1. 2

    Nice conversation about build systems.

    I’m impressed by the podcast transcript, it makes it so much easier to absord the content rather than listening for 1 hour. I wish it was more common (for instance some talks seem interesting but only available as hours long videos).

    1. 1

      Yes, indeed. The transcript is very nice (especially if you’re not used to audio podcast format). Really good job here.

    1. 1

      I usually do not listen to podcast, but really enjoyed this recording. Thanks a lot, guys!

      1. 5

        Credit to @ondrej for pointing this out, thank you!

        1. 3

          My pleasure! :)

        1. 6

          I’m disappointed in this: it doesn’t cover logic or set theory, both of which are widely useful in programming, and it glazes over the incredible value of graph theory, linear algebra, probability, and combinatorics. I’d have also liked to see something on statistics, and maybe modular arithmetic in the context of ring buffers.

          Like the use of Galois fields though, something worth investigating more. I’ve only used them in pure math.

          1. 7

            I think this could help you with more algebraic stuff.

            1. 1

              Looks interesting!

          1. 4

            Thanks a lot, love it!

            1. 9

              Anti-clickbait TL;DR:

              No. A virus catalog is seeing many new entries daily which are basically the same thing, thanks to a process forking too much either unintentionally or due to malware. The author shows work.

              1. 1

                Thank you!

              1. 4

                Excellent article, thanks for sharing!

                1. 2

                  Thank you, I appreciate that! I felt I could have made this more clear and struggled for a while trying to do so. Eventually I realized I needed to just get it published and deal with questions as they come up instead of trying to preempt all of them.

                1. 8

                  As mentioned in the first line, this is a clickbait article, but the rest of the article is really cool.

                  1. 4

                    Yes, indeed. I hesitated for a long time whether to change the autogenerated title or not, but I decided to keep the original.

                    1. 2

                      Should have changed it.

                      1. 1

                        Titles can be changed from the original if the meaning is unclear…

                    1. 0

                      Excellent, thanks a lot for post! There’s a lot of fun with dependent types, so I’m looking forward to read the paper.

                      1. 16

                        I don’t really understand why this “Elixir is like Ruby” idea took off in the first place. It’s got some small syntactic similarities, but also a lot of syntactic differences, and of course the semantics are totally different as well.

                        When I started learning Elixir, my Ruby knowledge didn’t help me at all.

                        1. 37

                          Because Jose Valim created Elixir specifically to address his frustrations with Ruby. He worked on Delve for his employer (along with other devs), which one of the most popular gems in Ruby.

                          Elixir and Phoenix (created by Chris McChord), are very much responses to Ruby and Rails respectively, even if the semantics aren’t similar under the hood.

                          They aren’t similar semantically, but they are linked culturally at a deep level

                          1. 4

                            Interesting, I did not know that one of the motivating factors for creating Elixir was frustration with Ruby. Although, to be fair, in aspects other than syntactical similarities, I have never seen these two compared (one can hardly compare relatively simple scripting language with something based on the powerful BEAM engine).

                            1. 6

                              I would hardly call Ruby relatively simple, it’s got a lot going on, and has a decent amount of complexity, at least 3 implementations (jruby, Truffle Ruby and CRuby), a rather involved language with a lot of flexibility, and a rich history of things from Perl and such.

                              Lua, I would consider relatively simple, because a Lua implementation is possible with one or two devs, where Ruby and Python are both much more involved as far as language details.

                              It is true that Ruby has not had the most sophisticated run-time in the past, but it definitely isn’t simple.

                            2. 2

                              Thank you for explaining. Never knew they were so closely interlinked.

                              He worked on Delve for his employer

                              What’s Delve? I tried searching for it but couldn’t find anything, unless you mean this ruby gem for building roguelikes.

                              1. 10

                                I think that’s a typo, the gem he worked on was Devise: https://github.com/heartcombo/devise

                                1. 1

                                  Thanks for catching that, you’re correct.

                          1. 4

                            I am super excited about this. Can’t wait to try it out and I really hope it works well. My experience with using programs others have written in haskell has been they consistently are high-quality and correct, so I’m optimistic about this.

                            1. 3

                              Indeed, my experience with Haskell is also extremely pleasant. If you use Wayland and like compositors, I can definitely recommend hikari or sway, which are absolutely excellent.

                              1. 1

                                I got it working on linux for some basic, but previously impossible, home row mod-tap combinations and so far so good!

                              1. 25

                                The article focuses on followers, which is a strange metric to focus on.

                                github primarily allows physically separated developers, sometimes from different organizations, to collaborate on code.

                                As a side effect, github offers the possibility to show a portfolio of work. This is possible for people whose work/study allows them to show the work they did publicly including collaboration.

                                If a person does have material on github and points to it on their resume, you can get an idea of their working style, and some of their personality from this portfolio. It may help you to filter candidates and to think of things to ask them in the interview that will spark a nice discussion.

                                Once, in an interview I had a nice discussion with a total stranger about an orbital simulator I’ve worked on for many years, totally unrelated to the work at hand.

                                If the candidate doesn’t have a github portfolio, it is what it is and you’ll just have to ask them about what they like to code in the interview.

                                Like everything else, a github portfolio is just one piece of evidence to a future colleague’s fit for a job. It’s neither a necessary piece of evidence, nor a sufficient one, to hinge a hiring decision on.

                                1. 4

                                  “a (github) portfolio is just one piece of evidence to a future colleague’s fit for a job. It’s neither a necessary piece of evidence, nor a sufficient one, to hinge a hiring decision on.”

                                  I absolutely agree, it can add the necessary part of the information, but it certainly does not help to draw the whole personality profile of the candidate, it is necessary to evaluate many more factors.

                                  1. 3

                                    They did include this footnote:

                                    There isn’t an API to get the contribution activity in the last year from GitHub. Instead, people seem to get the timeline image as an SVG (like hitting this endpoint https://github.com/users/benfred/contributions), and then parse the SVG to get the number of contributions. I almost went with this hack for this post but hit some problems with CORS restrictions from loading this in the browser. I could have written a proxy to host the requests, but it was getting silly so went with the number of followers instead.

                                    1. 10

                                      One thing I usually did when evaluating candidate is to search for “site:github.com username commented on”. That will give some ideas on the candidate communication style as we go through his interaction on github discussing bugs, suggesting new features or debating on some technical arguments.

                                      1. 2

                                        This is not a bad idea! I just checked some of people I like to work with and the results were great. In case a person did not have any interactions you have to rely on other means.

                                      2. 3

                                        Confused. Why would anyone care about those silly metrics when you can look directly at the code they have written? It’s not GitHub, it’s what you put in there. You could host your code on another website, including one that you own, if you have one.

                                        “Why won’t your CV help you with hiring”…It sure depends on its contents…?

                                        1. 1

                                          99% of the code I have written is not available for review for you. How do we proceed?

                                          1. 4

                                            Certainly not by counting GitHub stars or followers.

                                            You either have the code to show or you don’t. It’s up to you to prove yourself as a candidate. I would certainly not hire you based a social network metrics.

                                            If you want to know that the most followed person on GitHub says about that (I learned this in this entry):

                                            Talk is cheap, show me the code.

                                        2. 2

                                          There is an API to get contributions. I keep a log in Vim, and I’ve configured it so that pressing F5 inserts a markdown-formatted list of my GitHub contributions since the last time I pressed F5 (https://github.com/talex5/get-activity). I haven’t tried getting a whole year’s worth, but I don’t see why it wouldn’t work.

                                      1. 5

                                        Hard to evaluate just by a quick glance, but looks promising, thanks for posting! I’ll just drop some more category theory resources here for those interested:

                                        1. 1

                                          David Spivak has excellent books, these are indeed good titles!

                                        1. 1

                                          Great book, I have really enjoyed reading it!

                                          1. 2

                                            Hello everyone, if you use Matrix and enjoy functional programming, come to discuss it with us :) #lambdapunk:acmelabs.space

                                            See you there!

                                            1. 76

                                              I’m surprised this is being received this well, when it should be apparent to anyone that the license is practically unworkable, and quite sloppy in legal terms. Your source is public for the good guys, and you tell the bad guys, “don’t you use this!”. To properly enforce this, you would require user-tracking like actual propitiatory software (not that the license denies this fact), which is not trivial to begin with, and especially so for a non-commercial entity. And that’s assuming you can enforce it in the first place.

                                              I think it goes without saying, that this should not be used for any serious project. You isolate yourself from the entirety of human software progress, and just like a revolution surrounded by adversary forces, the chances are slim that you’ll get anywhere.

                                              Ultimately, even if you agree with the spirit of the license, you should consider replacing the moralist particularism with an universalism, such as that of the GPL. We don’t live in revolutionary times, and capitalism will (for better or worse) be a reality of our society for the time to come. Copyleft licenses are the only ones that transform “egoism” into “altruism”, that align the private interest with the common interest. In my eyes, that is far more subversive than whatever the indent is of this license.

                                              1. 38

                                                I don’t really disagree with your comment, but I think it misses the point a bit: this is activism, not an attempt to build a software ecosystem. Generally speaking, people aren’t too concerned with this kind of pragmatism when it comes activism.

                                                1. 7

                                                  I get your point, but the activism begins and ends with choosing the license. After that, it would seem to me that you’ve only got the software to use, with it’s limitations.

                                                  1. 10

                                                    I can’t say I personally care much to join in either, for the reasons you mentioned as well as some others. But I’m all for people expressing their beliefs in their own ways as long as it doesn’t unreasonably interfere with other people. Personally I would phrase any criticism as “here are reasons why I wouldn’t use it/join this: [..]” rather than “this is bad”.

                                                  2. 1

                                                    For activism to be affective it needs to do something right?

                                                    This could be used by hobby projects, but the best way to spread word on this license would be to be in a useful project. As currently written it’s almost impossible to be used by any private org since it requires equal share ownership by all “workers” that includes anyone who performs work and really ambiguous. Is a company allowed to use janitorial services without giving their workers equity? Etc etc

                                                    This seems very meta until there are projects using it, and the license doesn’t seem like it will be used.

                                                    “ 3. If the User is an organization with owners, then all owners are workers and all workers are owners with equal equity and/or equal vote.”

                                                  3. 23

                                                    Exactly. Capitalists, i.e. “big tech”, avoid the AGPLv3 (and GPLv3) already, so that seems to be quite effective at preventing them from using it…

                                                    1. 20

                                                      The GPL3 licenses don’t forbid any practice or field of endeavour, and yet those organisations self-select out of the field. That makes it a much more principled and subtle tool than a license that says “boo, capital sucks”.

                                                    2. 36

                                                      To me it’s more than just unworkable, it’s goes against what I believe is valuable and good. To me it is slightly disgusting to be honest. And I would consider such license to be a step towards evil.

                                                      But that aside, I think it will only spark purity spirals between some hard-core socialists and communists, and they will start claiming infringements on one another. Which maybe is a good outcome.

                                                      1. 6

                                                        it’s goes against what I believe is valuable and good

                                                        What do you mean by that?

                                                        1. 17

                                                          Well, people here hate some of Apple or Microsoft licensing. They pull updates on you, spy on you. You don’t own the software that you bought. The way I interpreted it - this license is worse than that.

                                                          Imagine buying some software licensed under this (it allows for commerce). You don’t own that software unless you promise to live a certain way. And what is that way - you cannot make certain kinds of voluntary associations with other people (i.e. offer your services and ask for something you want in return, as that would be capitalism), and you cannot join or help the police (and wtf is that?!). If you do, you must abandon using the software, even thou you gave something in exchange for it.

                                                          I do support their right to do anything they want and write any license they want of course. But as for being involved with anything licensed under it - no thank you.

                                                          1. 42

                                                            (i.e. offer your services and ask for something you want in return, as that would be capitalism)

                                                            That’s not what Capitalism is. Capitalism is an exploitative relationship wherein a class of people who own the tools and means necessary to produce enter into a forcibly non-equitable relationship with others who use those tools to produce.

                                                            What’s described there is a fair exchange between an individual who (ostensibly) owns their means of production, with another person who wants that good or service. It’s about who gets to keep the value of their labor – in Capitalism, you go to work for Charlie Capitalist at Acme Corp, you make software or widgets or whatever for them all day and generate something Charlie Capitalist can have their other employees sell – Charlie Capitalist rarely does anything directly – generating some amount of money. You can think of this as a chain of employees generating X$ of value, in the simplest case that chain is exactly you -> capitalist, but generally it’s fairly long.

                                                            So far, so good, if you have a chain of n people and generate X$ of value – what is the proper distribution of that value? There are lots of arguments about proportional amounts of work, but for the moment let’s keep things simple and say you make a widget, and Sally Salesperson sells it for X$, the only two people bringing value to the thing are you and Sally, so the natural expectation would be you get X/2$ and she the same.

                                                            But that’s not what happens, instead, you get paid some flat rate Y$ and Sally some flat rate Z$ such that Y + Z < X. Charlie takes the difference.

                                                            So in essence, Charlie is not paying you, you are paying him for the privilege of making Widgets for him. Because if you made them for yourself, you would split that difference with Sally and make a little (or more typically, a lot) more.

                                                            “But Charlie is taking all the risk!” Perhaps, but let’s look at a real example of a Capitalist at work. Bezos.

                                                            If Bezos, tomorrow, wanted to try a new venture, and invested 100 million of his own dollars into it, is Bezos really taking any risk? I mean, he’s got billions of dollars – 100 million barely registers. So there’s no real material risk to Bezos, but, if his venture is successful, he will extract that 100 million and likely more from the people he hires. Is this efficient?

                                                            The argument in favor of capitalism is that it is the most efficient means of distributing resources, but I’d argue it’s abysmal at doing exactly that. We generate more than enough food to feed the world, but we don’t because there is no profit in it, poor people can’t pay for that food, so we don’t give it to them. We can generate plenty of power in clean ways via Nuclear and Renewable sources, but we don’t because it’s not profitable[1]. We can provide healthcare and education for absolutely free if we wanted to, but we are artificially limited by people who are resisting the force-of-production for their own gain.

                                                            In an anti-capitalist world, you would absolutely be allowed to sell your services to another person for a fair wage – that kind of interaction is exactly what we want. The issue right now is that you (and the majority of other people who actually do shit for a living) are being exploited by a system to artificially inflate the wallets of capitalists, who take no real risk and experience no pain in failure – while you and I suffer their failures immensely.

                                                            [1] Nuclear energy is the only viable energy strategy and I will fight to the pain anyone who disagrees.

                                                            1. 33

                                                              Capitalism is an exploitative relationship…

                                                              Well, if we start with definitions like that, then the conclusion is already defined in the assumptions.

                                                              1. 29

                                                                I didn’t define it that way, I made a claim and then showed why it was true. That’s called a ‘thesis’, the rest of the post is the demonstration of that thesis.

                                                                1. 16

                                                                  Sorry for not engaging you after you wrote your long post. But honestly I do not see anything meaningful coming from this discussion. For one - I do not care about capitalism that much, and your post is a bashing of capitalism from the left. The only difference is that I would bash it from the right.

                                                                  I think the only substantive dialog to be had here is about how we interpret this statement:

                                                                  1. The User is one of the following: a. An individual person, working for themselves

                                                                  I think this excludes me offering contractor services to (say) CocaCola. If it does - my point stands, as the license would not allow certain types of voluntary associations between people. And if it doesn’t forbid that - then I am really unsure what it tries to say there.

                                                                  1. 14

                                                                    Unfortunately, any discussion of a license that is explicitly anticapitalist (or at least trying to be) is likely to come back to capitalism. So if you’re not interested in engaging on that, I understand and we don’t have to talk about it.

                                                                    1. 7

                                                                      Sorry again, I hope someone else engages you in the discussion you want to have, as you spent some effort putting that out.

                                                                      1. -3

                                                                        Lesson learned - sometimes it’s actually better to stay silent here (especially if you’re educated). It’s hard to argue with pseudo-leftist pseudo-intellectualism.

                                                                        1. 13

                                                                          That’s not the lesson I took from this discussion, if that’s what you’re implying here. I took that KKPMW didn’t want to talk about this, and that’s fine – we don’t have to, I’m not here to like, preach at people. I did enough of that in my youth.

                                                                          1. 2

                                                                            Wise choice.

                                                                          2. 3

                                                                            I flagged your comment as unkind. Your comment makes it appear that being educated makes it harder to deal with other people in here, and probably those same people are not of the same point of view due to being uneducated on the issue at stake. Maybe other people are educated as well, but share different point of view than you. Also, why would you imply that people arguing here are fake leftists and intellectuals?

                                                                  2. 9

                                                                    I think in your Bezos example you are conflating risk with impact. The risk is still the same but the impact of that risk is different. The risk isn’t based on the amount of the investment. It’s based on the viability of the venture. Bezos is able take on riskier ventures because the impact of that risk is lower for him.

                                                                    There is a case to be made that having a segment of the population that is capable of taking on a venture with high risk is a good thing. There is also a case to be made that having a segment of the population capable of taking on that risk comes with it’s own set of risks to society. But I’m not particularly persuaded by an argument centered around the relative risks of high wealth in an individual as a moral argument if it ignores the potential upside of that risk.

                                                                    Your argument about feeding the world is a much better argument I think. But in order to make the case well it needs examples of non-capitalist approaches that work at scale. Most attempts in the worlds history that were not capitalist in nature have devolved to either massive authoritarianism and/or massive poverty.

                                                                    In general I agree that capitalism has failure modes that need mitigation. I’m open to suggestions of replacements to captilisim or modifications to capitalism. Most such suggestions I have seen have failed to address their own failure modes and fall short when deployed at scale.

                                                                    1. 12

                                                                      Yah, I’m playing a bit loose here – but I do think there is some connection between risk and impact – kind of like a mass/acceleration relationship. Bezos can take bigger risks only because the impact is lessened. I always find this stuff easier to talk through than write though. I would argue that while there may be benefit to having people capable of taking those bigger risks, we should certainly be deciding who gets to do that by means other than the ruthless drive towards personal enrichment – that’s not to claim that syndicalism or any other anarcho-leftist philosophy is the ‘right’ way to do that, but I’m happy to walk away from conversations agreeing there is at least a problem worth solving.

                                                                      I definitely concur that the feed-the-world argument is the better of the two (I’ve also found it “works” better in getting people to understand the core complaint I, and those of my persuasion, have with capitalism). I do disagree with:

                                                                      Most attempts in the worlds history that were not capitalist in nature have devolved to either massive authoritarianism and/or massive poverty.

                                                                      In three ways, first, sure – there are high profile examples of bad Leninist/Stalinist regimes, but there are just as many examples of bad capitalist regimes as well (I gesture here, wildly, towards the United States and the imperialist shitshow that it is and has been for a long time). I think the tendency towards authoritarianism isn’t rooted in economics, but in the nature of big hierarchies to become unjust over time – i.e., it’s a philosophical/social problem that’s influenced by, but not fully controlled by, economics.

                                                                      The second way is that Capitalism isn’t immune from massive poverty, indeed, the earliest capitalists were building their system around the Slave trade. It proceeded to maintain that institution for hundreds of years as something ‘too big to fail.’ It echoes today in the way it exploits prison labor, certainly those people should be counted as suffering under authoritarianism and poverty. It’s not even like we can cleanly say “Well they broke the law, so that’s their punishment,” we know the laws are unjustly applied (the data is readily found) and that the laws themselves are not based on ethics or morality, but often purely predicated on creating an underclass to act as slaves. We weren’t even creative enough to define the class differently than before. This doesn’t even get into the issue of housing, healthcare, or any of that.

                                                                      So I guess my question is, “Why is it that non-capitalist economic systems have to prove their worth, when Capitalism didn’t and couldn’t even if we asked it to?”

                                                                      The third way is that there are functional examples – the Paris Commune wasn’t destroyed from within, but by embargo from without. Cuba has lived under decades of embargo from without and is still, by all accounts, as okay a place to live as anywhere else. It’s not perfect but it’s not a hellscape either. Rojava in the middle east is a great current example of an anarcho-leftist system working pretty alright (and this despite huge outside pressure to fail from Turkey, Syria, and ISIS). Sure, we can argue these are ‘too small’ – but that’s kind of the point of anarchism as a philosophy – governments should be small, and there should be lots of them – high granularity government.

                                                                      Again, I don’t think you’re wrong, but I also don’t think you’re right. You have (arguably good) company in this regard as I also don’t think I’m right or wrong, I’m not sure what the right fix is, I only have confidence that whatever we’re doing isn’t working very well and we should probably try to fix it. :)

                                                                      1. 3

                                                                        Regarding Cuba and the Paris Commune, I think both of those are worth considering as examples in the small and not the large. Part of what I think you need to address is what happens when you scale these models up. That is where I think history shows that they begin to fail.

                                                                        I think a key point of nuance that needs to be considered is that all systems have failure modes. It doesn’t matter which one you pick, at the extremes it will have pathologies. A more pragmatic and I think productive discussion would start with the system you have and the failure modes that system exhibits and then propose mitigations for those failure modes.

                                                                        So then the discussion doesn’t start at: “Let’s replace capitalism” or “Let’s replace communism” or “Let’s replace socialism”. Instead it becomes what form of Capitalism (or communsim, socialism, …) + X would mitigate the worst elements of the system and be acceptable to society. It turns the conversation away from “Find the perfect replacement system” and toward “What useful changes can we make now to the current system”.

                                                                        1. 11

                                                                          Regarding Cuba and the Paris Commune, I think both of those are worth considering as examples in the small and not the large. Part of what I think you need to address is what happens when you scale these models up. That is where I think history shows that they begin to fail.

                                                                          history shows that they get sabotaged, attacked, and undermined by the powers that they threaten. this is a filter that destroys non-authoritarian anti-capitalism, because to survive they need to put all of their resources into military development, including forcing people off their land and into factories (just like capitalism does).

                                                                          before alternative systems can be tested and compared fairly, you would need to dismantle this filter, i.e. huge military and covert resources controlled by a group dedicated to preserving capitalism. short of dismantling it, people around the world who would like to try new things need to be protected from it, even if they are brown or call themselves communists.

                                                                          1. 7

                                                                            I think where you and I may diverge (and I don’t mean that to imply I think my way is better, we just take different forks somewhere) is that I don’t want to scale things up – rather I prefer to scale them down to the Rojava/Cuba size and let them federate (but not integrate) from there. A large number of small states acting independently is a way to deal with a wide variety of pathologies (and I really like that term for them) that arise when you ‘scale up’ by simply not scaling up.

                                                                            I wholeheartedly agree that the right answer isn’t “Let’s replace X” but rather, “How can we modify X” – I think there are a lot of things to try to do that, but I think getting into the hows and whats would be scope-creeping this conversation a lot.

                                                                            1. 3

                                                                              Fair enough, I’m not backing a particular horse in this necessarily. I just find the topic interesting when you focus on achievable goals rather than pure philosophy.

                                                                    2. 3

                                                                      From my point of view, it’s less harmful that traditional propitiatory software, because the source code if freely accessible, and I can imagine people using it would want it to be so, they just don’t want certain people to profit from it. You have the practical freedom to do whatever you want with it, but not the legal freedom.

                                                                      you cannot make certain kinds of voluntary associations with other people (i.e. offer your services and ask for something you want in return, as that would be capitalism),

                                                                      This is actually a good example for the ambiguity of the license. I can guarantee you that the people who wrote this don’t have this understanding in mind, and then again, there are others who would regard their sympathy to coops as the failure to actually overcome capitalism.

                                                                      1. 7

                                                                        From my point of view, it’s less harmful that traditional propitiatory software, because the source code if freely accessible

                                                                        Regarding available source, they do have this in there:

                                                                        The Anti-Capitalist Software License is not an open source software license. It does not allow unrestricted use by any group in any field of endeavor, an allowance that further entrenches established powers. It does not release your project to the creative commons or public domain, nor does it require derived source code to be made available. The availability of source code is less important than the organization of software labor.


                                                                        You have the practical freedom to do whatever you want with it, but not the legal freedom.

                                                                        I got a different impression. They wrote stuff like “The user is such and such”, “The user is not such and such”. Which is practical freedom (?). As opposed to GPL which really is just about legal things as in “if you release further software, do what you want, but include GPL freedom clauses in the license”.

                                                                        1. 2

                                                                          It seems I didn’t phrase myself clearly enough. By “practical freedom” I was thinking about the brutal, simple ability to do something. You download the tar archive of the source, and it comes with this license – even if you’re working for EvilCorp, you can still compile, change, distribute it, etc. – even if it is “illegal” from the perspective of law. That isn’t usually given with “traditional” propitiatory software.

                                                                      2. 1

                                                                        (i.e. offer your services and ask for something you want in return, as that would be capitalism)

                                                                        i suggest you read the license; it’s not very long

                                                                        You don’t own that software unless you promise to live a certain way. And what is that way - you cannot make certain kinds of voluntary associations with other people

                                                                        all things that can be said of usual proprietary EULAs. yet you find this license worse?

                                                                        do you also have a vendetta against CC-BY-NC?

                                                                        1. 8

                                                                          I said I didn’t like the license, so now those disguised insults begin. Nice.

                                                                          If you want me to respond - you should try to outline what you disagree with and how your interpretation differs; it’s not that hard.

                                                                          1. 2

                                                                            and i don’t see why any of what i said should be taken as an insult. hardly anyone reads things before they comment on them.

                                                                            i mostly just have questions about your position; you don’t have to answer them if you don’t want to.

                                                                            1. 10

                                                                              Your questions were edit-added later, after the insult, so I didn’t get them when replying.

                                                                              Now that I read them, here is the answer:

                                                                              all things that can be said of usual proprietary EULAs. yet you find this license worse?

                                                                              Usual end user agreement licenses do not force me to live a certain way. i.e. I can be a communist and use the software. The licensing here seems to be different as it wants to control how I choose to relate to other people. So yes.

                                                                              do you also have a vendetta against CC-BY-NC?

                                                                              There is a big difference between those two licenses. One doesn’t allow me to re-sell a thing I got for free for profit, that’s all. Another tries to control the fields in which I work and the ways I associate with others. While at the same time not being free itself.

                                                                              Here is an illustration:

                                                                              CC-BY-NC: Here is this book, I am passing it to you for free. Promise me that you will pass it freely from now on as well, and please be sure to mention who is the author. Thanks.

                                                                              Anti-Capitalist: Here is a book you can buy from me. Additionally: if you buy it - promise me that you will stop reading it if you ever start working for a company or associate with others in the ways we do not like. Oh and one more thing - you can only use it if you promise not to disclose its contents to the police.

                                                                              1. 1

                                                                                Usual end user agreement licenses do not force me to live a certain way. i.e. I can be a communist and use the software. The licensing here seems to be different as it wants to control how I choose to relate to other people. So yes.

                                                                                microsoft’s EULA does not allow you to share your copy of the software with another end user. the source code that microsoft distributes can only be modified by the licensed individual, not shared or distributed:

                                                                                https://download.microsoft.com/documents/useterms/visual%20studio%20.net%20professional_2003_english_be8aa149-b0fd-494d-a902-07fdb2007b90.pdf

                                                                                does this not control how your relate to other people?

                                                                                do you also have a vendetta against CC-BY-NC?

                                                                                There is a big difference between those two licenses. One doesn’t allow me to re-sell a thing I got for free for profit, that’s all. Another tries to control the fields in which I work and the ways I associate with others. While at the same time not being free itself.

                                                                                Here is an illustration:

                                                                                CC-BY-NC: Here is this book, I am passing it to you for free. Promise me that you will pass it freely from now on as well, and please be sure to mention who is the author. Thanks.

                                                                                Anti-Capitalist: Here is a book you can buy from me. Additionally: if you buy it - promise me that you will stop reading it if you ever start working for a company or associate with others in the ways we do not like. Oh and one more thing - you can only use it if you promise not to disclose its contents to the police.

                                                                                this isn’t what the ACSL says. again, reading it would help (again, not meant as an insult). if you are using the software (or reading a book) as an individual, there is no restriction on how you use it (unlike the M$ EULA), regardless of whether you are a cop or work for a for-profit investor-owned company.

                                                                                1. 4

                                                                                  I am an individual person, but like many people I primarily make my living by working for a company. Therefore I am not “[a]n individual person, working for themselves” and thus ineligible ever to use any ACSL-licensed software.

                                                                                  I’m sure you would read it in a different way which implies that I only would be forbidden to use such software directly in the work I do for that company, but the plain English text of the license does not provide that clarification. And an argument could be made on grounds of that clause that the license simply re-victimizes those whom the authors feel are already victimized by capitalism, which I doubt would qualify as a good under the systems of thought with which they appear to be associating.

                                                                                  1. 3

                                                                                    no disagreement that it is unclear and poorly written. fwiw, i don’t think “working for themselves” is legally meaningful, so i don’t think it would exclude those who sometimes work for others.

                                                                                  2. 3

                                                                                    the source code that microsoft distributes can only be modified by the licensed individual

                                                                                    No, this is different. It’s the same as Beyonce not allowing someone to modify her songs after you buy them. the Anti-Capitalist license would not allow you to play the song you bought because of things that have nothing to do with the song in the first place.

                                                                                    reading it would help (again, not meant as an insult)

                                                                                    Fine, let’s read it together, you tell me your interpretation of it. I might be wrong. Willing to learn. Here goes:

                                                                                    Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any person or organization (the “User”) obtaining a copy of this software and associated documentation files (the “Software”), to deal in the Software for any purpose, including the rights to use, copy, modify, merge, publish, distribute, and/or sell copies of the Software, subject to the following conditions:

                                                                                    Note: “rights to use” … “subject fo following conditions”. My reading: you cannot use the software unless you satisfy the conditions. OK what are the conditions. These are conditions relevant to what we discussed:

                                                                                    1. The User is one of the following: a. An individual person, working for themselves b. An non-profit organization c. An organization that seeks shared profit for all of its members and allows non-members to set the cost of their labor

                                                                                    Here only part “a” applies to individuals. You say any individual can use/modify/etc the software. But in the license it has an additional clause “working for themselves”. Which I interpret as not working for somebody else (as i.e. being employed).

                                                                                    Now you write:

                                                                                    as an individual, there is no restriction on how you use it, regardless of whether you are a cop or work for a for-profit investor-owned company.

                                                                                    Can you elaborate on where you found this interpretation?

                                                                                    1. 1

                                                                                      i see how you could interpret “working for themselves” to mean “self-employed.” at best it would mean you can’t use it while working for someone else, which would be a restriction on individual use, contrary to what i said before.

                                                                                      this part made me think the restrictions only apply to organizations:

                                                                                      1. If the User is an organization, then the User is not law enforcement or military, or working under either.

                                                                                      why have the clause “if the user is an organization” if individual cops and soldiers are not allowed to use it?

                                                                                      needless to say the license is not ready for prime-time. if workers could not use a ACSL-licensed tool to organize for a union during a shift, it would seem to contradict the spirit of the license. if the authors think all workers should quit their jobs and spontaneously form co-ops, that’s pretty idiotic.

                                                                                      incidentally it looks like the phrase “working for themselves” was added literally yesterday:

                                                                                      https://anticapitalist.software/past_versions/

                                                                                    2. 1

                                                                                      does this not control how your relate to other people?

                                                                                      Given its control is restricted entirely to relations that directly involve the software under licence - not particularly, no.

                                                                                      There’s a bit of a difference between “what can I do with my life” and “what can I do with this bit of software”.

                                                                                      1. 1

                                                                                        whether the license depends on an individual’s employment status depends on how you interpret the phrase “working for themselves,” which was added yesterday. if it means you can’t use it if you work for a for-profit investor-owned company, then i see your point.

                                                                                  3. 8

                                                                                    and i don’t see why any of what i said should be taken as an insult. hardly anyone reads things before they comment on them.

                                                                                    No, that’s an insult.

                                                                                    1. -3

                                                                                      well now you’re insulting me by implying that not reading things before commenting on them is a charge worthy of taking offense. like saying “that’s so gay”

                                                                        2. 12

                                                                          We don’t live in revolutionary times, and capitalism will (for better or worse) be a reality of our society for the time to come.

                                                                          I don’t view this as an attempt to spark a revolution, but rather to try to deal with a real ethical problem when working on free or open source software. If my software gets used by some government or police department or what have you to hurt people illegitimately, I am – in some sense – ethically liable for it. If I don’t produce that software, then it prevents the harm that it would have otherwise enabled. At the same time, if I don’t produce that software, then it can’t help the people it may have helped.

                                                                          For instance, if I build some CMS tool, it may be used by a Police department to track the doings of BIPOCs in their area so they can be more easily tracked, and thus be at greater risk of being shot by police; it may also be used by a non-profit somewhere to track where the unhoused tend to live so that they can be better served by that non-profit. If I make my software available under traditional licenses, I enable both groups to use it to both ends; so instead I try to create a license that denies use to the former but preserves use to the latter. I agree this license is likely not legally viable / hard to enforce, but that doesn’t mean such a license is impossible. Indeed, your average EULA probably includes language accomplishing the same effect.

                                                                          I agree that Capitalism will likely be here for a while, but that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t try to change our society for the better, that will likely involve lots of missteps (like this license very well may be), but I don’t think the argument of, “It’s always been like this, it’ll always be like this” holds water. It’s always been like this, but only up till it isn’t, and it only changes when people try to do something about it.

                                                                          1. 2

                                                                            Would you be ok with a private, worker owned organization using your CMS to track BIPOC people in their area and then shooting them? This license allows that.

                                                                            Or an individual using your CMS to track BIPOC and then providing that info to police to track them? This license allows that.

                                                                            I’m not sure that police are the only groups that track BIPOC and also not sure what that has to do with capitalism.

                                                                            The fourth clause is kind of tacked on and irrelevant to the state’s goals.

                                                                            It seems a more effective license would be a single clause of “I promise not to be evil and can’t use this for evil actions or evil intents.”

                                                                            1. 6

                                                                              I wouldn’t, obviously, but the argument you’re making seems to be, “This license doesn’t solve this problem in every single case, so therefore it’s bad.”

                                                                              The argument I’m making above isn’t about whether the license itself is good, it’s about whether the attempt and intent of the license is good, and I think trying to solve a problem is better than not, even if the solutions aren’t great at first. It’s pretty common parlance in engineering – fail fast. I’ve taken that message to me, “Try to solve your problem, if you fail, throw it out and try again.” I take the same stance with licenses, is the ACSL a good license? No, likely not. It doesn’t appear to have had input from a lawyer experienced with this sort of thing and has some gnarly loopholes that are self-defeating. Is it a good thing that someone is trying to do something like this? In my opinion, yes, trying to find a way to ensure that the people who use your work are doing so in a way that isn’t exploitative is good, even if you fail in the implementation.

                                                                              The police are agents that are primarily tasked with preserving capitalism, which is why they are relevant to the discussion. In particular, the police enforce laws which disproportionately endanger and imprison BIPOC, where the state and cooperating corporations extract from them labor at essentially no pay. The prison-industrial complex is a major engine of the modern capitalist machine and is well documented elsewhere, so I won’t belabor it here. I think that’s why the fourth clause of the ACSL is explicit in denying the apparatus of the state (the police and military) from using the licensed product, they both act as elements of the capitalist machine intent on preserving it. (I’m reading in here to the authors views, and making them match with the most mainstream bit of anarcho-leftism, but I am doing some interpretation here and my own biases might leak through, so take it with a grain or two).

                                                                              1. 2

                                                                                The police are not primarily tasked with preserving capitalism.

                                                                                Police existed and exist in non-capitalist countries and communities. They are still proscribed from using this license.

                                                                                My complaint isn’t that it missed every potentiality. My complaint is that it is confusing, sloppy, and ineffective at what it wants to do. I was just pointing out a few specific flaws, but there are countless more.

                                                                                A license that can’t be used by businesses is not very useful for society. So if the purpose is to harm capitalism or to improve humanity, it fails.

                                                                                One of the things I like about open source and free software is its massive benefit to society and benefit to humanity.

                                                                          2. 2

                                                                            I think a lot of people are missing the fact that there is no requirement to make the source available in this license.

                                                                            Not only is it done sloppily and full of obvious loopholes (speaking as someone who works on licenses of my own with somewhat similar aims), but it isn’t even copyleft, which doesn’t exactly seem “anticapitalist” to me.

                                                                            1. 1

                                                                              I think you overestimate the capabilities of most “bad guys” to hide usage of a library. Especially for web dev.

                                                                              It’s very easy to see if someone is using React on their pages, for example.

                                                                            1. 12

                                                                              Using it as daily compositor on FreeBSD-Current, and from my own experience it’s very user-friendly. Even more than i3 that I used before. Excellent job, raichoo.

                                                                              1. 3

                                                                                Do you reccomend it to bspwm longtime user ?

                                                                                1. 3

                                                                                  Well, due to the fact that I have no experience with using bspwm, I cannot answer your question. But if you like minimalism, Vim-style key binding and experience, lightweight WMs/compositors and Wayland, you can give it a try and let me know how you like it =)