Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

New Job - UI Designer / Developer for open-source project LearnAwesome.org #450

Conversation

opensourcedesign-bot
Copy link
Collaborator

Dear human,

Here's a new entry for your approval. 🎉

Merge the pull request to accept it, or close it to send it away.

❤️ Your friend Staticman 💪


Field Content
status searching
date_posted 2020-05-07
layout jobs
organization LearnAwesome.org
org_url https://learnawesome.org
title UI Designer / Developer for open-source project LearnAwesome.org
role Web design
compensation paid
description LearnAwesome intends to build humanity's universal learning map. You can think of this as GoodReads on steroids as it curates links to not just books, but courses, articles, videos, podcasts, games, newsletters, forums and much more.

The current design was built with a standard Bootstrap theme, but the project is now migrating to Tailwind CSS. We are considering a design revamp at the same time. See issue: learn-awesome/learn#138

Our ideal candidate would be someone who can not just create mockups but also convert them to Tailwind-basesd templates in a Rails project. |
| deliverables | Mockups for 7-8 pages: Homepage, dashboard, topic page, item page, user profile page, expert profile page, Add new item form etc.

Tailwind-templates for the above mockups |
| how_to_apply | eshnil team@learnawesome.org,https://learnawesome.org/about
learn-awesome/learn#138
|
| github_handle | |
| tags | web design, learning, edtech |
| date | 2020-05-06T20:41:46.351Z |

@ei8fdb
Copy link
Member

ei8fdb commented May 6, 2020

Everything looks OK (open repo, that requests PRs) I'm not 100% sure if the licence is fully compatible.

Can someone check that before we approve the PR? @belenbarrospena @evalica

Copy link
Member

@ei8fdb ei8fdb left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Assuming the licence is compatible, it looks good to me.

@eupiteco
Copy link
Contributor

eupiteco commented May 11, 2020

This comes with the noDerivatives from CC. It might be open source since anyone can join development, but it is far from being libre.

NoDerivatives — If you remix, transform, or build upon the material, you may not distribute the modified material.

@ei8fdb is there a model to which the license needs to be compatible?

@Erioldoesdesign
Copy link
Member

Erioldoesdesign commented Jun 8, 2020

@eupiteco and @ei8fdb This is on the bottom of the job form page:

  • “Free software” means software that respects users' freedom and community. Roughly, it means that the users have the freedom to run, copy, distribute, study, change and improve the software. Thus, “free software” is a matter of liberty, not price. To understand the concept, you should think of “free” as in “free speech,” not as in “free beer”. We sometimes call it “libre software,” borrowing the French or Spanish word for “free” as in freedom, to show we do not mean the software is gratis.

Including this external link: https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.en.html

I would say, that CC license doesn't follow the 'free' guidelines referenced in our jobs form. https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html

So, if we accept this and merge, we should consider what guidelines we reference and what we accept under these circumstances.

@elioqoshi
Copy link
Member

I'd say this should not be merged before the license is chaged. CC ND is not compatible with us and further it's not the right way to license code? Of course you can debate about that.

@Erioldoesdesign
Copy link
Member

Agreed! so I can go back to this org with some info via email and reference the conversation in this PR if we have some consensus from the OSD core team on this decision.

@teampolyglot
Copy link

teampolyglot commented Jun 10, 2020

Hi, I am one of the devs for LearnAwesome and I was the one to submit this job posting.

We are evaluating alternative licenses, including OSI and FSF compliant ones, for our code. However, I think it will take us a while to arrive at a decision and migrate to new license. For that reason, it's probably simplest to close this PR without merging. It was incorrect of me to call our project "open-source" without looking up how OSI considers all the CC variants.

Nevertheless, I feel there needs to be an independent discussion about what licenses YOU intend to support.

There is the OSI definition of "open-source" that covers many licenses: https://opensource.org/licenses/alphabetical

But there are many prominent license which do not compliant with the OSI definition:

All the NC variants and ND variants of the Creative Commons license
DoNoHarm license: https://github.com/raisely/NoHarm
Hippocratic License: https://twitter.com/OpenSourceOrg/status/1176229398929977344
WTFPL
Anti-996 license: https://www.wired.com/story/how-github-helping-overworked-chinese-programmers/
Many of the licenses under "EthicalSource" category: https://ethicalsource.dev/licenses/
All the "non-free" licenses as per FSF: https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.en.html#NonFreeSoftwareLicenses

That should probably be a separate issue, so feel free to reject and close this PR.

@belenbarrospena
Copy link
Member

Hi @eshnil

Thank you so much for your level-headed reply, and for pointing out to us that we really need to be crystal clear about what licenses we will accept for the jobs board. We should start working on that as soon as possible, and publish the list as part of the job submission form.

I will close the PR for now, but if you change the license, please do consider submitting the job again. LearnAwesome.org looks like a really worthwhile project for designers to contribute to.

@jancborchardt
Copy link
Member

Hi @eshnil, thanks for your reply! :) And sorry about this, but indeed any Creative Commons licenses with "No derivatives" or "Non commercial" are not considered free software or open source, by neither FSF nor OSI.

There is no speific list, but checking through https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_free_and_open-source_software_licences#Approvals, the FSF-approved list seems reasonable.


We are evaluating alternative licenses, including OSI and FSF compliant ones, for our code. However, I think it will take us a while to arrive at a decision and migrate to new license.

Since you currently include the "No derivatives" clause, let me propose that you instead go for the Creative Commons Attribution Share-alike (the equivalent for a code license would be the GNU AGPLv3+. This means that people would be able to make modifications and be allowed to distribute them, but that they also need to license those under the same license. Basically meaning that you also get those improvements for free, for the good of everyone. :)

@teampolyglot
Copy link

@jancborchardt Yes, that's an interesting option. The concern we have is any of the ed-tech companies taking our code and building a community around it, before we get a chance to do so. We want to be an Wikipedia-equivalent, but there is a real fear of losing out against commercial orgs.

@jancborchardt
Copy link
Member

commercial orgs

You are fully allowed to make money with open source products. :) Yes there are potential pitfalls, but also benefits compared to proprietary organizations, especially in the "social good" sector.

If you are interested, maybe this workshop script helps a bit to see what other things and business models are out there using open source: https://github.com/jancborchardt/jancborchardt.net/blob/master/blog/open-source-business-and-community.md

@teampolyglot
Copy link

@belenbarrospena We have changed our license to AGPL. That should qualify as open-source: https://github.com/learn-awesome/learn/blob/master/LICENSE.md

@jancborchardt
Copy link
Member

Great news @eshnil, good call! :) So I would say this is good to reopen again – cc @belenbarrospena since you closed it, do you agree?

@belenbarrospena
Copy link
Member

belenbarrospena commented Jun 26, 2020

@eshnil @jancborchardt

Yes, certainly. Sorry for the late reply. I am unsure about how to reopen the PR though. GitHub says the branch has been deleted :/

Can anybody help?

@belenbarrospena
Copy link
Member

belenbarrospena commented Jun 26, 2020

mmm, could it be a bug? https://github.community/t/updating-a-closed-pull-request/1119/3

@eshnil @jancborchardt The easiest way may be submitting a new jobs form. Sorry :(

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

None yet

9 participants