It’s OK for your open source library to be a bit shitty (2015)

Re:It’s OK for your open source library to be a bit shitty (... by bigiain on Sunday May 17, 2020 @05:22AM (#23210779)

There's a license for that: http://matt.might.net/articles/crapl/

I know free software debaters and open source license philosophers love to hate on this one, but the fundamental core concept of "more importantly, it should absolve authors of shame, embarrassment and ridicule for ugly code" in the context of them choosing to release code or not is a great idea I reckon.

(But I agree wholeheartedly with the thrust of your argument, and am of the opinion that if you spent more time on the logo design or website marketing copy for your library than you did writing the code, then "You're doin' it wrong...")

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:It’s OK for your open source library to be a bit shitty (... by anticensor on Sunday May 17, 2020 @05:40AM (#23210851)

> 1. By reading this sentence, You have agreed to the terms and conditions of this License.

The craziest click-to-accept clause I have ever read.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:It’s OK for your open source library to be a bit shitty (... by jessaustin on Sunday May 17, 2020 @08:02AM (#23211387)

Thanks a lot guy! By pasting that awful sentence into this thread, you've forced all of us reading here to agree to the license!

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:It’s OK for your open source library to be a bit shitty (... by bigiain on Sunday May 17, 2020 @05:54AM (#23210897)

Alternatively, most obvious joke license ever...

(or in retrospect, perhaps "equivalently" rather than "alternatively")

[ Parent | on HN ]