1. 23
  1.  

  2. 32

    There are some good, defensible suggestions here for a collection of practices. As someone who has had mental health problems that affected my career as a developer, and probably a career that affected my mental health, I have difficulty with the word “sane” being used to mean “something I can agree with” in the context of software development. Probably because the lack of sanity is “insanity”, which in common parlance means someone who is dysfunctional due to mental health problems.

    Here, though, the lack of “sane software” is, well, it’s most software that exists in the world and people are getting on with using. Sanity and sanitation have a common root, and maybe an association with hygiene practices is less problematic than an association with mental health.

    1. 12

      A better word would be “sensible” or “decent”.

      1. 4

        I think sane works better because of mental health/ insanity concept.

        Insane is an undesired state and with treatment can improve. Software needs to be sane, if it is insane, it needs treatment to improve.

        This also helps me “hate the sin, love the software” as just because software is messed up, doesn’t mean the software is bad or evil. Similar to ill persons. Just because someone has a physical or mental illness, it does not diminish the significance or value of the human. No stigma on the person while we work to ameliorate the illness.

        1. 13

          Well, there’s your problem. Software doesn’t have a mental state. It can’t be ill, or healthy. If you’re saying that software is associated with an unhealthy mind, your are implicitly saying something about its creators.

          1. 11

            I’m saying that if we anthropomorphize software as it it were human, it can be sane or insane. That does not judge the creator any more than it would be illogical to make a judgement about the creators of an insane person.

            With extra information maybe the cause of insane software can be traced to a particular individual who did something wrong, but I don’t think that’s important as just fixing the software.

            That’s why I like the analogy of mental illness. The important part is treating the illness rather than trying to judge.

            I don’t think it’s rational to say “this software is insane, therefore the creator has a mental illness.” That’s silly. I also don’t think it’s very productive in most situations to say “this software is insane, therefore the creator is stupid.” There are many factors that would go into determine if the author sucked that maybe you want to know if you’re thinking of hiring the creator to create something. But just the state and history isn’t sufficient, I think, to make any judgements about the creator.

            Maybe if every project someone touches becomes insane after the touch.

            1. 2

              If someone creates a car or cart without brakes, we can call it an insane product, because you can kill yourself if you use it like a car. But it does not mean that the creator is insane. Maybe he did just some mistakes, the product has some bugs or it is not finished yet. Some people might already use it and it might be already useful in certain cases. But it is not a mature product and using it like a car would be insane.

              The preamble implies what kind of software is the primary target:

              In respect to user freedoms, privacy, liberty and software quality we create software according to the following guidelines. Developing Sane software is not easy, however we believe that this is the right way because this software is written once but used many times and maintained for years or decades.

        2. 23

          A lot of these points seem very opinionated. I share a number of them, but going off and calling everything that doesn’t fit your preferences “insane software” seems rather … meh. “Follow these rules”-articles without any explanations/reasoning aren’t really all that useful anyway.

          “Must be compatible with GNU GPLv3” means that I can never choose an alternative copyleft license, if I so prefer. It seems to me that this enforces exactly the kind of “monopoly” that some of the other points try to avoid. In general, I find the entire FSF-fawning in this article highly off-putting by the way.

          1. 3

            The EUPL 1.2 (see https://eupl.eu/1.2/en/) is compatible with the GNU GPLv3 without being the GNU GPLv3. It’s a hack to enable a one-way relicensing in certain circumstances, but a useful one.

            1. 0

              What if I don’t want my software relicensed to the GPL?

              1. 3

                This is the motivation behind the manifesto:

                In respect to user freedoms, privacy, liberty and software quality we create software according to the following guidelines.

                and this is the reason for recommending (not requiring) the copyleft licenses:

                Copyleft licenses (like GNU GPL or GNU Affero GPL) are strongly recommended because they guarantee software freedoms to every single end-user and prevent possibility that freedom vanishes somewhere in the distribution chain and the user can not benefit from the free software albeit the software is build on originally free source code.

                So if you can dual-license (GPLv3 + your favorite license), what are your objections?

                I would understand if e.g. some „open-source guy“ would disagree with requirement of GPLv3 license and would prefer a permissive license. But it is not a problem, because GPLv3 is not required – you can use e.g. BSD, MIT or Apache 2.0 – all such licenses are OK – it is required only to be GPLv3 compatible.

            2. 3

              Ad opinionated: this is not an exact science, I can not give mathematical proof for the each rule. So it is quite OK if you call it „opinions“. However they are based on experience (circa 14 years of professional software development). There is problem with TL;DR syndrome – such manifesto must not be too long, because nobody would read it. Each item could be an article and the manifesto could be a book… I will probably address particular topics in separate articles later. Currently, there are some additional notes, links and quotations in the source code (in later versions they might go to the footnotes in generated documents, but currently, in the v_0 branch they are just in the source code).

              1. 4

                Ad sane/insane: I understand that it is bit controversial, but it is not meant to be offensive. It should avoid the worst cases – if someone tells me to run curl http://www.example.com/install.sh | sudo bash in order to install his software, then yes, it is insane. Same case is that if so many free software projects depend on a single corporation. Or if you need a disproportionately complex (LOC, cyclomatic complexity, dependencies) software for doing a simple job. The complexity is real problem and despite it seems working now, it is still insane to depend on such software. BTW: today, the post just delivered me a copy of the book Click Here to Kill Everybody which seems to be a good read and relevant to this topic.

                1. 4

                  Ad sane/insane: I understand that it is bit controversial, but it is not meant to be offensive. It should avoid the worst cases – if someone tells me to run curl http://www.example.com/install.sh | sudo bash in order to install his software, then yes, it is insane.

                  I think your use of the word “insane” is insane.

                  1. 2

                    Maybe it would work better if you negated the logic, that is to collect list of all insane examples, like in The Little Book of Python Anti-Patterns book.

                  2. 2

                    I can never choose an alternative copyleft license

                    The software might be dual-licensed. It can be e.g. GPLv2 and GPLv3 (which differs from the GPLv2+ because it does not include the GPLv4 and later which is not known yet) or any other license + GPLv3.

                    I find the entire FSF-fawning in this article highly off-putting by the way.

                    I am a FSF associate member, but I am not happy with the recent events (see my article Future of the Free Software Foundation). However the Sane software manifesto is much older than those events and is written independently from the FSF. It rather refers to particular original ideas than to the current FSF (because such organization might change during time). It should work as a stand-alone document without any references to mutable external sources (such sources are usually quoted thus change in the external source does not automatically mean the change in the Sane software manifesto).

                    1. 4

                      I’m not sure how to state this more plainly: I don’t like the GPL. I don’t want software I write available under the GPL. I don’t want “alternative solutions”, I don’t want the GPL. It’s really that simple.

                      Recent events regarding the FSF have nothing to do with my dislike for it; that’s mostly fuelled by articles such as this one which state One True Way™ without any nuance or appearant understanding of other viewpoints or why things are as they are (your other comments, instead of adding nuance, only doubled down).

                      But hey, guess I’m “not sane” 🤷 Let me be plain about that as well: saying that people are “insane” for disagreeing about a particular topic – especially political ones like GPL/Free Software – is insulting, offensive, arrogant, and highly toxic.

                      1. 5

                        I’d like to enter the discussion right here.

                        Let me be plain about that as well: saying that people are “insane” for disagreeing about a particular topic – especially political ones like GPL/Free Software – is insulting, offensive, arrogant, and highly toxic.

                        While I do have my own objections against this manifesto (including its name, the fact that it’s even called a manifesto, and the majority of its content), there are two important points to be made. First of all, he’s calling the software “insane”, not its authors. But what’s even more important is that the English word “sane”, and especially the opposite term, “insane”, sound maybe more harsh than intended. Franta is Czech and translates the word as “příčetný”, which has somewhat milder connotation. That’s not to say it didn’t cause some controversy on the Czech Internet, because it for sure did, but it’s not per se insulting. It’s more that people just don’t agree with it.

                        Anyway, like I said, I do have my own objections about this manifesto, but I believe this particular statement of yours is just a cultural misunderstanding. There are some nice suggestions in this discussion (sensible or decent), so perhaps Franta would consider renaming it.

                        1. 3

                          I wrote about my own struggles with English as a non-native speaker before, so I certainly have a lot of sympathy and patience for that. The thing here is that people did tell the author, which was then ignored. So, I opted more a more direct approach to ensure the message got across with little chance of misunderstanding.

                          While less strong words – like “sensible” or “decent” – would certainly be an improvement, I still think this manifesto is far too opinionated and political to claim anything that doesn’t abide by it as “insensible” and “indecent”.

                          he’s calling the software “insane”, not its authors

                          I appreciate this, but there is a very fine line here; if I make “insane” software, then does that not imply that I’m acting in an “insane” way? And if I’m acting in an “insane” way, then am I not “insane”?

                          1. 3

                            Yes, I think it should be written in a different form. I hesitated to do it, but in the end decided to post my opinion.

                            I’ve read tons of Franta’s comments about similar topics and agreed with him a lot, yet was rolling my eyes when I read this. That’s perhaps the simplest way to put it. I understand his logic, but… OK, here’s another way to put it: Mixing tech with politics can do no good. After 9 months on Lobsters, I encountered first deleted comment right here. It’s my fault I didn’t realize I was entering a purely political thread, not Franta’s, but it still shows the level of controversy it causes.

                            The world needs good developers who follow good practices, not more labels. We can try to create some sort of “standard” for software development, but calling most of the software in existence “insane” is pointless, because it’s not going to change much. If anything, it should be split into multiple standards. We already have a definition of free software, so we could add some definitions for well-tested software, well-documented software, well-managed free software etc. But that just runs into similar problems. Testing games is so much different than testing enterprise systems… I would repeat myself at this point :)

                  3. 8

                    Might be good to add something about accessibility for people with disabilities, just as you covered internationalization for any software with non-trivial UI.

                    1. 9

                      Mix of good ideas, sometimes good ideas and bullshit.

                      And way too long.

                      1. 9

                        Every piece of Sane software is also Free software (as originally defined by Richard Stallman).

                        Lost me right there, on the first sentence. You’re welcome to your exclusionary ideology, but count me out.

                        1. 3

                          What software are you working on? What software are you using? Is not it a free software? What license? What does such software disqualify from being free software?

                          1. 11

                            I’d rather not discuss my own work here, but I wouldn’t choose GPLv3 or any other viral license for releasing my own work. I use a few Linux distributions at work, but I don’t think any of them are as “sane” (either technically or culturally) as OpenBSD, my preferred OS on my own time.

                            As for Stallman, I think he’s a jerk and a ham-handed demagogue who has alienated at least as many people as he’s attracted. I try to steer clear of his followers, especially the more militant ones.

                            I think using the language of mental health to describe software development practices is poor rhetoric, and unlikely to effect positive cultural change. I stopped reading your manifesto very early, so that’s all I have to say about it.

                            1. 3

                              It is difficult to discuss if you have not read the text…

                              I can say just that the GPLv3 license and copyleft are not required by the manifest. Only the compatibility with GPLv3 is required. And this requirement can be fulfilled by e.g. the BSD license.

                              The OpenBSD probably does comply with the Sane software manifesto (or it should be easy to make it compliant).

                            2. 3

                              “What software are you using? Is not it a free software?”

                              Lots of Apache, BSD, GPL licensed stuff… but also IntelliJ Pro (IntelliJ Community would be probably enough for me but I decided to pay them anyway.)

                              “What does such software disqualify from being free software?”

                              Authors don’t want it to be free (as beer and as speach), obviously (probably because they want to eat.)

                          2. 5

                            Heads-up: many tags will mean that this submission may be filtered by many people.

                            I suggest paring it down to ‘practices’.

                            1. 4

                              I was thinking how to phrase this sufficiently briefly (my other attempts yielded walls of text) and as a result, it sounds way too cold. So first of all, I want to thank you for even trying to share your expertise. In this case, it isn’t useful for me and here are the reasons why.


                              This document is too long and restrictive to get wider recognition, but too short to describe software engineering in its entirety. It’s an unnecessary mixture of technicalities and philosophical views, yet fails to deliver a punchline that’s to be expected from a manifesto. Manifesto on “a software gone wrong” are crushing airplanes, world collapsing into chaos and developers going mad from software complexity that overreaches capabilities of a human mind.

                              It’s not just a list of best practices, either. It’s more of an attempt to qualify what constitutes the perfect software, and uses a strong wording for all software that doesn’t comply to these rules that are sometimes questionable. Yes, it’s nice to have the luxury to be able to afford to prefer readability over performance. But when you write a game or a cryptocurrency miner, the priorities might be different. And this is the problem with the entire document.

                              It’s not constructive and leads to: “Okay, so I wrote an insane software according to this manifesto. Alright, noted. Goodbye now.”

                              What’s the point, anyway? Using the logo is just an unverified statement, not a certificate. Even if used correctly, what does it guarantee? Yes, it uses semantic versioning, yes, it does have a dictionary of terms, but it can still be wrong on so many levels.

                              It uses too many words for a checklist, too.

                              1. 4

                                The semver requirement puts this in direct contradiction with the Package Version Policy used in the Haskell ecosystem. I suspect other ecosystems have their own versioning policy, and “semver or the highway” is needlessly constrictive.

                                1. 3

                                  franta, those of you pushing FOSS seem to operate under the assumption that the law will work in your favor. This won’t be true in countries where the government doesn’t represent the people. The licensing must change to account for the environment it and pro-freedom developers operate in. For instance, developers wanting to maximize software freedom in America should be selling it to raise money to fight rich companies trying to destroy it with lobbyists and courts. I wrote more on it here.

                                  I’m still for some open source. I’m even fine with maximizing uptake by making the source-available software free for large numbers of users. We can even let them have their own forks. We need to make payment the default for those that can afford to pay, though. The suppliers should also have an organizational style, licensing agreements, and contracts that incentivize them to do more good. With so many tools available, it’s strange to me that FOSS advocates put all their eggs in the copyright basket with many licenses not even considering patents or contracts.

                                  1. 3

                                    As I already said in my article:

                                    We went a long and successful way since 1984. The goals that looked like insane fantasies in the early days are real now. We have free operating systems running on our workstations and desktops, on our mobile devices, on our servers, from the most powerful ones (every single supercomputer from the Top 500 runs a free operating system) through ordinary servers to even the smallest ones or other devices like modems or gateways. Free software is embedded almost everywhere now. We have plenty of free useful application software and tools. And even the hardware is getting more and more open, we have architectures like RISC-V or OpenPOWER which are available and coming to be widespread. We must continue this way and tirelessly replace remaining pieces of non-free proprietary technologies.

                                    This is a successful way.

                                    The licensing must change to account for the environment it and pro-freedom developers operate in.

                                    No. Free software is a global movement and general idea good for everyone on the planet. Making some incompatible local variants only weakens the movement.

                                    For instance, developers wanting to maximize software freedom in America should be selling it to raise money

                                    In our country, software development is one of best-paid professions and I expect that it would be similar in the USA. So it is bit weird to complain about the money ;-) Even if you would have a paid SW development job only half year and spend the other half with whatever you want (like writing free software), you would still live better than many other professions… So it is you (SW developer) who is holding the power to improve the world.

                                    I’m still for some open source.

                                    Based on what you wrote here: it is not open source, it does not comply with the open source definition.

                                    If you want different license model, you should disconnect yourself from the free software and open source movement and its almost forty year history and start something new – new definition and new name (different enough not to be confused with free software or open source)… and see whether you would be successful.

                                    But I am not going to contribute to such projects. I love free software (even if someone call it „open source“) and one of the reasons it that I can think about such software like it is my own software – and it is stable in the long term – even if the original authors stop developing it, I can continue or pay someone else to do this job and we have all rights needed and perpetual license. And (independently from the original authors) I can even build a commercial service based on it – which is part of the motivation to use and develop such software. Yes, I would share the code with users, comply with the copyleft and do the business in an ethical way… but making profit is not evil, it is OK and it is important part of our lives. Being locked with a software crippled by some non-commercial license is not what I want.

                                    with many licenses not even considering patents or contracts.

                                    Patents are addressed in the GNU GPLv3 or Apache 2.0 licenses. And network services are addressed in the GNU Affero GPL.

                                  2. [Comment removed by moderator pushcx: Nuking troll thread about nazis.]

                                    1. [Comment removed by moderator pushcx: Nuking troll thread about nazis.]

                                      1. [Comment removed by moderator pushcx: Nuking troll thread about nazis.]

                                        1. [Comment removed by moderator pushcx: Nuking troll thread about nazis.]

                                          1. [Comment removed by moderator pushcx: Nuking troll thread about nazis.]

                                    2. 2

                                      I saw and read this manifesto a couple of weeks ago and I totally agree with it. Will be using this checklist as a sanity check for my own (serious) projects.

                                      1. 2

                                        Thanks for support.

                                        BTW: there are logos (example of usage). If anyone want to use it, please do not hotlink and rather copy it to your website (remember the rule that The website must be independent and must contain everything needed – however the logo is not a crucial part of the website and might be loaded from external domain, it is still better to copy it instead of hotlinking, to avoid tracking the users – if you hotlink, we will see every visitor of your website in our logs, which is bad from the privacy point of view).

                                      2. 2

                                        I really do not like censorship and when I saw the deleted thread here, I afraid that this site is not reliable and friendly enough to continue the discussion. I will respond to certain questions rather in the Sane software mailing list.

                                        The deleted thread: User myfreeweb came with quite absurd/hypothetical question, I do not agree with him, but it was still relevant discussion because the Sane software is strictly apolitical – it explicitly says that In order to contribute, it must not be required: … to sign any political, religious or other proclamation or agree with it. and there are good reasons for it. Maybe he was just trolling, but this question was definitely on-topic.

                                        P.S. if your comment was deleted in this discussion, please send it to me – I will recover the discussion in the mailing list.

                                        1. 4

                                          You can judge for yourself by reading the moderation log, but it sounds like Lobsters almost certainly doesn’t meet your expectations and you’d be happier elsewhere. FWIW, our codebase is GPL-compatible if you’d like to reuse it.

                                          1. 2

                                            Moderation is not censorship. Apart from the initial comment by @myfreeweb, the rest of the comments in the deleted thread (including mine!) were offtopic and I accept the decision of @pushcx to delete them.

                                            Frankly, the comments by you and @Bystroushaak in the thread were very unflattering of your positions regarding the social parts of FLOSS participation, and you should be thankful they’re not shown anymore.

                                            If you want to resurrect them in your mailing list, that’s your choice. I will not submit my deleted comment (preserved in the moderation message) for inclusion in the discussion. The main part is included in a reply anyway.

                                            This will be my last comment in this discussion. I appreciate what you are trying to do, but I hope you read the comments here as constructive crititicism, and that they will inform your choices going forward.

                                            1. 2

                                              I’m a free speech and anti-censhorship guy in the political minority here. I can tell you that our moderators mostly take action to avoid dumpster fires, eliminate trolling, etc. They focus on comment quality and civility. People’s comments are rarely deleted. The bad ones usually just sink to the bottom or get collapsed with downvotes. People can still read them.

                                              I’m glad @pushcx mentioned “Nazi’s” in the deletion since that’s a clue it was a sub-thread that was going nowhere in a thread about software licensing and freedom. Over a 95% chance the content wouldn’t help us improve either topic. He’s getting a bit more active in pruning that kind of stuff. Each one I’ve seen pruned, including mine, made sense from the perspectives I just gave you. I appreciate our mods volunteering their time to keep it a civil, high-quality forum even if I don’t always agree on a specific decision. They do a great job.

                                              1. 0

                                                That deleted thread started with a quotation of your requirement to accept contributions from anyone. But Lobsters are (contrary to Abclinuxu.cz, for example) a tech site, and political issues such as this one are not welcome. The problem with your manifesto is that it mixes politics with tech, so some of its aspects cannot be discussed here. Personally, I didn’t even realize I was jumping into a purely political thread, and if @pushcx didn’t delete it, Lobsters would lose some of its quality.

                                                If you insist on keeping the manifesto as it is, this is not a good place to discuss it. Lobsters are usually a calm space and when people start getting emotional or even feel insulted, it’s an indication that something went wrong.

                                                IMHO feel free to ask or answer technical questions, share your projects (such as new releases of relpipes, or XML Web generátor) or interesting technical readings you find, but stay void of the politics, controversial topics or well-known technical flamewars (best indentation, language, typing, editor etc).

                                                BTW: Static websites are quite popular here, so if you think your implementation can be useful (dunno, I never tried it, just know it exists), people might appreciate it. ;-)

                                                1. 0

                                                  That deleted thread started with a quotation of your requirement to accept contributions from anyone. But Lobsters are (contrary to Abclinuxu.cz, for example) a tech site, and political issues such as this one are not welcome.

                                                  It is quite funny that even the requirement to stay apolitical (i.e. focus on software/technology) is here considered to be a political statement.

                                                  The manifesto says that „In order to contribute, it must not be required: … to sign any political, religious or other proclamation or agree with it.“ i.e. it says that we should focus on software quality instead of discussing politics and dividing the community.

                                                  This is becoming a bit meta-discussion about that we agree that we should stay apolitical, but it is forbidden to talk about it and explain why it is important… I know, I am new here, but sorry, this is just weird. Maybe there should be some FAQ and then the first response to the myfreeweb’s comment would be a link to that FAQ and the thread would not continue and nothing would be deleted.

                                                  1. 1

                                                    Manifesto recommends:

                                                    Good quality code contributions with appropriate copyright and patent licenses or assignments should be accepted from anyone.

                                                    This is a political statement, and it’s impossible to discuss it without getting into politics (in a wider sense of the word). Proof: We tried and jumped directly into:

                                                    Nuking troll thread about nazis.

                                                    I’m afraid this is not open for further discussion, at least not here. Hit me on IRC if you want, @Bystroushaak will give you my coordinates (or I can just join #mindspace, or whatever channel they’re using).

                                              2. 1

                                                Good list, I support every point listed there. It’s a pity that ~98% of open source projects fail to meet these criteria, if just because they use GitHub/GitLab for hosting.

                                                1. 9

                                                  If 98% of people are doing something “wrong”, then chances are that those 98% of people aren’t “insane”.

                                                  1. 5
                                                    1. The quality is more than quantity. There are so many free software projects hosted outside the GitHub and they are usually much more important than those „five lines-of-code JavaScript libraries“ or „just another fork without any useful commits“ on GitHub.

                                                    2. It is called „local extrema“ – significant part of our industry is stuck in such local extrema and this should be changed. Talking about these issues is the first step. Some better tooling might be developed… However even the original idea of distributed version control systems (Mercurial, Git, Bazaar, Monotone, Fossil, Darcs, Arch, Pijul…) itself is great. Such DVCS support various decentralized scenarios/workflows and none of them require having signed contract with any particular third party. You can do push/pull in so many ways… and share your code, cooperate. It is very sad to see the distributed tools like Git being used in a centralized way. And it is not only a technological centralization but the centralization of power, which is even worse.

                                                    1. 6

                                                      There are so many free software projects hosted outside the GitHub and they are usually much more important than those „five lines-of-code JavaScript libraries“ or „just another fork without any useful commits“ on GitHub.

                                                      Yeah, GitHub is well known for hosting small JavaScript libraries like Vim, VSCode, Python, Go, Swift, React, VueJS, Tensorflow, Docker, Kubernetes, etc. 😒

                                                      It is very sad to see the distributed tools like Git being used in a centralized way. And it is not only a technological centralization but the centralization of power, which is even worse.

                                                      GitHub has no power; there is no lock-in and I can still push all my git repos to $anything_else. In fact, a lot of organisations maintain a GitHub mirror for their code (e.g. torvalds/linux, postgres/postgres, etc.)

                                                      The thing is, for most people GitHub (or GitLab) actually works really well – better than all true “Free Software” alternatives. There is a small subset of users who prefer to send patches over email and whatnot, and that’s all fine and I encourage you to use that method for your own projects, but most of us just don’t prefer to work that way, and we’re not “insane”.

                                                      1. 5

                                                        GitHub has no power; there is no lock-in and I can still push all my git repos to $anything_else. In fact, a lot of organisations maintain a GitHub mirror for their code (e.g. torvalds/linux, postgres/postgres, etc.)

                                                        The problem with GitHub isn’t the Git part, it’s all the stuff around it. The comminucation channels (issues and merge requests) are completely centralized. That’s the lock-in, you can’t even submit an issue or create a merge request without a GitHub account.

                                                        1. 3

                                                          You need to create an account to post here, too, and you do in many places. In most mailing lists you need to subscribe in order to post, which isn’t all that different from creating an account I think (in many ways it’s worse, because now my inbox will get spammed).

                                                          1. 2

                                                            You can always try to just email a patch to the owner of the GitHub account. If it’s a small patch that doesn’t need multiple people to review it, and the owner knows how to git am, it might just be accepted :)

                                                          2. 1

                                                            So, what license do you prefer?

                                                            I saw that your project goatcounter is licensed under the Affero GPL and your other projects, I found, are under MIT – it is everything GPLv3 compatible.

                                                            1. 3

                                                              So? I don’t need to justify my licensing choices here in order to object to you telling me I must make all software GPL-compatible. This seems like a rather curious definition of “Freedom” to me.

                                                      2. 2

                                                        Well, if they’re formally “Open Source” and not “Free Software”, they fail the very first point.

                                                        Every piece of Sane software is also Free software (as originally defined by Richard Stallman).

                                                        1. 6

                                                          Is there any OSI-approved open source license that does not give you the four freedoms as defined by Richard Stallman? I couldn’t name one. But I agree with you that there is a big philosophical difference between open source and free software.

                                                          1. 3

                                                            +1. I have heard about some very rare cases, but not important ones. Commonly used licensed comply with both FSF and OSI definitions.

                                                            BTW: ISO/OSI → just OSI in this context :-) and Stallmann → Stallman.

                                                            1. 2

                                                              Thanks, fixed.

                                                              1. 1

                                                                I suggest you change the first item in your manifesto to link to the OSI definition.

                                                            2. 2

                                                              The definitions of free software and open source are overall compatible. Only in very rare cases, a license is approved by FSF and not by OSI or vice versa.

                                                              And most of the projects does qualify as free software despite the fact, that their authors call it „open source“. There are still many authors who are not aware of that they are writing free software, but they are :-)

                                                              Sane software manifesto tends to the free software philosophy and background, so it refers the free software definition rather than the OSI definition. However if given project comply with the OSI rules, it is almost sure that it also complies with the Sane software manifesto requirement to be free software.