Jun 11, 2001

Official Carrier
of the Neil Bush Torch

 
 
 
 
teh butts


like selling things on commission isn't really the same as just giving them away

power botton
Nov 2, 2011



fair enough.

gallery system still blows though and is very exploitative.

rotor
Jun 11, 2001

Official Carrier
of the Neil Bush Torch

 
 
 
 
teh butts


i was 10 credits away from a fine arts degree so yeah I 100% agree.

FamDav
Mar 29, 2008


Cybernetic Vermin posted:

i think one of the biggest hurdles is precisely overcoming this: the incorrect idea that software is somehow largely worthless despite being huge business.

my bias here is that im a sweet child who never programmed outside of the 2010s and i work at a cloud provider

most (open source) software today is worthless, in that it has little value to anyone without something or someone ensuring its maintenance and operations. its easily replicable, it quickly goes insecure, and it can fail on you in mysterious, time consuming, and expensive ways. and most software isnt even written to be easily debuggable, maintainable, or observable. most companies dont want software, they want a service that fills their current needs, grows to support their new ones, and works reliably. if i had to make a halfbaked analogy to something i dont know very well, an mri machine is useless without a doctor to interpret the results and a technician to ensure its working correctly to deliver the "keeping you healthy" service. The only reason an MRI machine has value in isolation is that it uses rare parts and isn't easily replicated.

most maintainers dont get any of that and think their software (the product of their perfect brain) is the only thing of value when its not. the ones that do get it start up companies that provide maintenance and operation, and thats where they make a lot of money. they are also now wising up that without owning the underlying hardware they can never hope to compete with a cloud providers margin, so theyre adopting licenses that are open source EXCEPT they are the only ones who can sell it "as a service".

rotor
Jun 11, 2001

Official Carrier
of the Neil Bush Torch

 
 
 
 
teh butts


FamDav posted:


most maintainers dont get any of that and think their software (the product of their perfect brain) is the only thing of value when its not. the ones that do get it start up companies that provide maintenance and operation, and thats where they make a lot of money. they are also now wising up that without owning the underlying hardware they can never hope to compete with a cloud providers margin, so theyre adopting licenses that are open source EXCEPT they are the only ones who can sell it "as a service".

this is a weird angle to come at it from when software is literally the only thing you mentioned in your post that's given away freely.

rotor
Jun 11, 2001

Official Carrier
of the Neil Bush Torch

 
 
 
 
teh butts


i'm not saying compute or storage is valueless. I'm making the bold assertion that software has value as well, and that if programmers stopped giving it away for exposure maybe it might once again.

Achmed Jones
Oct 16, 2004





to be fair, lots of software has value. it's just software that has strong open-source competitors that doesn't

this is not a counter argument, obviously

MononcQc
May 29, 2007

"I believe I did, Bob."



exposure is something people die of, not something you want to work for

TimWinter
Mar 30, 2015


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Douglas_Crockford#%22Good,_not_Evil%22

This approach of licensing should be somehow mixed with unionizing deveolpers. That would encentivize fuckers to adopt a human rights clause, for sure.

Cybernetic Vermin
Apr 18, 2005



unionizing the code factory is one part, and while difficult to achieve in practice the structure is not very different from any union. i think the supplanting of open source is more akin to having the code artificers join the guild (e.g. submit their code to the right trust).

coding is a really broad category and the solutions will almost necessarily be different for different parts.

TimWinter
Mar 30, 2015


Wow, if over 90% of your developers are union you can use ALL THIS SOFTWARE. That sounds like an incentive structure to get individuals to contribute to code and companies to adopt it, despite (like google) doing everything they can to keep away from even mildly restrictive licenses.

FamDav
Mar 29, 2008


rotor posted:

this is a weird angle to come at it from when software is literally the only thing you mentioned in your post that's given away freely.

i'm not saying compute or storage is valueless. I'm making the bold assertion that software has value as well, and that if programmers stopped giving it away for exposure maybe it might once again.

the hardware has some level of intrinsic value because it is not easily replicable, same for the developer support to maintain and operate the software. most software by comparison has little intrinsic value because it is so easily replicated, whether because you have the source or the functionality is straightforward. i'll admit that there are certain niches of software where this doesn't hold and the software itself is sold for profit, and that's usually because the expertise required to build it is scarce.

i also dont get this giving it away for exposure bit. how much of the usable open source software out there is actually being written by people looking to break into the industry?

FamDav
Mar 29, 2008


Achmed Jones posted:

to be fair, lots of software has value. it's just software that has strong open-source competitors that doesn't

this is not a counter argument, obviously

i would generalize beyond open source here. the value of software that has an operations and maintenance overhead is effectively zero compared to the cost of supporting it, so the competitor who gives away the software but charges for support will probably come out on top.

rotor
Jun 11, 2001

Official Carrier
of the Neil Bush Torch

 
 
 
 
teh butts


FamDav posted:

most software by comparison has little intrinsic value because it is so easily replicated, whether because you have the source

yes, that's my issue here. That's problem #2.


quote:

or the functionality is straightforward.

there's lovely cheapo hardware AND software.

quote:

i also dont get this giving it away for exposure bit. how much of the usable open source software out there is actually being written by people looking to break into the industry?

I dont know, the issue isn't how much of the quaity open sores projects were motivated by work for exposure, the issue is that work for exposure is expected - in my experience of course, i have no metrics around what it's actually like. Nor am I inclined to believe such metrics exist.

Achmed Jones
Oct 16, 2004





ngl I think open-source contributions are one of those things that people think is necessary but generally aren't. in all the interviewing I've done, I've never made any sort of decision based on that. it's the same as having patents - cool if it's there, sure, but in no way necessary (or even important)

at least, I know that resume-building motivated a lot of my FOSS stuff, but realistically it didn't do a ton for me. conference presentations that came from FOSS tools I wrote probably did 10x more, and all they did was give me something to talk about.

my FOSS contributions (esp the ones they turned into conference talks) have forced me to learn poo poo that makes me a good candidate and enables me to do well on interviews, but the actual releases and contributions and stuff aren't the important part. the important part is that I know more about x than most people, not that I wrote a tool to exploit x

I generally agree with the paper, and generally think the argument re: devaluing is valid. I just don't think that it's sound. of course, it is certainly sound for some dumbass orgs - just not for the software industry as a whole, in my experience.

it's also worth mentioning that FOSS is a great way to learn things from people with experience. just _having_ problems to work on with built-in userbases is extremely helpful for people who want to learn. much more so than coursera or whatever.

Tankakern
Jul 25, 2007



No More Free Work from Marak: Pay Me or Fork This

it made hn: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25032105

Cybernetic Vermin
Apr 18, 2005



he apparently lost all his precious metals in an apartment fire. will make anyone reflect on their important choices, like how they license their js.

the hn thread is pretty wild though

Jabor
Jul 16, 2010

#1 Loser at SpaceChem

hackers are surprised that if your license says "hey feel free to take this and use it commercially", people take what they wrote and use it commercially?

Cybernetic Vermin
Apr 18, 2005



Jabor posted:

hackers are surprised that if your license says "hey feel free to take this and use it commercially", people take what they wrote and use it commercially?

i'll freely admit to a certain idealistic naivity myself on the point yeah. not enough to ever put significant work into any open source, but enough to attach an importance to hugely 'successful' projects which i thought entirely separable from economic (and political) concerns.

rotor
Jun 11, 2001

Official Carrier
of the Neil Bush Torch

 
 
 
 
teh butts



hell yes. dont do volunteer work for facebook. it's already bad enough he gave them a bunch of source code, why is he doing maintenance for them as well?

rotor
Jun 11, 2001

Official Carrier
of the Neil Bush Torch

 
 
 
 
teh butts


so I was linked to this tweet

https://twitter.com/sailoremo/status/1327421594319212544

which turns out is about this article which echoes a lot of the things I was feeling that drove me to write that document:

https://www.boringcactus.com/2020/08/13/post-open-source.html

which links to the gently caress Around And Find Out license which I cannot help but love:

https://git.sr.ht/~boringcactus/fafol/tree/master/LICENSE.md

If anyone knows this person, please link them to my manifesto as I am curious to hear their feedback

rotor fucked around with this message at 06:21 on Nov 16, 2020

Doctor Nick
Dec 27, 2003



rotor posted:

If anyone knows this person, please link them to my manifesto as I am curious to hear their feedback

ze just saw this, where is your manifesto?

edit: nvm, found it: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1h__zP17eMoSXntHq6Jo7nKxRB8DoCOcVZ794Qd4LEA4/edit#heading=h.6xub6zq06g7c

edit 2: Ze says "I totally agree with all the problems you bring up and I think framing it as an abdication of responsibility is a good way to approach it. also my email is on the home page of my website so if you want to get in touch directly feel free, I love talking about this stuff" (https://boringcactus.com)

Doctor Nick fucked around with this message at 07:03 on Nov 16, 2020

rotor
Jun 11, 2001

Official Carrier
of the Neil Bush Torch

 
 
 
 
teh butts


Doctor Nick posted:

ze just saw this, where is your manifesto?

edit: nvm, found it: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1h__zP17eMoSXntHq6Jo7nKxRB8DoCOcVZ794Qd4LEA4/edit#heading=h.6xub6zq06g7c

edit 2: Ze says "I totally agree with all the problems you bring up and I think framing it as an abdication of responsibility is a good way to approach it. also my email is on the home page of my website so if you want to get in touch directly feel free, I love talking about this stuff" (https://boringcactus.com)

aw cool thanks!

I'll email hir like a grandpa i guess

Tankakern
Jul 25, 2007



someone needs a forums account

rotor
Jun 11, 2001

Official Carrier
of the Neil Bush Torch

 
 
 
 
teh butts


Tankakern posted:

someone needs a forums account

it sure ain't me I tell you what

Bourricot
Aug 7, 2016




https://twitter.com/boring_cactus/status/1328233432942477314

Captain Foo
May 11, 2004

we vibin'
we slidin'
we breathin'
we dyin'


lmao

MononcQc
May 29, 2007

"I believe I did, Bob."



I rather like how this is both ambiguous and unambiguous:

quote:

This software must be used for Good, not Evil, as determined by the primary contributors to the software.

It is obvious the primary contributors are in charge. The thing obviously unclear is what do the primary contributors believe is good and what is evil.
I figure this is not the problem of the primary contributors though, and there is no requirement for anyone to give a gently caress what such ethics are meant to be but the users.

I'm interested in knowing how someone who wants as many users as possible would handle this. Would you just link to some philosopher's writing and say "look, I'm a kantian person who believes in a moral imperative" and another one go "I'm more of a situational ethicist and therefore love has to be the root of anything you do with this" and some guy goes "I read marcus aurelius and I'm super into stoicism so you can only use this as long as I don't think you're being too emotional right now"

don't get me wrong I'd never expect any of this to take place, but I'd sorta love having more software devs going "let me think about what constitute ethics for myself before I publish anything" even if it's limited to "I listened to half a podcast, slept during philosophy in college, but I watched The Good Place and here's my take" (it's a good tv show okay)

qirex
Feb 15, 2001



the "someone who wants as many users as possible" model is the current default. any restrictive license will reduce the pool of potential people and orgs who would use it, but that's the point if you don't want palantir to fulfill ice contracts using tech you created

MononcQc
May 29, 2007

"I believe I did, Bob."



qirex posted:

the "someone who wants as many users as possible" model is the current default. any restrictive license will reduce the pool of potential people and orgs who would use it, but that's the point if you don't want palantir to fulfill ice contracts using tech you created

Well on one end there's the current nonrestrictive licenses. On the other end is closed source where nobody sees your code.

By virtue of picking a license somewhere in between both, in this case the "gently caress around and find out license", you're ready to play with a dial where you try to balance "people who use this" with "does good/does no harm".

If you're more on the side of "I don't really care how many people use this", then you can afford to be as ambiguous as possible because you keep control on impact by revoking or granting licenses. If you're wanting to be a bit more self-serve ("people adopt the license and I get more users with less policing") then you would arguably want to clarify the ethics by which you will revoke or grant licenses, no?

MononcQc
May 29, 2007

"I believe I did, Bob."



you can keep using this software license as long as you can convince two or more chuds to wear a mask in public while this pandemic unfolds

rotor
Jun 11, 2001

Official Carrier
of the Neil Bush Torch

 
 
 
 
teh butts


stand up and say "The limits of my language means the limits of my world” to renew license

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

Hammerite
Mar 9, 2007

And you don't remember what I said here, either, but it was pompous and stupid.

Jade Ear Joe

quote:

No Liability
As far as the law allows, this software comes as is, without any warranty or condition, and no contributor will be liable to anyone for any damages related to this software or this license, under any kind of legal claim.

is this bit explicit enough to count as disclaiming implied warranties?

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • Post
  • Reply