3 ms·

So when did it become acceptable to leave tracking code turned on by default (opt out) in open source repos?

maxerickson 12y ago
Are there rules attached to the plurality of (so called) open source licenses, or even OSI approved licenses? Not really. Are you finding this particular tracking code acceptable? Apparently not. So there was never any coherent whole that could have found something unacceptable to begin with and in the end there are still disparate parts that continue to find it unacceptable. I guess this is an obvious and tiresome answer, but I'm not sure what else you would expect anyone to say.
- WhitneyLand 12y ago
  Just because there are no rules against something does not make it acceptable or good. Just because I review code doesn't meant I accept or use it so your assumption is wrong. There should be nothing tiresome about calling out for discussion of evolving trends in software or anything else. If you see nothing negative about this practice then speak out constructively.
  - maxerickson 12y ago
    I assumed that you did not find the tracker here acceptable. What I find tiresome is insisting that the use of some license or the other is a statement of values (your phrasing also implies that history clearly agrees with you, which I tend to find tiresome). If the readme and other materials made repeated attempts to invoke some set of values and the source was contrary to that, fine you have a valid gripe, but the readme doesn't mention the license and the homepage ( http://google.github.io/flatbuffers/ http://google.github.io/flatbuffers/ ) keeps it to "It is available as open source under the Apache license, v2 (see LICENSE.txt)."
kevb 12y ago
It's a version string, which as far as I know, has been acceptable since the beginning of open source. They just let us know that Google Play scans APKs for that string. I imagine Google Play also scans for other libraries, open source or otherwise. https://github.com/google/flatbuffers/blob/master/include/flatbuffers/flatbuffers.h#L977-994 https://github.com/google/flatbuffers/blob/master/include/fl...

Are there rules attached to the plurality of (so called) open source licenses, or even OSI approved licenses? Not really. Are you finding this particular tracking code acceptable? Apparently not. So there was never any coherent whole that could have found something unacceptable to begin with and in the end there are still disparate parts that continue to find it unacceptable. I guess this is an obvious and tiresome answer, but I'm not sure what else you would expect anyone to say.

WhitneyLand 12y ago
Just because there are no rules against something does not make it acceptable or good. Just because I review code doesn't meant I accept or use it so your assumption is wrong. There should be nothing tiresome about calling out for discussion of evolving trends in software or anything else. If you see nothing negative about this practice then speak out constructively.
- maxerickson 12y ago
  I assumed that you did not find the tracker here acceptable. What I find tiresome is insisting that the use of some license or the other is a statement of values (your phrasing also implies that history clearly agrees with you, which I tend to find tiresome). If the readme and other materials made repeated attempts to invoke some set of values and the source was contrary to that, fine you have a valid gripe, but the readme doesn't mention the license and the homepage ( http://google.github.io/flatbuffers/ http://google.github.io/flatbuffers/ ) keeps it to "It is available as open source under the Apache license, v2 (see LICENSE.txt)."

kevb 12y ago

It's a version string, which as far as I know, has been acceptable since the beginning of open source. They just let us know that Google Play scans APKs for that string. I imagine Google Play also scans for other libraries, open source or otherwise. https://github.com/google/flatbuffers/blob/master/include/flatbuffers/flatbuffers.h#L977-994 https://github.com/google/flatbuffers/blob/master/include/fl...