Skip to content
  • Hjem
  • Seneste
  • Etiketter
  • Populære
  • Verden
  • Bruger
  • Grupper
Temaer
  • Light
  • Brite
  • Cerulean
  • Cosmo
  • Flatly
  • Journal
  • Litera
  • Lumen
  • Lux
  • Materia
  • Minty
  • Morph
  • Pulse
  • Sandstone
  • Simplex
  • Sketchy
  • Spacelab
  • United
  • Yeti
  • Zephyr
  • Dark
  • Cyborg
  • Darkly
  • Quartz
  • Slate
  • Solar
  • Superhero
  • Vapor

  • Default (No Skin)
  • No Skin
Kollaps
FARVEL BIG TECH
  1. Forside
  2. Ikke-kategoriseret
  3. A software license doesn’t make software good.

A software license doesn’t make software good.

Planlagt Fastgjort Låst Flyttet Ikke-kategoriseret
9 Indlæg 8 Posters 48 Visninger
  • Ældste til nyeste
  • Nyeste til ældste
  • Most Votes
Svar
  • Svar som emne
Login for at svare
Denne tråd er blevet slettet. Kun brugere med emne behandlings privilegier kan se den.
  • akareilly@hachyderm.ioA This user is from outside of this forum
    akareilly@hachyderm.ioA This user is from outside of this forum
    akareilly@hachyderm.io
    wrote sidst redigeret af
    #1

    A software license doesn’t make software good.

    Open source code written by a bunch of sexist, racist, ableist assholes is no viable alternative.

    Free, libre, open source code is good when:

    - there are design docs

    - there are risk assessments

    - there is user research

    - accessibility is a requirement from the beginning

    - it is private by design

    - documentation is a part of every release

    All of this is enabled by teams with a code of conduct, and no tolerance for assholes.

    Diversity, equity, and inclusion is the key to all of the goals FLOSS projects claim to share.

    bdf2121cc3334b35b6ecda66e471@mastodon.socialB clickhere@mastodon.ieC bitflipped@mastodon.worldB E menelion@dragonscave.spaceM 6 Replies Last reply
    1
    0
    • akareilly@hachyderm.ioA akareilly@hachyderm.io

      A software license doesn’t make software good.

      Open source code written by a bunch of sexist, racist, ableist assholes is no viable alternative.

      Free, libre, open source code is good when:

      - there are design docs

      - there are risk assessments

      - there is user research

      - accessibility is a requirement from the beginning

      - it is private by design

      - documentation is a part of every release

      All of this is enabled by teams with a code of conduct, and no tolerance for assholes.

      Diversity, equity, and inclusion is the key to all of the goals FLOSS projects claim to share.

      bdf2121cc3334b35b6ecda66e471@mastodon.socialB This user is from outside of this forum
      bdf2121cc3334b35b6ecda66e471@mastodon.socialB This user is from outside of this forum
      bdf2121cc3334b35b6ecda66e471@mastodon.social
      wrote sidst redigeret af
      #2

      @akareilly mate I'm just sharing my hobby

      bdf2121cc3334b35b6ecda66e471@mastodon.socialB 1 Reply Last reply
      0
      • bdf2121cc3334b35b6ecda66e471@mastodon.socialB bdf2121cc3334b35b6ecda66e471@mastodon.social

        @akareilly mate I'm just sharing my hobby

        bdf2121cc3334b35b6ecda66e471@mastodon.socialB This user is from outside of this forum
        bdf2121cc3334b35b6ecda66e471@mastodon.socialB This user is from outside of this forum
        bdf2121cc3334b35b6ecda66e471@mastodon.social
        wrote sidst redigeret af
        #3

        @akareilly this earned me a block, lmao

        1 Reply Last reply
        0
        • akareilly@hachyderm.ioA akareilly@hachyderm.io

          A software license doesn’t make software good.

          Open source code written by a bunch of sexist, racist, ableist assholes is no viable alternative.

          Free, libre, open source code is good when:

          - there are design docs

          - there are risk assessments

          - there is user research

          - accessibility is a requirement from the beginning

          - it is private by design

          - documentation is a part of every release

          All of this is enabled by teams with a code of conduct, and no tolerance for assholes.

          Diversity, equity, and inclusion is the key to all of the goals FLOSS projects claim to share.

          clickhere@mastodon.ieC This user is from outside of this forum
          clickhere@mastodon.ieC This user is from outside of this forum
          clickhere@mastodon.ie
          wrote sidst redigeret af
          #4

          @akareilly YES

          *smashing that re-toot button*

          1 Reply Last reply
          0
          • akareilly@hachyderm.ioA akareilly@hachyderm.io

            A software license doesn’t make software good.

            Open source code written by a bunch of sexist, racist, ableist assholes is no viable alternative.

            Free, libre, open source code is good when:

            - there are design docs

            - there are risk assessments

            - there is user research

            - accessibility is a requirement from the beginning

            - it is private by design

            - documentation is a part of every release

            All of this is enabled by teams with a code of conduct, and no tolerance for assholes.

            Diversity, equity, and inclusion is the key to all of the goals FLOSS projects claim to share.

            bitflipped@mastodon.worldB This user is from outside of this forum
            bitflipped@mastodon.worldB This user is from outside of this forum
            bitflipped@mastodon.world
            wrote sidst redigeret af
            #5

            @akareilly accessibility yes, lack of assholes yes, basic documentation yes. For the rest it will depend on project size and maturity, because you're basically asking for a commercial grade SDLC for something given to you for free, and it would set a high barrier to entry for people who just want to share their passion/work.

            If those requirements are set by a consumer of the project then fine, don't use FOSS projects that don't hit that bar, but it shouldn't be a prereq for the author.

            fvsch@hachyderm.ioF 1 Reply Last reply
            0
            • bitflipped@mastodon.worldB bitflipped@mastodon.world

              @akareilly accessibility yes, lack of assholes yes, basic documentation yes. For the rest it will depend on project size and maturity, because you're basically asking for a commercial grade SDLC for something given to you for free, and it would set a high barrier to entry for people who just want to share their passion/work.

              If those requirements are set by a consumer of the project then fine, don't use FOSS projects that don't hit that bar, but it shouldn't be a prereq for the author.

              fvsch@hachyderm.ioF This user is from outside of this forum
              fvsch@hachyderm.ioF This user is from outside of this forum
              fvsch@hachyderm.io
              wrote sidst redigeret af
              #6

              @bitflipped @akareilly I tend to agree for single-author projects, but I think people in FOSS use this as an excuse for bad behavior and/or for dismissing accessibility.

              There are plenty of NGOs where volunteers will be shown the door if they break the code of conduct or don't care about specific requirements. This view of volunteer work where you just do what you like is strangely specific to FOSS.

              1 Reply Last reply
              0
              • akareilly@hachyderm.ioA akareilly@hachyderm.io

                A software license doesn’t make software good.

                Open source code written by a bunch of sexist, racist, ableist assholes is no viable alternative.

                Free, libre, open source code is good when:

                - there are design docs

                - there are risk assessments

                - there is user research

                - accessibility is a requirement from the beginning

                - it is private by design

                - documentation is a part of every release

                All of this is enabled by teams with a code of conduct, and no tolerance for assholes.

                Diversity, equity, and inclusion is the key to all of the goals FLOSS projects claim to share.

                E This user is from outside of this forum
                E This user is from outside of this forum
                eruwero@ieji.de
                wrote sidst redigeret af
                #7

                @akareilly the license is the bare minimum. But not all (free) software has to be "good", it can just be a hobby project not intended to be usable by everyone without modification

                1 Reply Last reply
                0
                • akareilly@hachyderm.ioA akareilly@hachyderm.io

                  A software license doesn’t make software good.

                  Open source code written by a bunch of sexist, racist, ableist assholes is no viable alternative.

                  Free, libre, open source code is good when:

                  - there are design docs

                  - there are risk assessments

                  - there is user research

                  - accessibility is a requirement from the beginning

                  - it is private by design

                  - documentation is a part of every release

                  All of this is enabled by teams with a code of conduct, and no tolerance for assholes.

                  Diversity, equity, and inclusion is the key to all of the goals FLOSS projects claim to share.

                  menelion@dragonscave.spaceM This user is from outside of this forum
                  menelion@dragonscave.spaceM This user is from outside of this forum
                  menelion@dragonscave.space
                  wrote sidst redigeret af
                  #8

                  @akareilly Given that the vast majority of open-source projects are not accessible and developers don't care…

                  1 Reply Last reply
                  0
                  • akareilly@hachyderm.ioA akareilly@hachyderm.io

                    A software license doesn’t make software good.

                    Open source code written by a bunch of sexist, racist, ableist assholes is no viable alternative.

                    Free, libre, open source code is good when:

                    - there are design docs

                    - there are risk assessments

                    - there is user research

                    - accessibility is a requirement from the beginning

                    - it is private by design

                    - documentation is a part of every release

                    All of this is enabled by teams with a code of conduct, and no tolerance for assholes.

                    Diversity, equity, and inclusion is the key to all of the goals FLOSS projects claim to share.

                    doctormo@floss.socialD This user is from outside of this forum
                    doctormo@floss.socialD This user is from outside of this forum
                    doctormo@floss.social
                    wrote sidst redigeret af
                    #9

                    @akareilly

                    - When people are paid

                    I can not emphasise how many problems come from having a one way flow from workers to users and absolutely no flow back to workers. It makes so many other problems so much harder to help fix.

                    1 Reply Last reply
                    0
                    • anderslund@expressional.socialA anderslund@expressional.social shared this topic
                    Svar
                    • Svar som emne
                    Login for at svare
                    • Ældste til nyeste
                    • Nyeste til ældste
                    • Most Votes


                    • Log ind

                    • Har du ikke en konto? Tilmeld

                    • Login or register to search.
                    Powered by NodeBB Contributors
                    Graciously hosted by data.coop
                    • First post
                      Last post
                    0
                    • Hjem
                    • Seneste
                    • Etiketter
                    • Populære
                    • Verden
                    • Bruger
                    • Grupper