A software license doesn’t make software good.
-
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.
@akareilly mate I'm just sharing my hobby
-
@akareilly mate I'm just sharing my hobby
@akareilly this earned me a block, lmao
-
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.
@akareilly YES
*smashing that re-toot button*
-
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.
@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.
-
@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.
@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.
-
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.
@akareilly Given that the vast majority of open-source projects are not accessible and developers don't care…
-
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.
- 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.
-
@akareilly Given that the vast majority of open-source projects are not accessible and developers don't care…
@menelion I have a tiny amount of hope that accessibility becomes a requirement for any EU-funded “digital sovereignty” projects. Given my experience being harassed at FOSDEM for using an evil corporate OS because I needed working speech to text, I don’t think developers will do this voluntarily. This is fine for single contributor and single user hobby projects, but for everything else, what little accessibility we have for interacting with public organisations must not be yanked out from under us. Not holding my breath though.
-
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.
No, of course I am not posting about the code you write for yourself only.
If you reply like this, you’re basically doing the FLOSS equivalent of commenting on a video about making bean soup with “But I don’t like beans! Post a soup recipe without beans!”
If you have end users, make good software.
-
@menelion I have a tiny amount of hope that accessibility becomes a requirement for any EU-funded “digital sovereignty” projects. Given my experience being harassed at FOSDEM for using an evil corporate OS because I needed working speech to text, I don’t think developers will do this voluntarily. This is fine for single contributor and single user hobby projects, but for everything else, what little accessibility we have for interacting with public organisations must not be yanked out from under us. Not holding my breath though.
@akareilly You know the keyword here? Harassed. HARASSED, sorry for yelling. sorry again, but I was never harassed by any Microsoft, Google or Apple employee when I told them I need accessibility. At least it was awkward silence, and at most (and quite often, I admit) my reports were passed to the appropriate engineers and most often acted upon (Microsoft is the best here, Apple and google not so much with Apple being the worst, at least from my experience). With open-source though, there are very rare devs who really want to help (I don't claim they don't exist, it would be just ungrateful to those who care). However most of them, especially in desktop world, just don't care, and the most is "submit a PR, I'll look at it". #Accessibility
-
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.
Licensing is a necessary but not sufficient requirement, indeed. Governance and usability requirements are also necessary. -
@akareilly You know the keyword here? Harassed. HARASSED, sorry for yelling. sorry again, but I was never harassed by any Microsoft, Google or Apple employee when I told them I need accessibility. At least it was awkward silence, and at most (and quite often, I admit) my reports were passed to the appropriate engineers and most often acted upon (Microsoft is the best here, Apple and google not so much with Apple being the worst, at least from my experience). With open-source though, there are very rare devs who really want to help (I don't claim they don't exist, it would be just ungrateful to those who care). However most of them, especially in desktop world, just don't care, and the most is "submit a PR, I'll look at it". #Accessibility
@menelion Plus it was one of the milder incidents of harassment that have happened in open source communities. The bar is in hell.
-
No, of course I am not posting about the code you write for yourself only.
If you reply like this, you’re basically doing the FLOSS equivalent of commenting on a video about making bean soup with “But I don’t like beans! Post a soup recipe without beans!”
If you have end users, make good software.
If you want to restore a Trabant and cover it with spikes and install a seat that shocks you, and you drive it on a closed track at your house, you do you.
If you’re on the road with the rest of us, maybe don’t.
Don’t try to make battle BDSM Trabi the default either.
This post is also about FLOSS.
-
No, of course I am not posting about the code you write for yourself only.
If you reply like this, you’re basically doing the FLOSS equivalent of commenting on a video about making bean soup with “But I don’t like beans! Post a soup recipe without beans!”
If you have end users, make good software.
@akareilly what if end users start using code I wrote for myself?
There is no design docs, no risk assessments, no user research, no a11y, not private by design, no documentation.
I am not in control of my end users. Most of my code is provided "as is", without warranty of any kind, express or implied.
At what point am I responsible of my end users?
-
@menelion I have a tiny amount of hope that accessibility becomes a requirement for any EU-funded “digital sovereignty” projects. Given my experience being harassed at FOSDEM for using an evil corporate OS because I needed working speech to text, I don’t think developers will do this voluntarily. This is fine for single contributor and single user hobby projects, but for everything else, what little accessibility we have for interacting with public organisations must not be yanked out from under us. Not holding my breath though.
@akareilly @menelion Eu-funded would be perfect!
-
@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.
@fvsch @bitflipped @akareilly
When you give away old furniture on craigslist for free, do you provide free shipping, warranty, and 24/7 customer service?Do you go to artists who give away their paintings for free and demand changes because you dislike their work?
Open-source solo devs already have a problem with burn-out today. Remember, we do this unpaid in our own free time, as a hobby.
You're free to submit patches for the issues you discover. Be the change you'd like to see in the world.
-
@fvsch @bitflipped @akareilly
When you give away old furniture on craigslist for free, do you provide free shipping, warranty, and 24/7 customer service?Do you go to artists who give away their paintings for free and demand changes because you dislike their work?
Open-source solo devs already have a problem with burn-out today. Remember, we do this unpaid in our own free time, as a hobby.
You're free to submit patches for the issues you discover. Be the change you'd like to see in the world.
@fvsch @bitflipped @akareilly (ofc it's an entirely different story for commercial projects or shareware aka "open core")
-
@fvsch @bitflipped @akareilly
When you give away old furniture on craigslist for free, do you provide free shipping, warranty, and 24/7 customer service?Do you go to artists who give away their paintings for free and demand changes because you dislike their work?
Open-source solo devs already have a problem with burn-out today. Remember, we do this unpaid in our own free time, as a hobby.
You're free to submit patches for the issues you discover. Be the change you'd like to see in the world.
My posts are not about hobby projects.
Per my previous post in this thread.
-
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.
@akareilly *cough cough* Lemmy
-
My posts are not about hobby projects.
Per my previous post in this thread.
> This view of volunteer work where you just do what you like is strangely specific to FOSS.
That's something I take issue with.
There's nothing strange about using your unpaid, free time to "do what you like"Whether as individual or as a group, as long as you're developing for free, in your own free time, no one has the right to demand anything.
