> Would you really create an open-source chat software for companies?
Zulip? Jitsi Meet? Matrix and Element? Even GitLab falls into that category. Not strictly chat, but crucial company software nonetheless.
> Protect employees' rights properly by all means but don't come up with stupid legislation that forces open-source software to do anything. This will just result in less open-source software or worse quality.
So, in essence, forbid companies from using inaccessible software of that kind? That's pretty close to what I'm proposing, instead of banning the creation of that software, ban it's use, which, ultimately, comes down to the same thing. Also whether software is open source, freeware or for-pay does not matter in this discussion.
> Sometimes I wish we could disable all open-source software for a few days, so people would actually value what others do for free. It seems to me that these days a lot of people think the are entitled to all kinds of things.
Doing the work for free doesn't justify doing work that harms the society.
If I gave out poisoned food for free, I would still be as liable as if I sold it. Sure, it means there is less free food given out, but ultimately, it's a net gain.
> If I gave out poisoned food for free, I would still be as liable as if I sold it. Sure, it means there is less free food given out, but ultimately, it's a net gain.
Non-accessible open source software is more like running a food stand at which you give out free food, but the food contains peanuts, which is clearly stated on your sign. "contains peanuts" ≠ "poisoned".
> Zulip? Jitsi Meet? Matrix and Element? Even GitLab falls into that category. Not strictly chat, but crucial company software nonetheless.
Gitlab is not a chat software.. however my introductory sentence wasn't really important so maybe I just should have skipped it.
> So, in essence, forbid companies from using inaccessible software of that kind? That's pretty close to what I'm proposing, instead of banning the creation of that software, ban it's use, which, ultimately, comes down to the same thing.
No I don't say you should forbid companies from using whatever software. I said protect the employees. Which in this case means that a company should not be able to fire a person that cannot use a software the company introduced.
Besides that it is not even the same thing because not only companies use open-source software.
> Also whether software is open source, freeware or for-pay does not matter in this discussion.
It matters A LOT. Forcing your expectations of what is right on people that create things and give them away for free is entitled. If you want to sell something this is completely another story.
> Doing the work for free doesn't justify doing work that harms the society.
> If I gave out poisoned food for free, I would still be as liable as if I sold it. Sure, it means there is less free food given out, but ultimately, it's a net gain.
Both of these statements are utterly ridiculous. Harming society with a (free) software that is not accessible? Comparing poisoned food with open-source software... I don't even know what to say about this. I will drop out of the discussion. Good luck on the accessibility crusade.
Zulip? Jitsi Meet? Matrix and Element? Even GitLab falls into that category. Not strictly chat, but crucial company software nonetheless.
> Protect employees' rights properly by all means but don't come up with stupid legislation that forces open-source software to do anything. This will just result in less open-source software or worse quality.
So, in essence, forbid companies from using inaccessible software of that kind? That's pretty close to what I'm proposing, instead of banning the creation of that software, ban it's use, which, ultimately, comes down to the same thing. Also whether software is open source, freeware or for-pay does not matter in this discussion.
> Sometimes I wish we could disable all open-source software for a few days, so people would actually value what others do for free. It seems to me that these days a lot of people think the are entitled to all kinds of things.
Doing the work for free doesn't justify doing work that harms the society.
If I gave out poisoned food for free, I would still be as liable as if I sold it. Sure, it means there is less free food given out, but ultimately, it's a net gain.