3 ms·

> So you're saying the only courtesies we should render to others in life are ones that we're duty-bound by license agreements or other contracts to give? Isn'

> So you're saying the only courtesies we should render to others in life are ones that we're duty-bound by license agreements or other contracts to give? Isn't that the whole point behind the rule of law and the civil society? Anything that isn't well understood or known in advance of someone engaging in an activity, and then later faces unfair retribution because apparently they didn't do what wasn't told to them that needed be done, or did something that wasn't told to them shouldn't be done. All these "social norm" sounds like guilt trip and power grabs to me. You did something you said was free and that you were giving it to me no string attached, then you come back and guilt trip me saying that there were in fact strings attached and that you expected things in return. Now, yes I understand that maybe when you said hey this is open source with Apache license, you had in mind an audience of students, or one man startups, or hobbyist, or amateurs, and hadn't really thought if it applied to big corps. And I actually wonder how the courts normally handle this, when someone who put the conditions forward first was in a position where they couldn't have anticipated the event and thus couldn't have pre-conditioned it. I'm not too sure how to handle it myself, but here I'm guessing is a lesson to learn for others, choose your license carefully, think about the various possibility.

mlyle 6y ago
> Anything that isn't well understood or known in advance of someone engaging in an activity, and then later faces unfair retribution because apparently they didn't do what wasn't told to them that needed be done, or did something that wasn't told to them shouldn't be done. Your argument self-contradicts. You assert, broadly, if it's legal it's OK. The "unfair retribution" of people getting annoyed about it and complaining is also legal, so that should be OK, too. :P > Now, yes I understand that maybe when you said hey this is open source with Apache license, you had in mind an audience of students, or one man startups, or hobbyist, or amateurs, and hadn't really thought if it applied to big corps. Nah, when I said "Apache License", I meant that legal license. But that doesn't mean doing some things that effectively cost nothing, that exceed the license requirements, aren't socially customary. There's no law that says you have to say "thank you" when someone renders you a service or has made something that makes your life easier or lets you make a bunch of money, but if you stand on legal grounds to avoid saying "thanks" you might be a dick, and people might call you out for being a dick.
- didibus 6y ago
  Well, there are rules around defamation, libel and slander. But you're right, there's no laws saying one cannot guilt trip someone else or shame them for their behavior even if they are acting legally. I think this is me criticizing those same "social norms". In my opinion, it is unfair to guilt trip someone or have hidden expectations when someone does a good deed for you. Especially when you decided to do the deed on your own and you went and promoted it for others to benefit and use. Obviously it's nice when you do something and others thank you and acknowledge you for it. But it isn't nice when someone complains they're not getting a thank you for something they choose to do willingly and weren't asked to do. Now I reckon here it's a bit different, because we're talking about two actors of very uneven footing, and I would like to see Amazon being more thankful and recognising the hard work of open source contributors. I agree with that sentiment. I just wanted to say that in general, yes those social norms are often against what I'd consider a free society, since they are just another axis of power to force you into behaviors you might not have agreed to participate in.
  - mlyle 6y ago
    > But it isn't nice when someone complains they're not getting a thank you for something they choose to do willingly and weren't asked to do. If you benefit from something someone else does, you owe them a debt of gratitude. It's not a legal debt, and it's not denominated in dollars and cents... but you shouldn't be surprised that there are norms of repaying this debt in various ways and that people/entities that excessively "take" from the commons incur reputational damage. > I just wanted to say that in general, yes those social norms are often against what I'd consider a free society, since they are just another axis of power to force you into behaviors you might not have agreed to participate in. This just feels like hyperbole to me. Expecting acknowledgment from someone when they've benefitted from something you've done is not an unreasonable ask. Getting shamed when you don't do this isn't a significant curtailment of liberty.
    - didibus 6y ago
      > If you benefit from something someone else does, you owe them a debt of gratitude. It's not a legal debt, and it's not denominated in dollars and cents... but you shouldn't be surprised that there are norms of repaying this debt in various ways Yes and this is what I'm criticizing. If I am in dept, then say so and make it explicit to me before I take the dept unknowingly, otherwise I'm sorry, but I will in turn shame you for being a cry baby and I won't abide by these norms, because I disagree with them. To me, social norm is just another form of force to impose ones will on others. And thus an attack on liberty. And the idea of a social contract is that I consent to give away some liberties for being able to participate in a functioning society. But when the social contract isn't explicit, and expectations arn't stated, I find that unfair, no matter if the force is physical or psychological. The act of coming back after the deed, and saying that accepting the deed bound me to X,Y,Z where none of those was stipulated, ya I find that crooked. At this point anything can be stipulated. For example, what is Amazon supposed to do here? Should they offer a job? Pay up some amount of money? Cancel their project? Put a banner on amazon.com thanking the contributor? How long should the banner stay up? Etc. They're just at the mercy of the wims of others, and they might start to regret having taken this "dept" which they didn't know came with all these strings attached. And by the way, it's not just that they didn't know, on fact, the author had written down in details as part of the attached license what all the expectations were, but now claims that more was implicitly expected based on some loosely defined social norms. Had the work been unlicensed, Amazon would not have used it. P.S.: But again, just to be clear, I'm talking about the principles at play here, in this particular scenario, I acknowledge this isn't like a massive issue and a crazy demand or attack on Amazon's liberty. And I'd be really amazed and impressed and would think highly of Amazon if they went above and beyond the license here.

mlyle 6y ago

> Anything that isn't well understood or known in advance of someone engaging in an activity, and then later faces unfair retribution because apparently they didn't do what wasn't told to them that needed be done, or did something that wasn't told to them shouldn't be done. Your argument self-contradicts. You assert, broadly, if it's legal it's OK. The "unfair retribution" of people getting annoyed about it and complaining is also legal, so that should be OK, too. :P > Now, yes I understand that maybe when you said hey this is open source with Apache license, you had in mind an audience of students, or one man startups, or hobbyist, or amateurs, and hadn't really thought if it applied to big corps. Nah, when I said "Apache License", I meant that legal license. But that doesn't mean doing some things that effectively cost nothing, that exceed the license requirements, aren't socially customary. There's no law that says you have to say "thank you" when someone renders you a service or has made something that makes your life easier or lets you make a bunch of money, but if you stand on legal grounds to avoid saying "thanks" you might be a dick, and people might call you out for being a dick.

didibus 6y ago
Well, there are rules around defamation, libel and slander. But you're right, there's no laws saying one cannot guilt trip someone else or shame them for their behavior even if they are acting legally. I think this is me criticizing those same "social norms". In my opinion, it is unfair to guilt trip someone or have hidden expectations when someone does a good deed for you. Especially when you decided to do the deed on your own and you went and promoted it for others to benefit and use. Obviously it's nice when you do something and others thank you and acknowledge you for it. But it isn't nice when someone complains they're not getting a thank you for something they choose to do willingly and weren't asked to do. Now I reckon here it's a bit different, because we're talking about two actors of very uneven footing, and I would like to see Amazon being more thankful and recognising the hard work of open source contributors. I agree with that sentiment. I just wanted to say that in general, yes those social norms are often against what I'd consider a free society, since they are just another axis of power to force you into behaviors you might not have agreed to participate in.
- mlyle 6y ago
  > But it isn't nice when someone complains they're not getting a thank you for something they choose to do willingly and weren't asked to do. If you benefit from something someone else does, you owe them a debt of gratitude. It's not a legal debt, and it's not denominated in dollars and cents... but you shouldn't be surprised that there are norms of repaying this debt in various ways and that people/entities that excessively "take" from the commons incur reputational damage. > I just wanted to say that in general, yes those social norms are often against what I'd consider a free society, since they are just another axis of power to force you into behaviors you might not have agreed to participate in. This just feels like hyperbole to me. Expecting acknowledgment from someone when they've benefitted from something you've done is not an unreasonable ask. Getting shamed when you don't do this isn't a significant curtailment of liberty.
  - didibus 6y ago
    > If you benefit from something someone else does, you owe them a debt of gratitude. It's not a legal debt, and it's not denominated in dollars and cents... but you shouldn't be surprised that there are norms of repaying this debt in various ways Yes and this is what I'm criticizing. If I am in dept, then say so and make it explicit to me before I take the dept unknowingly, otherwise I'm sorry, but I will in turn shame you for being a cry baby and I won't abide by these norms, because I disagree with them. To me, social norm is just another form of force to impose ones will on others. And thus an attack on liberty. And the idea of a social contract is that I consent to give away some liberties for being able to participate in a functioning society. But when the social contract isn't explicit, and expectations arn't stated, I find that unfair, no matter if the force is physical or psychological. The act of coming back after the deed, and saying that accepting the deed bound me to X,Y,Z where none of those was stipulated, ya I find that crooked. At this point anything can be stipulated. For example, what is Amazon supposed to do here? Should they offer a job? Pay up some amount of money? Cancel their project? Put a banner on amazon.com thanking the contributor? How long should the banner stay up? Etc. They're just at the mercy of the wims of others, and they might start to regret having taken this "dept" which they didn't know came with all these strings attached. And by the way, it's not just that they didn't know, on fact, the author had written down in details as part of the attached license what all the expectations were, but now claims that more was implicitly expected based on some loosely defined social norms. Had the work been unlicensed, Amazon would not have used it. P.S.: But again, just to be clear, I'm talking about the principles at play here, in this particular scenario, I acknowledge this isn't like a massive issue and a crazy demand or attack on Amazon's liberty. And I'd be really amazed and impressed and would think highly of Amazon if they went above and beyond the license here.