re: Open Source Has Not Failed. Don't Cover Up Corporate Abuse of Open Source VIEW POST

VIEW FULL DISCUSSION
 

I'm going to reserve my opinion, I agree with some, disagree with others, and view some of it as misaligned analogy (ex: criminal v civil as criminal).

What I will say is the use of videos as supporting evidence doesn't help in justification of the argument due to the lack of bibliography. Lecture without the typically provided references and citations is supposition and conjecture. It also just generally takes longer to consume the information, reading is both faster and cross-referencable. An effective argument delivers the point as concisely as possible and respects the time of the reader.

I'm not immune to this either btw; I know categorically no one on my team has ever read all 70 pages of the code standards I wrote.

 

It's not an academic paper. I linked to things that I've been consuming recently. I probably should have linked to Jamie Boyle's work because it is foundational to my thinking about copyright and excellent, but I didn't anticipate this getting such a reaction.

Also, the analogy was the presumption of innocence to the presumption of competence. People in other industries don't have to start from 0 and "prove" that they are competent by working for free, but because corporations have started using open source as an informal bullpen, it is a strike against the candidate that they are not "passionate" enough to program outside of work. Is that a bias that can be fully conquered? Probably not, because it goes along with a kinda selfless and geeky "I work on this because I love this" narrative that people like, but we should discourage it.

On the presumption of innocence side, we changed the rules to allow people to testify for themselves and now that is expected behavior of the innocent, even though it is demonstrably not true that all innocent people will or even can testify. Some can't simply because they have criminal records that can be entered into evidence if they take the stand and then be used to impugn their character with the jury, aka the people making the decision whether they should be punished. Is that a bias that can be fully conquered? Probably not, because it goes along with a kinda idealistic "I would speak up for myself if I were innocent of charges like these" narrative that people like, but we should discourage it.

code of conduct - report abuse