I'd go for 1 on 1 discussion first. Understand their view. I assume you already tried.
Next level is a team discussion and understanding the team view. If you have sprints I assume you also have Retrospective. That's what it is for.
It's also not only for objective criteria and weighing cost and benefit, risk and effort reduction. It's also about you feeling comfortable with what you approve and ship. Even if not on a general level, at least in the project context with risks laid out and accepted.
Do you have a lead? Where I work senior indicates expertise through experience, with some decision making and guidance expertise. But lead would decide on direction or what is acceptable if it's not obvious or decidable on a collaborative team level.
Calling it ethical is a higher bar than calling it ethically acceptable. Ethically acceptable is a higher bar than practically acceptable.
If you are factually incapable of getting it otherwise, it is ethically acceptable. If, at the same time, you need the material, it is ethical.
Without the need and unavailability or unavailability, I would always be careful about calling it ethical - I would not call it ethical.
In those cases it is at least subjective and a weighing of various morals, costs, need or desire, and practicality. (By pirating you are a beneficiary without supporting the thing - which one should at least be aware of and weigh.)
Usually (A)GPL for my own, personal projects. I don't want my effort to be commercially successful elsewhere when I see nothing of it. Theoretically, it would still allow licensing to other parties if any show interest - although that never happened and I doubt it ever will.
Otherwise - I guess mostly when I work on other projects that are not personal / self-created - MIT or BSD. I generally don't have a problem with contributing permissively.
For me it's the exceptional world-building and great character depth / authenticity. Great pacing, great visuals, and mostly very good directing further supporting it.
I wonder how it holds up. I'm interested now, since I've rated it so high in the past. Visuals/Style look dated - which is not necessarily bad or substantially detrimental. 480p though.
If you read Javascript Code, it's readable as Text. But even then, it may have been transformed from a readable source with speaking names and structure to an obfuscated mess that works the same, may be more performant, but is not human readable. It's not the source, so it can't reasonably be called open source.
If it's not transformed it is though.
Different languages have different transformations. Most programs you install are compiled to transformed data. The text source is readable. The transformed result is not. Tooling may help inspecting or seeing parts, or trying to recreate the source, but it's not the source.
You shouldn't see trustworthyness or trust as a binary system of full or nothing.
You should assess - to your and the products possibilities - and then weigh risk and necessity and value.
Source exposure makes it more likely people may look at it, without cause or when something seems surprising or questionable. Source available alone doesn't mean you'd see concerns though - you'd need an obvious platform or publicity.
FOSS may be funded and implemented by voluntary work or paid or sponsored, with or without control by the involved parties.
Security scanning is a best effort weighing known and similarity and suspect parts against false positives and user and publisher inconvenience and hindrance. It can't be perfect.
Android Play Store security scanning can only scan for some things I'd consider security relevant and likely largely ignores questionable behavior that does not endanger device security.
Established projects are more trustworthy than those that are not. Personal projects with a clear goal are more trustworthy because of likely hood of good intention and personal interest than those who seem obscure or unclear.
Don't trust blindly.
Safety is a big topic and theme. So such a broad question can only be answered with broad assessment and overview.
You may define private differently, or differently in the context of the question. The question is very broad. As such, was nothing private? No. Various things were and remain private.
We have a chance, a real chance, and if we support open and free systems, and the organizations that fight for them – EFF, Bits of Freedom, EDRI, ORG, CC, Netzpolitik, La Quadrature du Net, and all the others, who are thankfully, too numerous to name here – we may yet win the battle, and secure the ammunition we’ll need for the war. Cory Doctorow
The teaser text could do with simpler and more concise sentences. So many commas and thought block within one sentence.
Shared spaces are everyone's space and obligation. Trash or a tree branch on the road or sidewalk? Rather than "not my concern" a mindset of "shared space, shared responsibility/free to clean up" mindset will serve everyone - and especially those not currently able to do so/that could be hindered by the obstacles.
"Everyone" meaning every individual fully rather than split/miniscule parts.
Kissaki @ Kissaki @feddit.de Posts 5Comments 635Joined 2 yr. ago
I don't find this more intuitive. It's still one or the other door.