I do! I don’t know what the best way is, but the Prosperity Public License is one possibility. prosperitylicense.com/ (I really want to drag License Zero into this conversation!)
Suggest what you're attempting to do is "Open Development". Something in the 1970's/80's we discussed. (turned into a LinkedIn article by request, see linkedin.com/pulse/open-source-bro...).
At the start of Open / Free Source, the unspoken idea was that the code was attached to the people who wrote/developed/maintained it, and they were attached and pulled along by it, sort of like a parachute, lifted into the air by attention/use.
In the excitement of the moment, many saw opportunity and the desire to "cut the lines" because they didn't like where things were headed, so many hard landings happened. That is how people who did the code got separated from it. And to cover for this, retconning spliced the lines as needed. Your might call it a moral failing, or a lapse in judgement.
Often discussion of this was considered "religious" and beneath the "pure code" desire. Many of the comments I see here want to still present the notion that "the code speaks for itself", as if it is "bootstrapped" from developers minds, to become something unassailable, "above them all". Perhaps another religious abstraction?
It is this "unassailable" fantasy that is used to remove "impure" people from the code, sometimes entirely missing the point of the code in the process, possibly obfuscated. This loss of integrity sometimes even kills the code longer term, where then certain open source projects "wander in the wilderness" until the integrity is restored. Perhaps the price for such "purity"?
When someone claims detachment from generation of code, it's really rather disingenuous because they did make it happen. It's immaterial as to "why". It's even worse to jump to the conclusion that because one claims to do this for one's own contributions, that another's can so be detached. This is the process by which integrity is lost, and people are detached as unnecessary destruction.
Suggest that if you focus instead of "prosperity" on "integrity", you deal with the fundamental issue of separating people from code. Perhaps the rest of the unfairness you correctly cite falls out of this more concise remedy.
And this is still quite a battle, because it's hard for humanity to retain integrity in a fair statement, because many need to distort it for a given ends. What I've found is that sooner or later integrity matters, and is reasserted, even after decades or more. Perhaps integrity, like beauty ... endures.
For further actions, you may consider blocking this person and/or reporting abuse
We're a place where coders share, stay up-to-date and grow their careers.
I do! I don’t know what the best way is, but the Prosperity Public License is one possibility. prosperitylicense.com/ (I really want to drag License Zero into this conversation!)
Suggest what you're attempting to do is "Open Development". Something in the 1970's/80's we discussed. (turned into a LinkedIn article by request, see linkedin.com/pulse/open-source-bro...).
At the start of Open / Free Source, the unspoken idea was that the code was attached to the people who wrote/developed/maintained it, and they were attached and pulled along by it, sort of like a parachute, lifted into the air by attention/use.
In the excitement of the moment, many saw opportunity and the desire to "cut the lines" because they didn't like where things were headed, so many hard landings happened. That is how people who did the code got separated from it. And to cover for this, retconning spliced the lines as needed. Your might call it a moral failing, or a lapse in judgement.
Often discussion of this was considered "religious" and beneath the "pure code" desire. Many of the comments I see here want to still present the notion that "the code speaks for itself", as if it is "bootstrapped" from developers minds, to become something unassailable, "above them all". Perhaps another religious abstraction?
It is this "unassailable" fantasy that is used to remove "impure" people from the code, sometimes entirely missing the point of the code in the process, possibly obfuscated. This loss of integrity sometimes even kills the code longer term, where then certain open source projects "wander in the wilderness" until the integrity is restored. Perhaps the price for such "purity"?
When someone claims detachment from generation of code, it's really rather disingenuous because they did make it happen. It's immaterial as to "why". It's even worse to jump to the conclusion that because one claims to do this for one's own contributions, that another's can so be detached. This is the process by which integrity is lost, and people are detached as unnecessary destruction.
Suggest that if you focus instead of "prosperity" on "integrity", you deal with the fundamental issue of separating people from code. Perhaps the rest of the unfairness you correctly cite falls out of this more concise remedy.
And this is still quite a battle, because it's hard for humanity to retain integrity in a fair statement, because many need to distort it for a given ends. What I've found is that sooner or later integrity matters, and is reasserted, even after decades or more. Perhaps integrity, like beauty ... endures.