Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The anti crunch hours license

github.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 140 posts

Re: The anti crunch hours license

#11

Post by logicchains »

Kaveren wrote: 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 have however recognised the GPL, so it's conceivable that a license like this could have a real effect.

I'm also led to believe that many people in the western game industry don't like crunch time (sometimes 100hour+ weeks), but have no choice in the matter. Hence their frequent calls for unionisation, such as https://www.reddit.com/r/gamedev/comments/86hac3/its_time_fo.... If such a license became widely used and could be legally enforced, it could potentially contribute to better working conditions in the game industry.

Moreover, note the words "request or schedule". Seems like it wouldn't apply to companies whose employees willingly work extra hours without this being implicitly requested or scheduled by the company.

>but it's equally as ridiculous as a restriction forcing employees not to eat toast on Tuesdays, Wednesdays, or Thursdays.

The difference is that it's not forcing anyone to do anything; nobody has to use software with this license, but if they choose to use the software they must accept the terms.

>Edit: If the main target here is China, how much do you really believe Chinese companies care about Western copyright laws?

Chinese courts have in fact shown willingness to enforce the GPL in some cases: https://heathermeeker.com/2018/04/30/first-gpl-case-in-china...

Re: The anti crunch hours license

#12

Post by fao_ »

vortico wrote: post #2

Ah, yet another "open-source if you follow my principles" license. It should be an uninteresting fact at this point that yes, you can in fact put whatever clauses you want in your software license. Note that this is a license restriction addon, not a standalone license. To use, ammend to and reference by another license. Note that this removes "open-source" status from the original license if it is open-source, accor…

Well of course, because open source is about ignoring the ability of software developers to do good in the world, their abilities to change things, so instead companies can make money off the backs of software developers who are almost always working for free in their spare time. All in the hope that a software developer might get hired to maintain a project that they thought up.

The point of open source is to not be political, but that is an inane statement. Choosing to 'not be political', is itself a choice for the status quo. Choosing to 'not discriminate against any particular group, either positively or negatively' in a world where there is implicit, mostly-unspoken discrimination, is an implicit choice to continue that forward.

So why should those values be something to aspire towards? The status quo is a world in which the majority of people are not being payed what they are worth, so the people doing the paying can further inflate their ridiculously large bank balances.

I am probably the last person to quote MLK in common conversation, because a lot of his quotes have been misused or mispurposed to argue for something that he personally did not support. But, right now this one feels incredible pertinent:

"" I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro’s great stumbling block in his stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen’s Counciler or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate, who is more devoted to “order” than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says: “I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I cannot agree with your methods of direct action”; ""

Re: The anti crunch hours license

#13

Post by geofft »

wqedwed wrote: post #8
vortico wrote: post #2

Ah, yet another "open-source if you follow my principles" license. It should be an uninteresting fact at this point that yes, you can in fact put whatever clauses you want in your software license. Note that this is a license restriction addon, not a standalone license. To use, ammend to and reference by another license. Note that this removes "open-source" status from the original license if it is open-source, accor…

Why would anyone care about the opinion of OSI? The people who talk loudest about Open Source always manage to get a position that profits from the labor of the actual authors.

Don't create new accounts to work around bans. However, since your question is one that comes up a lot (though, perhaps, only from your accounts), I'll answer it as if it's in good faith and not downvote / flag your comment.

The Open Source Definition is not at all the opinion of OSI. It was taken word-for-word from the Debian Free Software Guidelines, with some minor editorial changes to make it more generic than just Debian. It has influenced the free software definition of other projects (the Ubuntu Licensing Policy, Fedora and Red Hat's list of approved licenses, etc.) The practical reason to care about the Open Source Definition is that you want your software to be in Debian, Ubuntu, Fedora, RHEL, etc.

Being able to install software as part of a distro, and having distro maintainers work with you on getting visibility for the software, is valuable, and you shouldn't give it up lightly. If you are going to give it up—which is a fine thing to do, there's lots of good non-open-source software in the world—why restrict yourself to a half-open-source license? Why not preserve your right to commercialize your software so you can profit from your labor as much as you want? Presumably you've decided that you will make more profit (or other benefit) from association with the concept of "open source," but that association only helps you if you actually satisfy the Open Source Definition.

Re: The anti crunch hours license

#15

Post by vortico »

wqedwed wrote: post #8
vortico wrote: post #2

Ah, yet another "open-source if you follow my principles" license. It should be an uninteresting fact at this point that yes, you can in fact put whatever clauses you want in your software license. Note that this is a license restriction addon, not a standalone license. To use, ammend to and reference by another license. Note that this removes "open-source" status from the original license if it is open-source, accor…

Why would anyone care about the opinion of OSI? The people who talk loudest about Open Source always manage to get a position that profits from the labor of the actual authors.

>Why would anyone care about the opinion of OSI?

Their opinion is not relevant. What is relevant is whether their definition of open-source (https://opensource.org/osd) is close to the ideals of developers. And it suffices for me and many others.

Your second sentence is nonsense.

Re: The anti crunch hours license

#16

Post by est31 »

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.

Re: The anti crunch hours license

#17

Post by geofft »

fao_ wrote: post #12
vortico wrote: post #2

Ah, yet another "open-source if you follow my principles" license. It should be an uninteresting fact at this point that yes, you can in fact put whatever clauses you want in your software license. Note that this is a license restriction addon, not a standalone license. To use, ammend to and reference by another license. Note that this removes "open-source" status from the original license if it is open-source, accor…

Well of course, because open source is about ignoring the ability of software developers to do good in the world, their abilities to change things, so instead companies can make money off the backs of software developers who are almost always working for free in their spare time. All in the hope that a software developer might get hired to maintain a project that they thought up. The point of open source is to not be…

Right, but MLK would not have identified himself as a "white moderate except ___," nor said "I like order, but also ___". His point was he had a different worldview from the white moderate, and tacking on to the white moderate would not have accomplished his goals.

Open source is definitely political, but it's also a very specific political movement. There can be other political movements with other goals. The reasons that open source advocates dislike licenses with restrictions on use are not just "we don't want to be political" or "we don't want to rock the boat." Some have a moral/ethical opinion that you should not restrict use via copyright, usually that you should not be able to restrict use via copyright. Some have a pragmatic opinion that attempts to restrict use will lead to worse outcomes.

The 996.ICU folks seem like they would be better served with their own movement that doesn't go by the name of "open source." We don't need to add that label to them.

Re: The anti crunch hours license

#18

Post by TheCoreh »

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 the norm for security guards, etc. (So that 4 can provide 24h security) That results in more than 45 hours every other week.

The license also doesn't specify how to remedy the situation in case it's ever violated, which feels very draconian and not very pragmatic.

Re: The anti crunch hours license

#20

Post by seba_dos1 »

est31 wrote: 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.

Uhm... of course there is?

https://github.com/996icu/996.ICU

https://996.icu/#/en_US

Even on HN: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19507620

The link just shows you one particular file in the repo, but that should be obvious to anyone who ever used GitHub.

Post reply on HN