91–100 of 140 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why would it not be legally binding?
Ok let me answer that.. Which country is going to vote a LAW that writes: nobody works more than 45 hours/week? The next day healthcare will collapse. Big corporations will lobby VERY hard against that.
so hospitals can never use this? their doctors and nurses, who are "employees" regularily work 12 hour shifts. the same goes for first responders
Hospitals have some of the most toxic work cultures around. So much of that shit is perpetuated by senior level employees justifying hours that are harmful to patient care with “I went through it so why shouldn’t you?”
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You are assuming they do, but they likely don't. Counter example for this is SQLite. Almost everyone considers it open source, presumably even you. Lots of projects that embed it are considered open source. SQLite, however, is not OSI open source and none of the projects that embed it can be OSI open source either. And it's ok, because people generally don't think of open source as something with OSI approved license…
What part of the Open Source Definition https://opensource.org/osd-annotated do SQLite's redistribution terms violate? Why is it the case that projects that embed SQLite cannot be open source in the OSI sense? (I don't think this is true.)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There's probably a more optimal solution then either a current 8h handoff, or a zombie caring for you. However, doctoring, as profession, is a conservative one, and is highly resistant to process improvements. It took decades of effort, and decades of trivial mistakes (wrong organs removed, surgical instruments left inside patients when they are sewn up) to get the profession to even consider that maybe, maybe, check…
Move fast break things doesn't work so well with medicine though. I heard vets are much more high tech because they wont get sued, probably true.
But I, as a consumer of medicine, would like the profession to spend more time in reviewing its processes, their outcomes, and to not assume that doctors are infallible geniuses, who don't need any of that checklist nonsense. (Oh, hey, the patient just woke up, and told us that we removed the wrong lung...)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Handovers are dangerous, but making decisions that need your full attention after hard working 11:30 hours is also dangerous. And sometime doctors have even longer shifts. It's an insane culture. My guess is that it is easy to spot error in handovers (X didn't say/write this, Y didn't hear/read that). But errors due that you have worked 11:30 hours are more difficult to isolate.
Why do you think the hospitals do long shifts then? Just for fun? They don't do it for people who aren't doing handovers, like general practitioners who can work half-days just a couple of times a week if they want, or administrations. So we know it isn't inherent for doctors or for the staffing of the hospital. Only for those doing handovers...
Because the culture of US medical training was initiated by a coke addict, and it's extremely conservative and slow-moving.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why would it not be legally binding?
Ok let me answer that.. Which country is going to vote a LAW that writes: nobody works more than 45 hours/week? The next day healthcare will collapse. Big corporations will lobby VERY hard against that.
You get license to use the software if you abide by the terms of the license agreement. A company that asks its employees to work 60 hour weeks breaks the license agreement, and therefore cannot use the software.
The only LAW that could be written about this would be "Contracts cannot include limits on the number of hours employers ask people to work".
So maybe, yes, the megacorps get that law passed. Until then this license is binding...
Now whether the any particular legal system cares to enforce the license terms is another matter
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why do you think the hospitals do long shifts then? Just for fun? They don't do it for people who aren't doing handovers, like general practitioners who can work half-days just a couple of times a week if they want, or administrations. So we know it isn't inherent for doctors or for the staffing of the hospital. Only for those doing handovers...
> Why do you think the hospitals do long shifts then? Just for fun? Because the culture of US medical training was initiated by a coke addict, and it's extremely conservative and slow-moving. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Stewart_Halsted
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>and is thus a license that perfectly reasonable employers will avoid There are reasons a reasonable employer might adopt this. Maybe they never require employees to work more than 40 hour weeks, so they can advertise they follow this strict license to give them an advantage in hiring employees who want some guarantee they won't have to work overtime. Maybe they want to "open source" something to have the community c…
Are there employers that never require employees to work more than 40 hour weeks? Ever ? Even "implicitly"? Even if at 5:58 PM the elevator breaks and you can't leave until 6:01 PM? At the risk of losing what you say is a really important library forever? It seems too risky. And even if there is one employer that is willing to make that guarantee, what library is important enough that it must be used and cannot be re…
I've seen enough Europeans commenting on this site to say that yes, this is the case as it's illegal for companies in some countries to require employees to work more than that. Even the amount of paid overtime is strictly limited.
>Even if at 5:58 PM the elevator breaks and you can't leave until 6:01 PM?
I don't think any court (contracts are interpreted by courts) would reasonably consider this as the company requiring anybody to work to 6:01 PM, unless the company sabotaged the elevator.
What's a use case at a software company for requiring someone to work over 40 hours that can't be solved by having an extra employee with overlapping shifts?
>And even if there is one employer that is willing to make that guarantee, what library is important enough that it must be used and cannot be reimplemented, even given the combined resources of every employer not willing to make that guarantee?
Maybe one library is not enough, but if an ecosystem grows, it's possible. Companies don't exactly love the GPL, but adopted software using it where there was no other option.
>If a lone developer wants to write software, great, but again it's not an open source license and they should have no expectation of others contributing to it, the way they would for open source. There's been lots of freeware / shareware in the world. It's mostly been out-competed by actual open source.
Personally I agree that this license has a low chance of having any effect, but that doesn't mean it's not worth trying.