3 ms·
The post's definition of 'supply chain' is wrong, and it leads to confusion. If I forage for mushrooms and give them to a local chef, I'm part of the supply cha
by __derek__ 4y ago
The post's definition of 'supply chain' is wrong, and it leads to confusion. If I forage for mushrooms and give them to a local chef, I'm part of the supply chain for that night's dinner, even without money changing hands or quality guarantees.
That said, to opt out of companies' supply chains, stop publishing software with permissive licenses.
- JohnFen 4y agoI'm certainly not going to stop publishing software with permissive licenses. I'll just adhere to the disclaimer I include with that software: I provide no warranty that it is fit for any particular use. Use it as you will, but don't expect any guarantee that I'll support whatever needs your supply chain has.
- __derek__ 4y agoThat's the current state that the author considers untenable, right?
- JohnFen 4y agoMy read of TFA is that author is complaining that companies are trying to push responsibilities onto FOSS authors that don't belong with the FOSS authors. He includes complaints about Github there, but those are easily resolved by not using Github. I believe that the author and I are on the same page here, generally. Have I misunderstood his essay?
- cbm-vic-20 4y agoOr license your work under GPL, which is kryptonite to most businesses. The mega-globo-corp I work for makes commercial license deals with some open source software vendors who dual license their software with GPL and a commercial license.
- Terretta 4y agoThe author is just flat wrong. Unless one thinks there are no supply chains in Gene Roddenberry's Star Trek, which is obviously wrong. Money isn't what makes it a supply chain. Pull dependencies on provenance (including origination, transformations, even aggregation) make it a supply chain.