4 ms·
I think the certification proposal basically comes back to licensing, if I read it right. "We'll extend you a license if you have the proper certificate." I h
by sevensor 8y ago
I think the certification proposal basically comes back to licensing, if I read it right. "We'll extend you a license if you have the proper certificate." I have a hard time imagining a way of enforcing good behavior that doesn't hinge on restricting some parties' ability to use the software.
- steveklabnik 8y agoYes, I tried to say that in the piece. Sorry if that wasn't clear! > I have a hard time imagining a way of enforcing good behavior that doesn't hinge on restricting some parties' ability to use the software. Absolutely, but I think this problem is inherent. There is no such thing as "no restrictions," so doing so is impossible.
- sevensor 8y agoThanks for clarifying! I think I got hung up on the part where you were saying that licenses cannot give us the kind of community we want. (Which I agree with.) In my utopian fantasies, every software project has a constitution as well as a license, defining how the project is governed, who may participate, what participation looks like, what obligations you undertake by using the software, how the constitution itself may be changed, provisions for an afterlife if the project is abandoned. Real-world voluntary organizations like grocery co-ops have long operated on this model, and some software projects, notably Debian, actually have constitutions. The Debian model, however, doesn't place any obligations on Debian's users, doesn't even acknowledge their existence. Their specific constitution has a lot of other weaknesses in terms of its ability to generalize, but the existence of the constitution seems like a very good idea.