3 ms·

>and is thus a license that perfectly reasonable employers will avoid There are reasons a reasonable employer might adopt this. Maybe they never require employ

>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.
  - anticensor 8y ago
    > 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? Except labour laws treat overlapping shifts not as a shift work, but as a scheduled work. This means different overtime provisions etc.

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.
- anticensor 8y ago
  > 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? Except labour laws treat overlapping shifts not as a shift work, but as a scheduled work. This means different overtime provisions etc.