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

41–50 of 140 posts

Re: The anti crunch hours license

#41

Post by geofft »

captainbland wrote: post #30
geofft wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 ju…

Well, it might also be that you actually want many people to be able to use, learn and understand your software freely but you also don't want your software to be installed on a military drone or used to enable a company that is working its employees to death. Not everything is profiteering and marketing.

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 cost of letting it be usable by the military and exploitative employers?

It's totally legitimate to decide no, I care more about restricting use of my software, so I'll make packages (or a curl | sh script, or whatever) available on my website and guide people to do that. By all means, go do that, if that's what you want to do.

(If your'e actually considering doing this, I would like to try to convince you that a software license is the wrong tool for the job, here. But reasonable people can disagree on whether that's true.)

Re: The anti crunch hours license

#42

Post by 089723645897236 »

abhinai wrote: 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…

I am currently working in a ROWE (results only work environment). I have a similar schedule. I get way more done and have way more ideas. It's almost as if "gasp" letting people design their own work process makes them more effective!

Re: The anti crunch hours license

#43

Post by efnx »

est31 wrote: post #36
seba_dos1 wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

From the github page: > The purpose of this license is to prevent 996-style companies from using the software or codes under the license, and force those companies to balance their work schedule. Doesn't sound like protest to me, but like extortion. Either you do what we want, or you can't use our software.

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

Re: The anti crunch hours license

#44

Post by AlexTWithBeard »

I-Iuw wrote: 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)?

Re: The anti crunch hours license

#45

Post by seba_dos1 »

est31 wrote: post #36
seba_dos1 wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

From the github page: > The purpose of this license is to prevent 996-style companies from using the software or codes under the license, and force those companies to balance their work schedule. Doesn't sound like protest to me, but like extortion. Either you do what we want, or you can't use our software.

> Either you do what we want, or you can't use our software.

So... just like any other license?

Re: The anti crunch hours license

#46

Post by majewsky »

est31 wrote: post #36
seba_dos1 wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

From the github page: > The purpose of this license is to prevent 996-style companies from using the software or codes under the license, and force those companies to balance their work schedule. Doesn't sound like protest to me, but like extortion. Either you do what we want, or you can't use our software.

Congratulations, you understand copyright law (or rather, immaterial property law in general).

Re: The anti crunch hours license

#47

Post by learnstats2 »

I-Iuw wrote: 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…

Why would it not be legally binding?

Re: The anti crunch hours license

#48

Post by [deleted] »

est31 wrote: post #36
seba_dos1 wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

From the github page: > The purpose of this license is to prevent 996-style companies from using the software or codes under the license, and force those companies to balance their work schedule. Doesn't sound like protest to me, but like extortion. Either you do what we want, or you can't use our software.

[deleted]

Re: The anti crunch hours license

#49

Post by est31 »

efnx wrote: post #43
est31 wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

From the github page: > The purpose of this license is to prevent 996-style companies from using the software or codes under the license, and force those companies to balance their work schedule. Doesn't sound like protest to me, but like extortion. Either you do what we want, or you can't use our software.

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.

Re: The anti crunch hours license

#50

Post by zzzcpan »

geofft wrote: post #41
captainbland wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, it might also be that you actually want many people to be able to use, learn and understand your software freely but you also don't want your software to be installed on a military drone or used to enable a company that is working its employees to death. Not everything is profiteering and marketing.

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.
Post reply on HN