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
Progressive JPEG
Feb 19, 2003



if you own the copyright to the whole project (aka haven’t accepted contributions from other people or other people signed over copyright to you) then I think you can change the license whenever you want, but I think this doesn’t retroactively apply to previous copies that had been distributed under the prior license

so like google or fsf projects where they require all contributors to sign over copyright can be switched over whenever but the Linux kernel with thousands of contributors (some now dead and represented by their estates) would be easier to rewrite than to get a new license. the fsf at least argue that they do this for another reason: as the copyright holder to a whole project it makes it easier for the fsf to enforce the license if there’s a violation

but I am not a lawyer and this is not legal advice, so spend the :20bux: to get a real opinion if you’re serious about it

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

Progressive JPEG
Feb 19, 2003



ive got a dns filter thing I’m working on that is prototype stage rn but pretty much :can: in the hands of Bad People. thinking pretty hard about switching it from stock gpl3 to one of these

i wonder what the og Open Source peeps takes are on the idea nowadays. I mean mid-2000s they were all “can be used by abortion clinics and antiabortion protestors alike!!” but I wonder if they’ve changed their tone since then

Progressive JPEG
Feb 19, 2003



MononcQc posted:

Hot off the presses is icebreaker.dev, a website that finds the current ICE practices in the US to be troubling cases of human rights abuses (rightfully so), and tries to call out all code authors and maintainers in the open-source world to participate in protests and donating to orgs fighting concentration camps on US soil, but also encourages tech people to adopt a new license which forces ethical behaviour (listed below), or to just flat out pull your code from public repositories:

quote:

Copyright 2019 Coraline Ada Ehmke

Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any person obtaining a copy of this software and associated documentation files (the "Software"), to deal in the Software without restriction, including without limitation the rights to use, copy, modify, merge, publish, distribute, sublicense, and/or sell copies of the Software, and to permit persons to whom the Software is furnished to do so, subject to the following conditions:

The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be included in all copies or substantial portions of the Software.

The software may not be used by individuals, corporations, governments, or other groups for systems or activities that actively and knowingly endanger, harm, or otherwise threaten the physical, mental, economic, or general well-being of other individuals or groups in violation of the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

THE SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED "AS IS", WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY, FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE AND NONINFRINGEMENT. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE AUTHORS OR COPYRIGHT HOLDERS BE LIABLE FOR ANY CLAIM, DAMAGES OR OTHER LIABILITY, WHETHER IN AN ACTION OF CONTRACT, TORT OR OTHERWISE, ARISING FROM, OUT OF OR IN CONNECTION WITH THE SOFTWARE OR THE USE OR OTHER DEALINGS IN THE SOFTWARE.

This license is derived from the MIT License, as amended to limit the impact of the unethical use of open source software.

something that icebreaker.dev site linked to was a nonprofit Corporate Accountability Lab who had written a pair of licenses of their own (one for software, the other for general works), with the bonus of having actual lawyers involved in the process of constructing them

they have a series of blog posts from way back in 2018 that go over how the licenses were designed. one thing mentioned there is that they specifcally ruled out just referring to the human rights declaration:

quote:

Our initial drafts attempted to incorporate other principles, declarations, and conventions of law by reference (e.g., UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights, Universal Declaration of Human Rights, etc.), to promulgate the standards that a business must follow to receive license to use the copyrighted work. A problem that we found with this approach is that such declarations and conventions are generally written to nation-states and are phrased at such abstract levels that would-be licensees could have some legitimate grievances with the ambiguity of terms that we otherwise want to be strong and defensible in the realm of contract law. Contractual conditions that are subjective and difficult to assess or otherwise measure are generally frowned upon in effective contract drafting, so we wanted to figure out something cleaner.
so there may be some risk to having a contract that just says 'you must adhere to this broad set of principles according to how i interpret them'. for example if anyone posts yet another loving loss edit i'm going to cut them off under article 5 of the declaration so loving fast

ps: how many .dev domains does coraline run? i think i've hit like five different ones so far when reading up on this stuff, each looking like different rebrands of the same (commendable) idea. tbh it doesn't give me much confidence that this latest edition is going to be getting regular maintenance

Progressive JPEG
Feb 19, 2003



MononcQc posted:

The lawyery ones are interesting. I'm still torn on the idea of EULA-like clauses into copyright licenses. Bryan Cantrill has a good blog post on that front (written in the context of companies trying to get AWS to not just wrap OSS poo poo and charge for it): http://dtrace.org/blogs/bmc/2018/12/16/a-eula-in-foss-clothing/
imo that argument would be equally applicable to any copyleft license, which additionally also generally read like EULAs. turns out effective licenses tend to avoid being ambiguous

Progressive JPEG
Feb 19, 2003



at this point I think the “meritocracy” people and the “open source” (as defined by the OSI) people are effectively two sides of the same coin - convinced that a short set of rules cannot result in externalities

Progressive JPEG
Feb 19, 2003



ended up going with the hippocratic license for the dns thing. in true istp spirit its very much a prototype and im the only contributor so i just rewrote the git history with the new license and thereby effectively removed distribution under the prior license (which was gpl3)

had mainly looked at these three options:

- hippocratic license (mentioned by OP): now on v1.2, their faq claims that it's gotten some(?) legal review at least so thats cool, but they still say its in draft stages so who knows. worst case ill just rewrite history again when there's a new version :q:

- corporate accountability lab license: also looks fine, but its got a weird thing where the licensor/developer is expected to "register" their use of the license with the lab. this seems kinda bullshit, particularly if you think about derivative works and whether that would result in a new licensor who would also need to register? what if the registration doesn't work anymore?? i had sent the lab an email asking about this and didnt hear anything back (but i only gave em like 18 hours)

- then there's this one where they've basically got a big ol bulleted list of things they dont like. for example "deforestation" is great when part of a scheduled harvest/replant program: captures carbon much more effectively and also creates building materials for housing, win/win

Progressive JPEG
Feb 19, 2003



just got an email back from corporate accountability lab and it sounds like they don't mind if the license language is edited to omit the registration requirement:

quote:

Thanks so much for your email and your interest in +CAL. Yes, feel free to make the modification that you proposed. Our intention with the language was really so that we could track the usage, so even if you change the language, we would love to hear how you are using it and any feedback you have.

so they actually seem pretty alright too if anyone's looking at them, and tbh it feels like they've put in a lot more real lawyer hours into what they're trying to accomplish than the other two options.

if anyone ends up using +CAL i'd recommend being a cool person and letting them know about it anyway since it looks like they do good stuff in general. after getting that response id seriously consider using them.

however the license itself seems to be more around keeping corps in line and specifically mentions "commercial entities" and "supply lines", as such it looks like its a bit more specifically focused on the nonprofit's mission

Progressive JPEG
Feb 19, 2003



rotor posted:

I think getting a good license up front is good but I think a clause that the author retains the right to deny use to anyone at any time is the only practical way to actually avoid having your code used for unethical purposes.

i think this is what sorta owns with the hippocratic license. in my non-legal-not-a-lawyer-nor-an-expert opinion its sufficiently vague to be poisonous to any corporate or government legal department while individual users wouldn't really be affected. it's like 'don't do evil' jslint territory

Progressive JPEG posted:

for example if anyone posts yet another loving loss edit i'm going to cut them off under article 5 of the declaration so loving fast

Progressive JPEG
Feb 19, 2003



Captain Foo posted:

The problem is if the enforcement is "or we get sued" that does jack and/or poo poo for an individual

there’s ambulance chasers for everything - if it’s a slam dunk case and you have no resources it’s possible to get someone to do it on commission

Progressive JPEG
Feb 19, 2003



I mean it’s not like busybox had a lot of money to kick the poo poo out of dozens of garbage hardware manufacturers, for example

Progressive JPEG
Feb 19, 2003



busybox is gpl licensed and hardware manufacturers were frequently not making available the busybox source for builds that they were distributing with their hardware, even after being contacted by busybox to fix it. it was usually real obvious by just looking at firmware upgrade blobs for the hardware in question

the following have all been owned by busybox, this is not a complete list:
- monsoon multimedia
- xterasys, high-gain antennas
- verizon
- bell microproducts, super micro
- best buy, samsung, westinghouse, jvc, western digital, bosch, phoebe micro, humax, comtrend, dobbs-stanford, versa, zyxel, astak, gci
- extreme networks

from reading up on it, sounds like they were usually settled out of court for a cash settlement

Progressive JPEG
Feb 19, 2003



suffix posted:

an ethical person would not use your library in their program, because while they too might want to control use of their code, they would not want you and other random people to be able to pull the rug on the people they grant use of their code to
the net effect is everyone mostly writes everything themselves, and any collaborative project gets denial-of-used to hell at the first falling out and has to be rewritten

sounds like job security comrade

Progressive JPEG
Feb 19, 2003



Hammerite posted:

Does the lack of availability of your code to other individuals (amateur coders, say) matter to you at all?

if they’re feeling that entitled to someone’s library or whatever then they should try going outside

Progressive JPEG
Feb 19, 2003



fwiw the earlier thing that I had relicensed is an end user product rather than a library so it’s really got no reason to need a particular license in order to be useful to people

the math is a bit different if you’re making a library, but making libraries is also a huge thankless pita where the best case scenario is a bunch of morons regularly demanding you reorder the cosmos for free in order to support their niche use cases

which is why I’m not writing libraries

Progressive JPEG
Feb 19, 2003



turns out AGPL has a huge loophole:

quote:

13. Remote Network Interaction...

Notwithstanding any other provision of this License, if you modify the Program, your modified version must prominently offer all users interacting with it remotely through a computer network ... an opportunity to receive the Corresponding Source of your version ...

loophole: if you leave the program as-is and just wrap it behind a shim or proxy that changes behavior or adds functionality then you’re good to go

turns out there’s a reason mongodb gave up on dual licensing with agpl and instead wrote their own license

meanwhile OSI, stewards of licenses that haven’t seen an update in at least a decade, pretend everything is fine

Progressive JPEG
Feb 19, 2003



point being that the OSI is completely loving up the stated reason for their existence by ignoring any license that isn’t at least 20 years old

turns out the software development ecosystem has changed a fair bit in that time, and by ignoring modern problems in open software, OSI are effectively causing the very “license proliferation” that they claim to be so worried about

if they cared they’d just pick up and declare a “standard” license for all these developers who don’t want to get hosed by amazon

Progressive JPEG
Feb 19, 2003



reuse of open source code as depriving developers of experience, and depriving users of better rewrites of things:

quote:

Duplicating effort, not reusing work product, makes good software. Because duplicating effort, not reusing work product, makes good programmers. Technical progress is people progress. Openness makes software better if it makes programmers better.

Alas, the sensibilities of thoroughly developed coders often turn on duplication of effort as soon as it has worked its magic on them. Instead of ten implementations of an approach, each of which gets a different ninety percent of the way there, the engineering ideal, conceived top-down, craves a single, shared, golden reference standard. It advances that implementation in lock step with the validated state of the art. It eliminates the conditions—the crucial human conditions—that made itself possible.

Prevailing thought about open source reinforces this self-limiting reflex. Public development puts source code out there. Generous licenses permit reuse of what’s been found. Forks and self-governance facilitate improvement and maintenance, percolating new optimizations and approaches down to widely adopted projects. In this frame of mind, open source exists both for and because of reuse. Reuse is what software “wants”, and software gets what it wants. So the path to broad, free distribution was duly blazed, paved, and named. That’s “open source”, just as the universe ordered.

This rather closed view of openness privileges some aspects of what open practice is and does, while harshly downplaying and eliding others. For example, reuse-focused views of open software systematically undervalue open source code as something for “users” to read rather than to run, as a vector of education, as existence proofs for solutions to difficult problems rather than componentized embodiments of solutions. It undervalues the effect that imitation, reengineering, and straight-up cloning has on what ends up available to use. It mistakenly assumes that reuse can afford educational value on par with imitation, or that the benefit of imitation evaporates on graduation from a credible computer science curriculum.

Linux remains the obvious example of imitative bounty. No Unix, no Minix. No Minix, no Linux. No Linux, no Linus as we know him now. But Linux is almost thirty years old. Both before and since, we have seen a nearly constant cycle of reimplementation, imitation, and accretion in the form of new programming languages, frameworks, architectures, and talent.

Each upstart technology bidding to take the spotlight eventually comes under pressure to cover both the enduring standards and the hits of its immediate predecessor. Those gaps represent wide open windows of opportunity for new and less established programmers, who swoop in to port, reimplement, and adapt the “golden oldies” to the style, substance, and fashion of the aspiring new hotness. The experience envelops them, socializes them, and levels them up, even if they came to the work with substantial prior experience. Results flow from and contribute to the wave of popularity carrying both new system and early contributors to new notoriety and opportunity.

Ruby begat Rails, which remade web programming. Rails in turn begat Node, which self-consciously sought a blank slate, without blocking I/O baggage. But no sooner did the core of Node take shape than new began to imitate old, prolifically. Package management. Web server middleware. Test frameworks. Libraries. And so on. Countless new project identities, and countless personal reputations for very visible contribution, filled the gap, expanding to fill newly available space.

Rewriting, rather than reusing, frequently forces programmers into code they may have depended on for countless projects but never actually read or otherwise considered from the authors’ point of view. The naivete of the newcomer, together with the strong imperatives of the new platform, sets them on collision course with both the wisdom of prior coders, which they often helpfully lack, and the folly of the prior implementation’s assumptions and constraints, which they aren’t informed enough to impose on themselves.

Beginner mind works its magic, recreating afresh and refining in the process. As a side effect, it renders the mind beginner no more. Which prepares the cycle for another round of uninitiated, undisciplined, thoroughly rejuvenating newcomer energy. The cleaner, more distilled, more insightful prior art each generation leaves behind better nourishes the next.

Convicting this cycle for waste misses two crucial points.

First, riding this cycle is fun. It’s engrossing. It’s exciting. It lends to programming a sense of creativity and opportunity and novelty that reusing other folks’ work does not. Software isn’t capable of wanting anything, but programmers are. What programmers find fulfilling, we should expect to see a lot of.

More importantly as concerns open source, progress, from a programmer-centric view of programming, doesn’t lie in an taller heap of tools, bits, and pieces in the great programming tool shed in the sky. It lies in developing programmers who converse in a richer vocabulary of techniques and solutions, relieved of the heavier burden of inventing and implementing unguided, in unmapped territory.

Just as videos of skateboard tricks, calligraphy, guitar licks, woodworking projects, hair braids, and myriad other feats of craft and skill vastly accelerate progression in those endeavors, existence proofs for software methods and applications expand the well charted territory of programming. They raise the baseline. When you’ve seen it done, you know it can be done. And you know it’s a thing you can do. Wisdom’s a bit like a trap-door function in that way. It’s hard to get anywhere new in the first place. But once you get there, if you learn to teach the way, others can follow much more easily than you led.

In more colloquial terms, publicly available software—free or not, open or not, with source code or not—expands the boundaries of what programmers think “can’t be so hard”. Practically speaking, that thought is usually wrong. Great software looks simple from one point of view: the user’s. Don a different hat, see a very different picture.

But in an equally practical sense, “can’t be so hard” hubris is usually correct. The time frame and context have changed. Freed of uncertainty about whether it can be done, the coder faces a purer, smaller, more tractable challenge. Starting with given knowledge of a variation that worked, without the noise of all the prior iterations that didn’t, bestows an enormous head start. Maintenance, customer relations, fundraising, and business don’t magically become easy or optional. But the starting point for the grind advances.

We say that possession is nine tenths of the law. Publication is nine tenths of open source. Psychologically, the biggest leap we take is deciding to work in the open, hushing our anxieties about embarrassing commits, throwaway designs, and dirty, uncommented, unrepentantly functional code that puts the lie to any lingering delusion of gobsmacking architectural genius.

Tactically, putting software online also surrenders the strongest form of commercial protection available—secrecy—forfeiting the fantasy of universal esteem and control. The Internet is not a person. It cannot and does not want. But tons of folks using the Internet want free stuff, test their limits, and discover what they can get away with. Which is a lot, until the money involved overwhelms enforcement costs.

The same Internet-enabled promiscuity that makes so many of us genre-hopping culture hoarders—not entirely unrelated to getting away with things on the Internet—can make us programming polyglots, too. The result isn’t specialization in any number of problems that only make sense and matter to other programmers—database guy, compiler girl, front-end cowboy, edit distance scholar—but a kind of diversely reinforced, adaptable competence applicable to practical, real-world problems, as well. The proposition isn’t either-or. We can and do have both.

In probing the biographies of the programmers I look up to—many of whom wouldn’t readily describe themselves as “programmers” at all—the pattern I cannot unsee is a marked rejection of software consumerism. At various points in their development, they all eschewed or simply ignored existing solutions, despite wide availability, accessibility, and low cost, for prolonged periods of what seem, myopically, like intensely wasteful exercises in reinventing the universe. There wasn’t anything obviously new to produce. But producing, not consuming, gave them joy. So they reproduced old until new came in range, often to no greater surprise than their own.

A harsh discipline: If you haven’t tried to build one yourself, don’t use it from anyone else. If you want to know what you’re doing, do it yourself. Don’t skip to reuse at the expense of the real opportunity a need or project represents. You’ll end up like collectors who never use their collectibles: investing ever more resources in containers and storage space, or paying someone else a lot of money to keep things neat, comprehensible, and enjoyable.

Progressive JPEG
Feb 19, 2003



there's a v2.0 of the hippocratic license out now - its moved from being MIT with an additional clause tacked on to being a mix of mostly original terms mixed with a sprinkling of MIT boilerplate. it sounds like the license itself still needs work but it feels like its getting there

Progressive JPEG
Feb 19, 2003



also found the Parity License, which is copyleft except without any of the easily abused "distribution" , "linking", or "modified version" loopholes of GPL/AGPL. if you use software under this license then gently caress you, you have 30 days to publish it and everything you use it with. another neat thing is the license itself is pretty much plain english

Progressive JPEG
Feb 19, 2003



carry on then posted:

that "excuse" section sounds like it could be abused to hell and back

eh it'd mean that nobody knows theyre using it (and nobody is snitching on them) so seems kinda like a tree falling in woods situation

and i imagine its better to lay out specific steps for resolving the violation than not

i also imagine 30 days is enough time for them to realize theyre hosed and to pull out their checkbook to pay for an exception

Progressive JPEG
Feb 19, 2003



hippocratic license now has a v2.1 and has moved quite a bit from its “mit plus a clause or two” origins

it’s might actually be getting into the territory of not necessarily being a poison pill for commercial use, adding a bit about “Hague Rules on Business and Human Rights Arbitration” for arbitrating disagreements

one interesting thing, that doesn’t really relate to the ethics bits, is: “Licensee must cause any modified versions of the Software to carry prominent notices stating that Licensee changed the Software.”

Progressive JPEG
Feb 19, 2003



Captain Foo posted:

You think anyone would commercially use that, when it reduces their right to force you into regular corporate arbitration?

to be clear i am still in favor of commercial poison pills

if you want to use this hobby project commercially then sure, email me and lets figure out a price

Progressive JPEG
Feb 19, 2003



the author of a software law blog that i've been following announced a couple template licenses:

quote:

Normally Open says “Everything not prohibited is permitted.” You get to fill in what’s prohibited.
Normally Closed says “Everything not permitted is prohibited.” You get to fill in what’s permitted.

obv more interested in the Normally Closed one

Progressive JPEG
Feb 19, 2003



mozilla is one of the few places that i think of as actually doing good work so it's a shame that they're apparently unraveling

Progressive JPEG
Feb 19, 2003



the law blog that I keep repeatedly linking had a post about "cross-license collaboratives", an agreement between contributors for deciding how project is run:

quote:

Cross-license collaboratives start with a kind of contributor license agreement, but instead of giving special license powers to a single company or developer, contributors give special license powers to each other. Those special powers come with a catch: they can only be used on behalf of the project as a whole, supported by a vote of fellow contributors.

the post mainly talks about this being a way to structure payments to project members and allow changing the user license over time, but it also hints at this being a way to block access entirely:

quote:

In some cases, collaboratives may choose not to apply any public license to their work at all. They may offer licenses only for sale, or give a license that only applies to contributors. The project then becomes a kind of club good, free for contributors but paid for anyone else.

the author also set up a website with an example agreement

Progressive JPEG
Feb 19, 2003



i'm thinking the fafol could be used alongside a note to contact the developer(s) for an alternative license. it looks like it'd be a great poison pill for anyone with a legal team while the normies/hobbyists would be fine with it. technically closed source projects could also use fafol in order to have access to the revoke option, since lack of source code doesn't prevent bad people from exploiting software either. also the explicitly subjective nature of the license starts to get into the territory of a software coop where the members are deciding who to let in, but participating in a committee for something like that sounds like hell to me

i've been using the hippocratic license (also mentioned in the blog post) to fill a similar poison pill role. i think fafol could accomplish the same thing with less boilerplate, and it feels like the spirit/tone is a bit more in line with what i'd want to convey in a hobby project license, when the hippocratic one feels more academic. but fafol does come at the cost of more swearing which is kinda lovely

Progressive JPEG fucked around with this message at 20:49 on Nov 16, 2020

Progressive JPEG
Feb 19, 2003



found a good list of licenses

i think my favorite is the Don't Ask Me About It License

quote:

Copying and distribution of this file, with or without modification, are permitted in any medium provided you do not contact the author about the file or any problems you are having with the file.

quote:

License

Licensed under itself. Don't bother emailing me about it.

or the license that only allows use on behalf of people who are dead

Progressive JPEG
Feb 19, 2003



amazon seems pretty mad about not being able to so blatantly rip off elastic anymore

Progressive JPEG
Feb 19, 2003



they didn't manage to get a trademark on open source so all they can do is whine

pretty good quote from that article if you don't wanna read the whole thing:

quote:

I now see the OSI story as a two year triumph and a twenty year tragedy. The work OSI existed to do is long done, carrying off a marketing coup in 1998. What’s left is preserving that hallowed memory, and the wisps of buzz still gassing off it, as a wasting asset to 2020 and beyond. And minting credentials of proximity to the power that had been, at the beginning.

OSI now does more to stymie opposition to industry abuses than to galvanize it. It is like the startup that, having long since made its highest placed funders and founders rich, lumbers on in the trappings of a dated incumbent, courting unequal partnerships with patrons nearer their prime. In more practical terms, it’s unclear what initiative the Initiative has left, apart from policing the term “open source” across social media.

But there’s no such thing as police without law.

Progressive JPEG
Feb 19, 2003



rotor posted:

Sure, I'll agree with this, but i'm not sure if this is some follow-on commentary or an objection to some part of that long fuckin doc

My whole deal is about taking responsibility for the use of your software by maintaining control of who gets to use it. Its a moral argument about whether I am culpable when my work is used for evil. My assertion is that if you have simple, easy ways to avoid your work being used for evil and you dont avail yourself of them, then yes, you bear some culpability. If I leave a loaded shotgun laying around with a note that says "If you're hungry, use this to shoot a goose. Please dont use it for crimes." and someone picks it up and uses it to murder a bunch of children, I feel like we as a society would say that yeah, I bear some moral responsibility for that. Same deal with machine vision algorithms.

Liability concerns are a legal thing and I haven't spent much time thinking about it.

the more accurate analogy is a note that says "I would personally prefer you didn't do crimes but arbitrary principles dictate that you should do whatever you want, wink wink"

quote:

No Discrimination Against Fields of Endeavor

The license must not restrict anyone from making use of the program in a specific field of endeavor. For example, it may not restrict the program from being used in a business, or from being used for genetic research.

Progressive JPEG
Feb 19, 2003



there isn't really a community when it comes to the OSI. input isn't welcome, everyone should follow doctrine and the course must not change regardless of where it's headed. if anything its worse now, i don't think the OSI of today would approve any copyleft licenses for example. ultimately it's a lobbying organization centered around making sure that everyone sticks to permissive licensing, since its sponsors hate the idea of being told they can't do something

Progressive JPEG
Feb 19, 2003



i have some idiot spare time rust stuff and if one of the dependencies started spamming in a for loop i'd just lol out loud at it

sure there'd be some annoyance with needing to pin a not-busted version but ultimately not a big deal. it wouldn't be the first time i've had a dependency introduce a regression

so i think the "this hurts the little people just as much" argument is a bit bullshit, it's not like my desktop music visualizer or half finished DNS server have an SLA or paying customers

Progressive JPEG
Feb 19, 2003



Gazpacho posted:

maybe set up and advertise a business entity that companies can pay for work done, regardless how it is licensed? something that this guy likely knew how to do as a startup founder

oh wait, that's something you'd do if you actually want to rise out of your predicament, not drag others into it

approaching US healthcare levels of building solutions to problems that shouldn't exist

Progressive JPEG
Feb 19, 2003



on the other hand a software guild/union where anyone that isnt a dues paying member can't use the software is something that i'd be in for

Progressive JPEG
Feb 19, 2003



FWIW i split the difference with stuff where the source is technically available for "portfolio"/showing off purposes but it's all istp stuff that's not relevant to commercial interests, while also using a poison pill license on top of that just in case

so the work is technically "exposed" (since i like showing it off anyway) but it's not given away

Progressive JPEG
Feb 19, 2003



also quick ad for sourcehut which fits this model really well because:
- the issue tracker is your personal TODO list, not someone else's way to get free work. user reports can only be sent via mailing lists
- mailing lists are an optional feature and you can just have repos that effectively don't accept bug reports

Progressive JPEG
Feb 19, 2003



looking forward to this turning out to be a gonzo marketing stunt for a new show on comedy central cartoon network

Progressive JPEG
Feb 19, 2003



Progressive JPEG
Feb 19, 2003



i work on some typescript stuff and yeah some transitive dependencies via test tooling pulled in the latest version of the colors library

it just broke CI for a while, but whatever that whole ecosystem is just eternally throwing poo poo at the wall anyway so it's not any more busted than usual

so it was personally an annoyance for me but i think for most people it's basically a warning shot for why you should pin dependencies if it's anything that matters

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

Progressive JPEG
Feb 19, 2003




texas.jpg

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