3 ms·

While it would be nice if we could get away with people abiding by an unwritten 'spirit of the agreement' the reality is that if you don't want someone to do so

by remus 6y ago

While it would be nice if we could get away with people abiding by an unwritten 'spirit of the agreement' the reality is that if you don't want someone to do something with your code then it needs to be written down in a license. I think it is somewhat naive to expect it work any other way, as when you potentially have millions of devs using some code it is unrealistic to expect them all to grasp an unwritten set of rules from a culture they potentially know nothing about.

wongarsu 6y ago
You can have quite relaxed rules as long as everyone abides by the spirit of the agreement. As soon as one party violates that spirit you are forced to make everything much more explicit, which inflicts collateral damage on use cases nobody would have objected to previously.
- growse 6y ago
  > You can have quite relaxed rules as long as everyone abides by the spirit of the agreement. As soon as one party violates that spirit you are forced to make everything much more explicit, which inflicts collateral damage on use cases nobody would have objected to previously. How are newcomers to know what the mystical "spirit of the agreement" is if it's not written down? How do you detect that there isn't, in fact, a precise consensus over the "spirit of the agreement" if it's not written down?
  - wongarsu 6y ago
    Newcomers can just look at what others are doing, and if what they want to do goes beyond standard practice should ask themselves "do I do undue harm to others?". That's how society generally runs on all scales, whether we are talking about the office fridge or about national law. Things generally start with very few explicit rules, and new rules get made when they are proven necessary.
    - growse 6y ago
      Eh? The national law is literally written down. "Guesswork" doesn't seem like a good way to do anything without stumbling into a lot of confusion and miscommunication.
      - wongarsu 6y ago
        If law was as simple as reading what's written down, then what are all the lawyers and courts for. There is a lot of interpretation going on. But really I was referring to the process of how the laws are formed in the first place. A lot of the time they start out under-specified, and as abuses emerge we make more concrete laws using our new understanding. Of course the latter part usually leads to a lot of discussion and resistance because of the collateral damage any new law causes by being slightly broader than necessary. Which is a major reason many industries self-regulate in the attempt to make explicit laws unnecessary.
jrochkind1 6y ago
Plus as a consumer I always thought the "spirit" of the open source agreement included avoiding vendor lock-in, in the first place. Now the argument is that the "spirit" all along was intended to require vendor lock-in, that consumers wanting the software hosted for them as a service should have only one option (Or authorized licencees of that one monopoly option), and that was always the "spirit" of open source? I don't think so. I thought the "spirit" was the opposite of that, that open source would let consumers of software avoid vendor lock-in or monopoly control of the software.

by remus 6y ago

wongarsu 6y ago

You can have quite relaxed rules as long as everyone abides by the spirit of the agreement. As soon as one party violates that spirit you are forced to make everything much more explicit, which inflicts collateral damage on use cases nobody would have objected to previously.

growse 6y ago
> You can have quite relaxed rules as long as everyone abides by the spirit of the agreement. As soon as one party violates that spirit you are forced to make everything much more explicit, which inflicts collateral damage on use cases nobody would have objected to previously. How are newcomers to know what the mystical "spirit of the agreement" is if it's not written down? How do you detect that there isn't, in fact, a precise consensus over the "spirit of the agreement" if it's not written down?
- wongarsu 6y ago
  Newcomers can just look at what others are doing, and if what they want to do goes beyond standard practice should ask themselves "do I do undue harm to others?". That's how society generally runs on all scales, whether we are talking about the office fridge or about national law. Things generally start with very few explicit rules, and new rules get made when they are proven necessary.
  - growse 6y ago
    Eh? The national law is literally written down. "Guesswork" doesn't seem like a good way to do anything without stumbling into a lot of confusion and miscommunication.
    - wongarsu 6y ago
      If law was as simple as reading what's written down, then what are all the lawyers and courts for. There is a lot of interpretation going on. But really I was referring to the process of how the laws are formed in the first place. A lot of the time they start out under-specified, and as abuses emerge we make more concrete laws using our new understanding. Of course the latter part usually leads to a lot of discussion and resistance because of the collateral damage any new law causes by being slightly broader than necessary. Which is a major reason many industries self-regulate in the attempt to make explicit laws unnecessary.

jrochkind1 6y ago

Plus as a consumer I always thought the "spirit" of the open source agreement included avoiding vendor lock-in, in the first place. Now the argument is that the "spirit" all along was intended to require vendor lock-in, that consumers wanting the software hosted for them as a service should have only one option (Or authorized licencees of that one monopoly option), and that was always the "spirit" of open source? I don't think so. I thought the "spirit" was the opposite of that, that open source would let consumers of software avoid vendor lock-in or monopoly control of the software.