I'm tired of this anti-Wayland horseshit

Re:I'm tired of this anti-Wayland horseshit by danaliv on Tuesday February 02, 2021 @12:32PM (#26003865)

I understand where this thinking comes from but I still think it's kind of a simplistic attitude. People depend on the technology they use. When you convince someone to rely on something you've produced (and, crucially, continue working on), I think you do actually create a duty to be responsive to them. They depend on your work. Are we really so limited in our ethical thinking that we require an exchange of money to create obligation?

I understand that people can be aggressive, rude, and downright hostile. I'm not suggesting that such behavior be rewarded. Nor am I suggesting that every open source project has to do everything any user says. I do, however, object to the notion that there is no obligation whatsoever between the producer of a technology and the users of that technology, regardless of whether money has changed hands.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:I'm tired of this anti-Wayland horseshit by foldr on Tuesday February 02, 2021 @03:06PM (#26005875)

You somehow think that someone who’s done you a favor (by providing you with useful software for free) owes you more than someone who’s done nothing for you at all. That’s exactly backwards. You are obliged to them!

I struggle to express how strongly disagree. This is like saying that someone who gives away a 3D printer on freecycle is then obliged to help you fix any problems with it.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:I'm tired of this anti-Wayland horseshit by cycloptic on Tuesday February 02, 2021 @12:41PM (#26003996)

If you read the fine print there is, quite literally, no obligation at all. From the MIT license:

    THE SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED "AS IS", WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR
    IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY,
    FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE AND NONINFRINGEMENT.

You will find that most other FOSS licenses contain a similar clause.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:I'm tired of this anti-Wayland horseshit by danaliv on Tuesday February 02, 2021 @12:57PM (#26004243)

That's a legal disclaimer designed to head off a specific commercial legal liability. If you go looking to use law as a foundation for right and wrong, you're going to be sorely disappointed.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:I'm tired of this anti-Wayland horseshit by cycloptic on Tuesday February 02, 2021 @01:17PM (#26004503)

What I quoted isn't a law, this is something that authors have to deliberately put in their licenses/contracts for the specific work in question. If you wish to have other obligations with your open source software that you believe are less wrong, it would be wise to get those in writing.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:I'm tired of this anti-Wayland horseshit by type0 on Tuesday February 02, 2021 @05:55PM (#26008180)

> it would be wise to get those in writing.

I agree with that, projects should clearly state their goals and priorities upfront. But relying on legalese from MIT license is not the solution.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:I'm tired of this anti-Wayland horseshit by cycloptic on Tuesday February 02, 2021 @06:56PM (#26008797)

It's not clear what else it is that you'd want. The MIT license seems to get used because it's short and to the point in stating priorities: Here's the software, do what you want with it, but don't take credit and don't come after us if it doesn't work for your use case or if it causes your CPU to explode. If your issue is with the "legalese," it wouldn't be any less meaningful if you stated it differently.

[ Parent | on HN ]