shizzy0

Workification, tricking people into doing useless work by making it seem productive and unfun.

Super yuck.

So, we aren't then, and we don't want to be. Yep, that's pretty much what I'm saying.

What's pay got to do with it? See

http://michaelochurch.wordpress.com/2012/11/18/programmers-d...

Comments may mislead yes, but that's a problem with any sufficiently expressive language, and code is one such language: code can mislead. The functionality required of the code may be only half-implemented, then that code is misleading. That code may work for certain easy cases, but it may be harmful to your understanding of what functionality is actually required.

It's easy to see why we prioritize code over comments, why we prioritize the mechanisms over the specifications. It's because code can have some manner of automatic verification, and we're too harried to look into the comments, to do code review. Deadlines abound. We can't stop work and say, no, we can't do this under these time constraints without sacrificing a minimum level of quality, specifically because we're not treated like an actual profession with the clout or the responsibility that comes with such a thing.

See http://michaelochurch.wordpress.com/2012/11/18/programmers-d...

Cue the self-documenting, we-don't-need-no-stinking-comments rabble rousers in 3, 2, 1...

AND that's one reason why we're not an actual profession, people.

That's an amazing beard!

I think that game industry's reliance on the proprietary model is somewhat odd because they could do a really nice code is open source, but the art assets, sounds, etc. are licensed. Let people have and modify the engine, and if they purchased the game, they're free to add or do whatever, but no one can take your assets and resell them legally.

I disagree that it's distasteful. It's only distasteful if it's dishonest or coercive. I think it's actually a great way to fund a Free Software project. It's like github. You pay nothing, and everything is public. You pay for privacy. With the GPL and selling exceptions, it's very similar in spirit. You pay nothing, and you must give back. You pay something, and you may restrict your users.

If someone contributes code and licenses their copyright to LightTable, knowing full well that the product they support and invested time in may acquire some funds because of it, gosh, I just don't see how that's a bad thing. And if they believe that their patch is significant enough to demand reimbursement, that they would like to charge LightTable for a copyright license, they are free to negotiate such a trade. And if LightTable actually makes money from relicensing, they'll probably be happy to pay for such things.

I do, however, hope that they ask for copyright licenses rather than copyright assignment. Copyright assignment turns the author into a person powerless to use their own work. See harmonyagreements.org.

I had a similar experience a while back where it seemed to be the case that I ordered 1 BTC, but then only received ~0.7 BTC because the exchange rate had changed. More recently, however, when I've ordered 1 BTC I received 1 BTC x days later even though the exchange rate had changed (and not in coinbase's favor). So it seems like they've changed how they deal with the large latency in transactions--for the better.

Also, they're doing something called instant pay, which could help normalize expectations of what happens when you buy BTC. I wonder how that works with credit card charge back problems?

Oh, I thought that was the crash button.

He talked about inter-project conflicts due to injecting money into the system, but I think the intra-project issues are the bigger problem. Suppose the head developer receives $10^n for fund raising. Does this encourage or discourage other potential contributors from working with the developer? We've mainly been participating in a gift economy: You've given to me; I'm happy to give back to you. However, if I've got a big feature that I can contribute to this newly funded project, might I hold back since I'm not going to get a cut of any of these funds? The problem seems exacerbated as the funds grow larger.

Here's a potential solution to this mess. We treat app store placement like it's a free resource right now since it doesn't take up any physical space. However, it does increase its users cognitive load. All apps that have ever been produced sit on the app store unless their creators explicitly choose to take them down. That's like a department store that houses every invention ever made no matter how antiquated or outdated. Apple could introduce a "property tax". If you want to take up shelf space, you've got to pay a yearly tax or make way for other apps that will more productively use that space.

If you build it, they will EFF U UP!

Great on these people for making this available as open source. But referring back to medium.com: Really, this is why people are giving their content away because it has a nice web-based editor?

This! You must become a user before you can become a contributor. Then the vacuous "What project can I contribute to?" question becomes more intelligible, "What software should I use?" That depends. What do you want to do?

I strongly disagree. If you're a new developer looking to work on something, anything, completely indiscriminately then you're probably not ready to work on anything. The time required to contribute even on minimal issues is not insignificant. It requires learning at the very least what the project is, does, and moreover should do.

I think the phase of "what should I work on?" is a fledging phase of developer development that one quickly overcomes and then becomes burdened by the vast opportunities that exist. I think erecting a sign/button/webpage that says, WORK ON $THIS, will do nothing to help it because the would-be contributor may have no interest in the project. Also, it may inhibit the formation of their taste. One must develop enough of an interest in and taste for software that they want to change some aspect of it; that's when an opportunity to contribute something valuable presents itself: "This would be better if..."

> The slavery quip doesn't really make sense, because in that analogy the source code is the slave.

Wrong. Your users who don't have the same power to make changes as you do are the slaves in the analogy, not the source code.

I sum it up thusly: BSD is about freedom for the developers; GPL is about freedom for the users. I work professionally as a software developer, but I use far more software than I develop.

WiFi is no good outside one's house anyway. Every store/public-place sets up their WiFi to require you to agree to a terms of service, which is an annoyance. Best to just turn it off anyway; 3/4G always works. Why bother with intermittent WiFi that some companies are still trying to charge you for?

I would like to add that I think your article on what should be in your README is awesome! I will be making use of it for a new project of mine. I just respectfully disagree on the licensing considerations.

> It seriously limits amount of people that can use your library

Yes, it does seriously limit the amount of people that can use your library--without giving anything back.

> hopefully you are open sourcing a library because you want to help as many people as possible.

Help as many people as possible do what? Get rich by composing together a bunch of liberally licensed software to do a task and then close sourcing it. No, thank you.

I see licensing as a Hawk-Dove-Retaliator game[1] for modeling resource competition. Each kind behaves differently: The Dove never fights and always flees. The Hawk always attacks and never flees. The Retaliator only attacks if attacked. Pay off matrices describe in detail how well each kind does against the other. Dove vs. Dove both do well; they share. Hawk vs. Dove, the Hawk wins everything. Hawk vs. Hawk, the beat each other up; both lose. Retaliator vs. Dove, just like Dove vs. Dove. Retaliator vs. Hawk, like Hawk vs. Hawk.

My analogy is this: The BSD licensor is a Dove, the proprietary licensor is a Hawk, and the GPL licensor is a Retaliator. If you want to be nice but make yourself vulnerable to exploitation, be a Dove; Doves like Doves, and Hawks love Doves--it's popular. If you want to get rich, then exploit all the Doves and be a Hawk; Doves worked hard, so you don't have to. If you want to have your work respected rather than exploited, be a Retaliator: happy to cooperate with those who cooperate, but willing to punish those who defect and refuse to cooperate. Which of these strategies is stable in the long-term? See the links below for a more detailed answer, but Doves certainly aren't.

Doves may enjoy a wonderful period of peace and cooperation, but they're so easily exploited that it makes one wonder how long it will last. In a population of Doves, it's best to be a Hawk. However, a population of pure Hawks does terribly. A population of Retaliators though is nearly immune from invasion.

Note: There are many salient differences between licensing and this animal behavior model. I don't contend that it is a perfect analogy, but I think it is worthwhile for considering long term trends.

[1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicken_(game)#Hawk-Dove [1]: http://www.oocities.org/hawkdovegame/strategies.htm

I read this as "Emacsulating" and was disappointed to find I had misread it.

He really tied the company together.

Hacker News is too much about becoming rich to have much love for Stallman.

The criticism of ENV only allowing strings has no bearing on his argument. ENV comes from the OS environment. Code in any other language--strong or weakly typed--would have the exact same issue. And not being able to coerce arbitrary strings to booleans is fine because there is no principled way to do that except through convention. And everybody makes up there own convention: true, yes, YES, OK, TRUE, ok, ON, ENABLED, which just goes to show that there's no principled way to do it.

If this is the downside of having a DRM-less, open web then so be it.

Isn't it the case that anyone who has purchased this template and uses it on their site that someone can then scrape the template? The source code is already out there. You're fighting the medium not the man.

Use a real mail client. The web is terrible for non-CRUD work.

Can the generated licenses be used without signing up for binpress?

The license generator is a fantastic resource! And so far as I can tell one can use it however they like (they need not sign up with binpress to use them). I'd much prefer to offer software under the GPL, but also offer a proprietary license for sale for those who cannot release their source code and are happy to pay for the privilege.

No good deed goes unpunished.