Zum Inhalt der Seite gehen

Unbekannter Ursprungsbeitrag

mastodon - Link zum Originalbeitrag
just small circles 🕊
@zombiewarrior yes and no, I guess. I think it is okay if you don't raise expectation, and do 'expectation management' if someone inquires or gets a wrong impression. And then there are hobby projects and more serious ones where people start to rely on the software. Then you can no longer be a hobbyist in many cases, depending how you manage your project. I you made commitments, you better also take a look at sustainability for instance. Which starts with bus factor > 1
Als Antwort auf just small circles 🕊

@zombiewarrior

For myself I will use a different definition of FOSS, or rather do not use it for serious projects. More info in this toot:

social.coop/@smallcircles/1138…


@erlend @tastapod

As you know I 'ditched' FOSS as useful concept unless in handwavy casual chatter, and use a redefinition that is workable for a sustainable commons:

FOSS = SOSS + hobby projects
SOSS = Sustainable open social software
SOSS = Projects addressing their FSDL
FSDL = Free software development lifecycle
SOSS = Foundation of open social stack

Friendly and open ecosystems that may flourish and thrive can stand on SOSS, not on shaky hobby projects that may crumble any moment.


Als Antwort auf just small circles 🕊

@zombiewarrior

Though technically your comment made me aware that my definition is not complete, because it just separates into sustainable and hobby projects. But many dead projects are the 'memory-of-foss' as it were.. still publicly available because the concepts works well here.

Unbekannter Ursprungsbeitrag

mastodon - Link zum Originalbeitrag
just small circles 🕊

@zombiewarrior yes, exactly. I formulated a little thought experiment on this theme some time ago:

discuss.coding.social/t/foss-s…

Unbekannter Ursprungsbeitrag

mastodon - Link zum Originalbeitrag
just small circles 🕊
@business very true. There is that :)