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 saagarjha on Tuesday May 19, 2020 @03:36AM (#23232264)

> There is no reason to discuss legal obligations because that part is covered by licenses.

Correct, I think we agree on that.

> The entire discussion is at the level of social expectations.

No, this statement:

> No, there is no obligation. But there’s a thing called courtesy.

Is actually “No, there is no legal obligation. But there’s a thing called courtesy.“ And here the contradiction falls away and the discussion turns to whether there is a social expectation to be courteous. On that point my (and the above commenter, I suspect) would say that yes, of course there is an expectation of social courtesy. There’s one in every other setting too, so why not here?

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:It’s OK for your open source library to be a bit shitty (... by franciscop on Tuesday May 19, 2020 @05:20AM (#23232906)

You are not "gingerlime" who said that, I understand the original as "moral/social obligation" and not "legal obligation" but you seem to be putting the word "legal" on the users' mouth by saying what they "actually" mean?

As a Spaniard living in Japan, what social rules should I use to apply my social courtesy on Github?

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:It’s OK for your open source library to be a bit shitty (... by gingerlime on Wednesday May 20, 2020 @04:13PM (#23251222)

I am gingerlime. I simply meant obligation as MUST and social norms / courtesy as SHOULD. So I guess technically you’re correct that it’s not a legal obligation, but I think the GP’s point is valid.

[ Parent | on HN ]