November 17, 2016 at 19:44OpenSource Etiquette and Ethics
I was prompted to write this post by a fair comment by the VBart user on my previous post, which is now in draft. After the corresponding edits I will publish a draft - the link to the comment will work.
I thought about the ethics - vowels and tacits - of using open source. I think this kind of memo will be useful not only to me, but generally to those who, like me, just did not think about this before, guided by the licenses. At least I didn’t find something like that in Runet, so I believe that the text has the right to life.
Here the “golden rule of the Christian” fits perfectly or, as eandr_67 pointed out, “The golden rule of ethics”, morality: “Treat others as I would like to relate to you”, so imagine that we have already written an abstract project (it doesn’t matter which one) and we want to be treated well .
So, the first and most important. The most obvious. Open source software means that we spend time - a precious resource - almost for nothing. And we want to be respected by this time .
This means that it is advisable to comment on absolutely any free code in the form of suggestions, and not discontent. We are a people very critical in nature, we cannot criticize, and we often do this because we care. Eventually:
It has in common with the general rule of criticism: “You criticize - offer.”
From the same respect, a rule follows, similar to the etiquette rule not to use a spoon where you can use a fork, namely:
The rule above resembles the recent dialogue about the new npm repository client . I thank the author of the comment for the dialogue and the essentially correct remark. If something forces you to make your fork, then:
And even if you don’t like something in the ideology of the authors, you should not forget that after the fork we change mostly someone else’s code, not ours. And you need to be grateful for the license, which allows branching of the project, no matter what the differences with its authors.
This is obvious. Further, in my opinion, the rule that was not quite obvious, which I myself violated and was paid not only by the “small” rating, but by the “large” karma, is also the case. Not complaining.
So, when our free, free product is used, we would (for the most part) want users to mention this.
Although, personally, I would have concealed the use with the understanding: you use - thanks already for the fact that my work does not disappear, that it is in demand. Hide if necessary. But I am not everything, and considering the features of monetization of open projects, which VBart pointed out, this is not always possible.
So, show someone else's product as much as the desire for security allows. Especially if some hiding tools are built into the product - prefer them. Eventually:
Also, ideally, I would like for the labor to be paid, if possible by the user of labor. And here it’s fair and correct to talk about at least one hour of one qualified developer in the main language of the product.
For example, in the case of C ++, according to data from roem.ru for the first quarter of 2015 in Moscow - 108 000 rubles. In the month of 22 working days for 8 hours. Total: 108000 / (22 * 8) = 613, (63) → 620 rubles with rounding. The data is not very relevant, but certainly close to the truth. Not so much, right? But enough to not feel like you came to everything ready. So:
There is no eighth rule - add your own! Answers on a topic with a rating of more than 1 will be adapted, that is, reformulated briefly, added to the post with a link, and let everyone decide what to do with it.
Thank you for your attention and comments!
I thought about the ethics - vowels and tacits - of using open source. I think this kind of memo will be useful not only to me, but generally to those who, like me, just did not think about this before, guided by the licenses. At least I didn’t find something like that in Runet, so I believe that the text has the right to life.
Here the “golden rule of the Christian” fits perfectly or, as eandr_67 pointed out, “The golden rule of ethics”, morality: “Treat others as I would like to relate to you”, so imagine that we have already written an abstract project (it doesn’t matter which one) and we want to be treated well .
So, the first and most important. The most obvious. Open source software means that we spend time - a precious resource - almost for nothing. And we want to be respected by this time .
This means that it is advisable to comment on absolutely any free code in the form of suggestions, and not discontent. We are a people very critical in nature, we cannot criticize, and we often do this because we care. Eventually:
- Criticize free with offer
It has in common with the general rule of criticism: “You criticize - offer.”
From the same respect, a rule follows, similar to the etiquette rule not to use a spoon where you can use a fork, namely:
- Do not make your own fork where pull request is possible
The rule above resembles the recent dialogue about the new npm repository client . I thank the author of the comment for the dialogue and the essentially correct remark. If something forces you to make your fork, then:
- When making your own fork, mention the original
And even if you don’t like something in the ideology of the authors, you should not forget that after the fork we change mostly someone else’s code, not ours. And you need to be grateful for the license, which allows branching of the project, no matter what the differences with its authors.
- Be thankful for your fork
This is obvious. Further, in my opinion, the rule that was not quite obvious, which I myself violated and was paid not only by the “small” rating, but by the “large” karma, is also the case. Not complaining.
So, when our free, free product is used, we would (for the most part) want users to mention this.
Although, personally, I would have concealed the use with the understanding: you use - thanks already for the fact that my work does not disappear, that it is in demand. Hide if necessary. But I am not everything, and considering the features of monetization of open projects, which VBart pointed out, this is not always possible.
So, show someone else's product as much as the desire for security allows. Especially if some hiding tools are built into the product - prefer them. Eventually:
- Show someone else’s product
Also, ideally, I would like for the labor to be paid, if possible by the user of labor. And here it’s fair and correct to talk about at least one hour of one qualified developer in the main language of the product.
For example, in the case of C ++, according to data from roem.ru for the first quarter of 2015 in Moscow - 108 000 rubles. In the month of 22 working days for 8 hours. Total: 108000 / (22 * 8) = 613, (63) → 620 rubles with rounding. The data is not very relevant, but certainly close to the truth. Not so much, right? But enough to not feel like you came to everything ready. So:
- Respect someone else's time
- Criticize free with offer
- Do not make your own fork where pull request is possible
- When making your own fork, mention the original
- Be thankful for your fork
- Show someone else’s product
- Pay for the author’s hour
- ...
There is no eighth rule - add your own! Answers on a topic with a rating of more than 1 will be adapted, that is, reformulated briefly, added to the post with a link, and let everyone decide what to do with it.
Thank you for your attention and comments!