Live data from Hacker News

The anti crunch hours license

github.com

61–70 of 140 posts

Re: The anti crunch hours license

#61
post #49
post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That’s not extortion. If you don’t like the terms don’t use the software.

Well then what I-Iuw said above in the PS is bullocks. > (P.S. This is a protest, not a legally binding license) It is a legally binding license and not just mere protest. That's all I claimed.

Yeah, that was poorly worded. It's still a protest though, and that license is simply a one way to protest.

Re: The anti crunch hours license

#62
post #10

Before this comment section gets any more toxic, please understand the context. The org on GitHub that developed this license is called 996ICU ( https://996.icu/#/en_US ). It is a (very large) group of Chinese developers that are upset with the common practice of working 9am to 9pm, 6 days a week. Please be mindful of the fact that lots of developers around the world work under genuinely awful conditions, and that yo…

Thanks. I thought this was about the gaming industry, which also has a tradition of crazy crunch time.

Re: The anti crunch hours license

#63
post #50
post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That sounds great! But it's not open source. Debian, Fedora, etc. by policy do not want to prevent use of their software on military drones or by companies that work their employees to death. You will not convince them to change that policy. Therefore, you need to decide which of those two desires is more important to you: is it more valuable to have people be able to apt install / dnf install your software at the co…

Still open source, but I guess you think Debian, Fedora, etc. are willing to ignore a lot of new open source software with more restrictive licenses and sacrifice some or a lot of their user base in favor of more full featured distros. I don't think this is going to happen. They will change policies and accept the new world.

I do strongly think that will not happen. Debian, for instance, constitutionally requires a 3-to-1 supermajority for a change to its "foundation documents," which include the Debian free software guidelines. The people who would have to vote on this are project members who have already pledged agreement with the existing free software guidelines. There are a lot of people who work on Debian precisely because they personally value the DFSG as it exists today.

There have been a lot of attempts at sort-of-free-software-but-not-really licenses over time: see, for instance, https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.en.html#NonFreeSof... . There has been a lot of important software previously released under such licenses, from JSON to code drops from Sun (Java), Microsoft (.NET), and Apple (Darwin). The Linux distros have not included them. Remember that Debian doesn't even ship the gcc man page in the default distribution because it doesn't believe the FSF's own license for that man page is free software. I don't see what is different about today that would make things change. There isn't actually that much new "open source" software under non-OSD-compliant/non-DFSG-compliant licenses. And most of it comes from software that was previously under a compliant license, so for instance Debian and Fedora maintainers have forked the most recent OSD-compliant release of the Redis modules: https://goodformcode.com

Remember that every new license - even a new free software license - has an uphill battle because if it's incompatible with existing licenses you can't link software under those licenses or incorporate code under those licenses. There is a strong natural pressure to move to a standard license (or set of mutually-compatible licenses like MIT/BSD/etc.), and we've seen OSD-compliant licenses that are fine but uncommon be dropped in favor of more common ones. That pressure applies much more strongly to code that tries to set itself out as "open source" and is incompatible with every open source license.

Re: The anti crunch hours license

#64
post #56
post #16

I support the general idea of not having to work 12 hours a day for 6 days. That's crazy. But there are other venues for labour activism than changing the license. And in other Chinese industries that aren't related to software at all, labour activism is quite successful as well. So there is no need to resort to license changes. As for your PS, there is no indication that it's a protest and not just a license.

> But there are other venues for labour activism than changing the license The thing is, this kind of online protest is the safest for both initiators and participants. If by "other venues for labour activism" you mean go to the street, you're basically risk sending people to jail (And after the thing, nobody want to risk to get milled down by tanks). Also, did you know that 996 is by law illegal in China? You can te…

> The thing is, this kind of online protest is the safest for both initiators and participants. If by "other venues for labour activism" you mean go to the street, you're basically risk sending people to jail (And after the thing, nobody want to risk to get milled down by tanks).

Why will the government avoid to use repressive measures against this? Otherwise they don't do their job of totalitarian government well enough. In a totalitarian state, I'd certainly be afraid to support this.

> Also, did you know that 996 is by law illegal in China? You can technically report your company if they force you to work 996. But: 1) After that, you will probably get fired for any number of excuses. 2) Your company is clever, they know many ways to get around the law.

Yeah, I've read the website. So technically, the license isn't needed.

> how to you protected yourself and help other developers just like you? The license idea come out naturally.

If you can't get the law enforced, how will you be able to enforce the license? I've heard that chinese courts generally don't meet western standards.

Re: The anti crunch hours license

#65
post #10

Before this comment section gets any more toxic, please understand the context. The org on GitHub that developed this license is called 996ICU ( https://996.icu/#/en_US ). It is a (very large) group of Chinese developers that are upset with the common practice of working 9am to 9pm, 6 days a week. Please be mindful of the fact that lots of developers around the world work under genuinely awful conditions, and that yo…

> your (x times y) work week is a privilege earned by a long history of labour activism in the Western world. You have no proof of this. The (x times y) work week for manual labourers was earned by a long history of labour activism. Good working conditions for highly-skilled in-demand work arise naturally through supply and demand.

> naturally

So collective bargaining is unnatural? Except when a corporation does it on behalf of its shareholders, of course.

Re: The anti crunch hours license

#66
post #29
post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What bullet points does your "common meaning of open source" disagree with in https://opensource.org/osd ?

It's irrelevant if you don't want to recognize, that people usually don't use OSI's definition when they talk about "open source".

"People"? Most people I know do actually mean the OSD. Most of my friends do, and certainly all my employers that have had open-source processes do—I can't necessarily use that process to release code to a weird non-OSD-compliant license just because the source is visible under some conditions.

(Also, "people" use the word "copyright" when they mean "trademark", and post "No copyright intended" on their YouTube video when they mean "no copyright infringement intended" and absolutely unequivocally are infringing copyright. The fact that some people don't know the meanings of words doesn't change whether the words have meanings.)

Re: The anti crunch hours license

#67
post #31

In the best job I ever had in my life, my boss basically told me that she didn't care about the hours I kept or how long I worked every day as long as I got my job done. I usually showed up to work at 12pm and left around 4pm. It ended up being one of the most productive times of my life. I created products that had hundreds of millions of dollars worth of impact on the company bottom line. In my immediate next job I…

Does this work best if your work is well-planned by someone else? E.g., you have a list of prioritized tickets with requirements complete, and can just code down the list?

I work 32h/wk (mon-thu), and I feel happy with my productivity, but also recognize that I spend tons of time in meetings, clarifying requirements, helping other devs, etc. These aren't all really my role, so I could theoretically optimize them away and hope the invisible tasks get picked up successfully by someone else, but I know we'd have worse outcomes if I wasn't involved and "just" did my explicitly assigned tasks.

Can someone with team lead/management responsibilities optimize for 'job done' this aggressively?

Re: The anti crunch hours license

#68
post #27

I live in Brazil. Under Brazilian labor laws, a work week is defined as 44 hours, with each work day having up to 8 hours. So you just excluded companies that have ever had anyone do more than one hour of (paid) overtime any week. Which is basically every company in my country, considering (occasional, paid) overtime is normal and predicted in the relevant laws. Here, 12 hour shifts with 36 hour rest periods is also…

I think this worry is reasonable. Maybe you can try to file a pull request to suggest a change, remember to explain your situation and concerns inside the pull request so it won't be discarded.

The issue with licenses is that you can't just change them around like you want. The GPLv2 in the Linux kernel for example is almost impossible to get exchanged due to the giant amount people who possibly hold copyright. You need agreement of every single one of them.

Re: The anti crunch hours license

#69
post #10

Before this comment section gets any more toxic, please understand the context. The org on GitHub that developed this license is called 996ICU ( https://996.icu/#/en_US ). It is a (very large) group of Chinese developers that are upset with the common practice of working 9am to 9pm, 6 days a week. Please be mindful of the fact that lots of developers around the world work under genuinely awful conditions, and that yo…

your (x times y) work week is a privilege earned by a long history of labour activism in the Western world. With most of "us" being some kind of a software engineer, I'm sincerely curious: was 80-hours workweek ever a mandatory thing for an engineer (teacher, doctor)?

A quick search for “doctor work week” is returning numbers that start around 50 and go up to 108 for an emergency room surgeon. There is a horrible cultural expectation of crazy amounts of overwork in the US hospital world.

Re: The anti crunch hours license

#70
post #6

You have no clue why someone is working more than 10 hours consecutively or more than 45 hours a week. Maybe that's something they're being paid quite well to do, and maybe they want to do so. This type of restriction just screams "I want to feel like a good person." You're within your rights to use this restriction, but it's equally as ridiculous as a restriction forcing employees not to eat toast on Tuesdays, Wedne…

>You have no clue why someone is working more than 10 hours consecutively or more than 45 hours a week. I have quite a few mainland Chinese friends in tech (I used to work there), and most work extremely long hours not because they like it, but because management and company culture enforces it and they're powerless to change it. They can't even conduct collective action, as that's essentially illegal. Chinese courts…

I think 'Kaveren isn't saying "You don't know why these people are working 10 hours consecutively" but rather "You don't know why every person who works 10 hours consecutively is doing so." There is certainly a problem with the culture of mainland Chinese tech work (as well as with game dev work), but a license that legally bans use from any company that ever asks anyone to work more than a 10-hour day has too much splash damage, no matter how well-intentioned it is, and is thus a license that perfectly reasonable employers will avoid, and is thus a license that will only protect code that gets reimplemented by perfectly reasonable employers, and thus won't work.
Post reply on HN