Etiquette and ethics of using OpenSource
I was prompted to write this post by the fair comment of the VBart user to my previous post, which is now in draft. After the appropriate edits I will publish the draft - the link to the comment will work.
I thought about ethics - public and unofficial - using open source. I think this kind of memo will be useful not only for me, but in general for those who, like me, just did not think about it before, guided by the licenses. At least I haven’t found something like this in the runet, so I believe that the text has the right to life.
Here, the “golden rule of a Christian” or, as eandr_67 pointed out, the “golden rule of ethics” and morality is the best suited: “Treat others as you would like them to treat you,” so let's imagine that we have already written an abstract project ( It does not matter which one) and want to be treated well.
So the first and most important thing. The most obvious. Open source software means that we spend time - the most precious resource - almost for nothing. And we want to respect this time .
')
This means that comments on absolutely any free code should be expressed in the form of sentences, not discontent. We are a very critical people by nature, we cannot but criticize, and we often do this because we care. Eventually:
It echoes the general rule of criticism: “If you criticize, then offer.”
From the same respectfulness follows a rule similar to the rule of etiquette not to use a spoon where you can use a fork, namely:
The rule above resembles a recent conversation about a new npm repository client . I thank the author of the commentary for the dialogue and the essentially correct remark. If something forces you to make your fork, then:
And even if something is not pleasant in the ideology of the authors, we should not forget that after the fork, we change mostly someone else's code, and not our own. And you need to be grateful for the license, allowing the branching of the project, whatever the differences with its authors.
This is the obvious. Further - not quite obvious, in my opinion, the rule that he himself broke and paid not only with a “small” rating, but with “large” karma — and in the matter. 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 regard the use of concealment with understanding: you use - thanks already for the fact that my work does not disappear, that it is in demand. If necessary, hide it. But I am not everything, and considering the peculiarities of monetization of open projects pointed to by VBart, this is not always possible.
So, show someone else's product as far as the desire for security allows. Especially if some concealment tools are built into the product - prefer them. Eventually:
Also, ideally, it would be desirable if, if the user of labor is available, the work is still paid. And here it is fair and right 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 ++ , data from roem.ru for the first quarter of 2015 in Moscow is 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 it is enough not to feel that one has come to all that is ready. So:
There is no eighth rule - add your own! Answers on the topic with a rating greater 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 ethics - public and unofficial - using open source. I think this kind of memo will be useful not only for me, but in general for those who, like me, just did not think about it before, guided by the licenses. At least I haven’t found something like this in the runet, so I believe that the text has the right to life.
Here, the “golden rule of a Christian” or, as eandr_67 pointed out, the “golden rule of ethics” and morality is the best suited: “Treat others as you would like them to treat you,” so let's imagine that we have already written an abstract project ( It does not matter which one) and want to be treated well.
So the first and most important thing. The most obvious. Open source software means that we spend time - the most precious resource - almost for nothing. And we want to respect this time .
')
This means that comments on absolutely any free code should be expressed in the form of sentences, not discontent. We are a very critical people by nature, we cannot but criticize, and we often do this because we care. Eventually:
- Criticize the free with the offer
It echoes the general rule of criticism: “If you criticize, then offer.”
From the same respectfulness follows a rule similar to the rule of etiquette 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 a recent conversation about a new npm repository client . I thank the author of the commentary 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 something is not pleasant in the ideology of the authors, we should not forget that after the fork, we change mostly someone else's code, and not our own. And you need to be grateful for the license, allowing the branching of the project, whatever the differences with its authors.
- Be grateful for your fork.
This is the obvious. Further - not quite obvious, in my opinion, the rule that he himself broke and paid not only with a “small” rating, but with “large” karma — and in the matter. 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 regard the use of concealment with understanding: you use - thanks already for the fact that my work does not disappear, that it is in demand. If necessary, hide it. But I am not everything, and considering the peculiarities of monetization of open projects pointed to by VBart, this is not always possible.
So, show someone else's product as far as the desire for security allows. Especially if some concealment tools are built into the product - prefer them. Eventually:
- Show someone else's product
Also, ideally, it would be desirable if, if the user of labor is available, the work is still paid. And here it is fair and right 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 ++ , data from roem.ru for the first quarter of 2015 in Moscow is 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 it is enough not to feel that one has come to all that is ready. So:
- Respect someone else's time
- Criticize the free with the offer
- Do not make your own fork, where pull request is possible
- When making your own fork, mention the original.
- Be grateful for your fork.
- Show someone else's product
- Pay for the author's hour
- ...
There is no eighth rule - add your own! Answers on the topic with a rating greater 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!
Source: https://habr.com/ru/post/315530/
All Articles