2 ms·

>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

>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_for_game_developers_to_unionize/ 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-or-is-it/ https://heathermeeker.com/2018/04/30/first-gpl-case-in-china...

geofft 8y ago
I think 'Kaveren isn't saying "You don't know why these people are working 10 hours consecutively" but rather "You don't know why every person who works 10 hours consecutively is doing so." There is certainly a problem with the culture of mainland Chinese tech work (as well as with game dev work), but a license that legally bans use from any company that ever asks anyone to work more than a 10-hour day has too much splash damage, no matter how well-intentioned it is, and is thus a license that perfectly reasonable employers will avoid, and is thus a license that will only protect code that gets reimplemented by perfectly reasonable employers, and thus won't work.
- logicchains 8y ago
  >and is thus a license that perfectly reasonable employers will avoid There are reasons a reasonable employer might adopt this. Maybe they never require employees to work more than 40 hour weeks, so they can advertise they follow this strict license to give them an advantage in hiring employees who want some guarantee they won't have to work overtime. Maybe they want to "open source" something to have the community contribute to their product for free, but don't want their competitors to be able to use it. Maybe a lone open source developer builds something with this license, then starts a business. I think the idea is that if it catches on, eventually somebody will write e.g. a really important library using the license, then companies would have to consider using it.
  - geofft 8y ago
    Are there employers that never require employees to work more than 40 hour weeks? Ever? Even "implicitly"? Even if at 5:58 PM the elevator breaks and you can't leave until 6:01 PM? At the risk of losing what you say is a really important library forever? It seems too risky. And even if there is one employer that is willing to make that guarantee, what library is important enough that it must be used and cannot be reimplemented, even given the combined resources of every employer not willing to make that guarantee? If a lone developer wants to write software, great, but again it's not an open source license and they should have no expectation of others contributing to it, the way they would for open source. There's been lots of freeware / shareware in the world. It's mostly been out-competed by actual open source.
    - logicchains 8y ago
      >Are there employers that never require employees to work more than 40 hour weeks? Ever? Even "implicitly"? I've seen enough Europeans commenting on this site to say that yes, this is the case as it's illegal for companies in some countries to require employees to work more than that. Even the amount of paid overtime is strictly limited. >Even if at 5:58 PM the elevator breaks and you can't leave until 6:01 PM? I don't think any court (contracts are interpreted by courts) would reasonably consider this as the company requiring anybody to work to 6:01 PM, unless the company sabotaged the elevator. What's a use case at a software company for requiring someone to work over 40 hours that can't be solved by having an extra employee with overlapping shifts? >And even if there is one employer that is willing to make that guarantee, what library is important enough that it must be used and cannot be reimplemented, even given the combined resources of every employer not willing to make that guarantee? Maybe one library is not enough, but if an ecosystem grows, it's possible. Companies don't exactly love the GPL, but adopted software using it where there was no other option. >If a lone developer wants to write software, great, but again it's not an open source license and they should have no expectation of others contributing to it, the way they would for open source. There's been lots of freeware / shareware in the world. It's mostly been out-competed by actual open source. Personally I agree that this license has a low chance of having any effect, but that doesn't mean it's not worth trying.

geofft 8y ago

I think 'Kaveren isn't saying "You don't know why these people are working 10 hours consecutively" but rather "You don't know why every person who works 10 hours consecutively is doing so." There is certainly a problem with the culture of mainland Chinese tech work (as well as with game dev work), but a license that legally bans use from any company that ever asks anyone to work more than a 10-hour day has too much splash damage, no matter how well-intentioned it is, and is thus a license that perfectly reasonable employers will avoid, and is thus a license that will only protect code that gets reimplemented by perfectly reasonable employers, and thus won't work.

logicchains 8y ago
>and is thus a license that perfectly reasonable employers will avoid There are reasons a reasonable employer might adopt this. Maybe they never require employees to work more than 40 hour weeks, so they can advertise they follow this strict license to give them an advantage in hiring employees who want some guarantee they won't have to work overtime. Maybe they want to "open source" something to have the community contribute to their product for free, but don't want their competitors to be able to use it. Maybe a lone open source developer builds something with this license, then starts a business. I think the idea is that if it catches on, eventually somebody will write e.g. a really important library using the license, then companies would have to consider using it.
- geofft 8y ago
  Are there employers that never require employees to work more than 40 hour weeks? Ever? Even "implicitly"? Even if at 5:58 PM the elevator breaks and you can't leave until 6:01 PM? At the risk of losing what you say is a really important library forever? It seems too risky. And even if there is one employer that is willing to make that guarantee, what library is important enough that it must be used and cannot be reimplemented, even given the combined resources of every employer not willing to make that guarantee? If a lone developer wants to write software, great, but again it's not an open source license and they should have no expectation of others contributing to it, the way they would for open source. There's been lots of freeware / shareware in the world. It's mostly been out-competed by actual open source.
  - logicchains 8y ago
    >Are there employers that never require employees to work more than 40 hour weeks? Ever? Even "implicitly"? I've seen enough Europeans commenting on this site to say that yes, this is the case as it's illegal for companies in some countries to require employees to work more than that. Even the amount of paid overtime is strictly limited. >Even if at 5:58 PM the elevator breaks and you can't leave until 6:01 PM? I don't think any court (contracts are interpreted by courts) would reasonably consider this as the company requiring anybody to work to 6:01 PM, unless the company sabotaged the elevator. What's a use case at a software company for requiring someone to work over 40 hours that can't be solved by having an extra employee with overlapping shifts? >And even if there is one employer that is willing to make that guarantee, what library is important enough that it must be used and cannot be reimplemented, even given the combined resources of every employer not willing to make that guarantee? Maybe one library is not enough, but if an ecosystem grows, it's possible. Companies don't exactly love the GPL, but adopted software using it where there was no other option. >If a lone developer wants to write software, great, but again it's not an open source license and they should have no expectation of others contributing to it, the way they would for open source. There's been lots of freeware / shareware in the world. It's mostly been out-competed by actual open source. Personally I agree that this license has a low chance of having any effect, but that doesn't mean it's not worth trying.