Ask for a RubyMine free license

Loading translation...

I talkde a little bit with few people about which IDE to use for ruby.

It seems like several like to use SublimeText which is indeed a great IDE but can be hard to setup and use.

To me, JetBrains provides some of the top IDE in the market. I already use PyCharm et IntelliJ for personal use and I love it.

As a well-known ruby project community, I thought it could be a good idea to ask for a free license for RubyMine in order to make the developement easier for newcomer (like me).

http://www.jetbrains.com/ruby/buy/

What is your opinion ?

Loading translation...
Started 12 months ago by Augier

Current decision

Previous decisions

Discussion

  • Sounds like we meet the requirements, so I’d say go for it! If you feel unsure if you want to do it, we could draft an application message here and a member of the GitHub organization for example could make the application (myself for example) - so then they can see the person is really affiliated with the project from GitHub.

    Not sure how many licenses they give, but I guess then we just track given out licenses according to whatever rules they set.

    But a great idea! More treats like this from companies the better ;)

    Loading translation...
  • RubyMine is nonfree software and I don’t think that Diaspora should be endorsing it. Strongly opposed.

    Loading translation...
  • @davidthompson do you also oppose me writing diaspora* code with SublimeText, which is also non-free software?

    diaspora* as a project has never aimed to only use free software. What the project produces is free software.

    Loading translation...
  • @davidthompson : we are not obliged to do anything. Those who want to continues developping under emacs or sublime, could continue doing it.

    Furthurmore, if we had to only use FOSS to develop Diaspora*, it would be a problem.

    Not sure every developper uses only a linux or BSD. Some might be under Windows, or Max with XCode.

    Loading translation...
  • Personally using nonfree software isn’t a problem, but it is a problem (in my opinion, of course) when a free software project publicly endorses nonfree software by reaching out to a company like JetBrains for gratis licenses. That is what I’m opposing here.

    Loading translation...
  • Sorry David I misunderstood.

    So I guess we should set up a vote then before reaching out to JetBrains, to make sure everyone gets to give their opinion.

    Loading translation...
  • Sure, If I’m outvoted, the people have spoken. :)

    Loading translation...
  • Augier created a proposal: Contact JetBrains to ask for RubyMine licenses
    12 months ago
  • Augier agreed: RubyMine is a great IDE and asking for free licenses do not engage to do anything.
    12 months ago
  • SuperTux88 agreed.
    12 months ago
  • Jason Robinson agreed: Licenses from a popular IDE like RubyMine could attract some developers on the fringe of contributing. We don't need to endorse it, just distribute licenses to those interested. We could also promote other FOSS editors in the same process.
    12 months ago
  • David Thompson disagreed: As a member project of the FSSN, it would be a bad idea to endorse proprietary software by seeking gratis licenses to freedom denying software.
    12 months ago
  • David Morley agreed.
    12 months ago
  • So, shall we draft an application here or someone want to just do it? :)

    Loading translation...
  • I think it’s better to do it here, since I have not the expertise to talk in the name of the D* community ^

    Loading translation...
  • Well, there is no text to write to apply. It just must be done by someone reponsible for the project leading.
    D* can apply here

    Loading translation...
  • Done. Will update here once they get back.

    Loading translation...
  • Thank you a lot !

    Loading translation...
  • I’ll improve the D* wiki article on the IDE setup once I have test RubyMine !

    Loading translation...
  • Ok people, i’m late, but i asked Dr. Richard Stallman about this, and i got this response:

    =====================================================================
    David Thompson asserted that it would be a “problem” if you “had to” use only freedom-respecting software to develop Diaspora. That question is a red herring. People don’t need the approval of the Diaspora project for what they use privately. If they want to surrender their freedom by privately running a nonfree program, you
    could not stop them; normally you would not even know.

    The real issue is not what people _can_ use, it is what the Diaspora project endorses and does. To offer people licenses for a proprietary program is more than just an endorsement. It is direct participation in the distribution of that program.

    What that says to people is, “Freedom is not important.” In the long run, it undermines the love of freedom that would motivate why people to contribute to Diaspora.

    I implore the Diaspora project to cease participation in distribution of a nonfree program, and I suggest that those who find that program convenient join in developing a free replacement for it.

    Loading translation...
  • Too late, we had a vote. Moreover, we do not obliged anyone to use anything.

    If there was a free IDE of quality and the simplicity of JetBrain’s, why not. But the most important thing isn’t that people strat contributing to Diaspora* more than strictly respecting Guru’s voice ?

    Loading translation...
  • Could someone point out what is the relevance of Stallman’s view to Diaspora? Last time I checked he wasn’t involved in the project (and never has been).

    Diaspora has never insisted that only Free Software can be used in anything involving Diaspora’s software. Indeed, since the first release, it has been possible to install and run Diaspora on Mac OS, which is completely non-free. Diaspora is about freedom in the lower-case (non-Stallman) sense: allowing people to do what they want to do in as many ways as possible. The Stallman sense is about restriction as much as it is about real freedom.

    I don’t see how enabling people to use a particular product without having to pay for it is in any way endorsing that product. If as part of this agreement Diaspora has to, for example, place a notice on the project website that we are thankful to JetBrains for giving project developers free licences (or, worse, that Diaspora is ‘partnering’ with JetBrains to develop Diaspora’s software), that would be something like endorsement, and that would, I think, need a separate discussion and vote.

    Loading translation...
  • RMS doesn’t even use diaspora* :P I think we will listen to our own community - and we voted. We can always later vote again to not give licenses - anyone can create proposals at any time.

    Diaspora is about freedom in the lower-case (non-Stallman) sense: allowing people to do what they want to do in as many ways as possible. The Stallman sense is about restriction as much as it is about real freedom.

    Well put :) This really is going off-topic but the more I hang around with “Stallmanists” the more they appear to me as people who want to restrict freedom, not allow it.

    IMHO, in the wiki page we should also recommend other FOSS editors as well, not just RubyMine. Also, we don’t even know yet if they will accept our application.

    Loading translation...
  • IMHO, in the wiki page we should also recommend other FOSS editors as well, not just RubyMine. Also, we don’t even know yet if they will accept our application.

    Of course, the goal of a IDE page is to let newcommer start easily with a well configured IDE !
    I’m not particularly a RubyMine fan, just, I think that having a good IDE, beautifull with a strong completion system is a great help for beginners.

    My exeprience is, when I started to learn several languages (e.g : OcamL), especially, web-oriented languages, the most difficult thing I met is to find tools to help me to start.

    Having a tool with a performant completion system is very important when you start. The thing is, most IDE are too much generalistic. They do a lot of things, but they do it wrong unless you performed long and exhausting configurations…

    Loading translation...
  • My opinion here would be the same than @davidthompson : we should not, as a free project, promote non-free software. But if this really helps people to write code for diaspora*, I guess we can give them licences.

    Anyway, I miss the vote, and I don’t think this is something critical for the project.

    Loading translation...
  • I guess the issue is: what counts as promotion?

    Loading translation...
  • @mariodanielruizsaa I’m curious to know what exactly you sent to RMS. His response makes it seem as though I have been misquoted: “David Thompson asserted that it would be a “problem” if you “had to” use only freedom-respecting software to develop Diaspora.”

    He quotes “problem” and “had to” and attributes them to me. I never used those words in my comments here! Why did you misrepresent my position?

    I do think that he makes a great point that Diaspora isn’t just endorsing nonfree software, but distributing it. This vote has passed, but I do hope that you reconsider your actions and do the right thing.

    Loading translation...
  • @davidthompson : be sure that, if JetBrains asks any kind of compensation, I’ll be the first to drop Ruby Mine ;)

    Loading translation...
  • Well they’ve not yet replied so maybe they don’t want to give out licenses to us ;) Or it’s just still sitting in some guys inbox (summer, etc).

    Loading translation...
  • Hey so while ago got a reply from JetBrains and they were happy to give the diaspora* project an open source license for RubyMine. This license is for an unlimited amount of users, but we’ve been requested to follow good judgement on when to give out the license code. In no circumstance should it be made public, this is against the license conditions.

    They said initially “core members” but I asked whether we can follow a slightly more relaxed policy and they replied;

    We do not have strict guidelines regarding this - I believe each case should be treated personally and mostly according to the common sense. If the person is not a 1-day member and you believe they should be rewarded for their work please be sure to pass the key over.

    Anyway, any opinions on how we should limit the license keys. Third merged pull request? We can use that as a little incentive to get contributors, do a blog post etc ;) And of course we should promote FOSS tools too, not just advertise RubyMine, this has been talked already.

    The license is valid for a year at a time and includes software upgrades.

    Loading translation...
  • I have no opinion on this. Three merged PR seems good. But I think it we be good considering participaton to Loomio to.

    Loading translation...
  • Yeah, we just need to agree some rules, or personally at least I’d like that the license would be a reward for those who want it, not “ask and you’ll get it”. Besides, we can milk a few commits here and there by putting that as a requirement :D

    Loomio and generic community participation is important, but it is hard to measure. IMHO the license is probably only really wanted by people who write code anyway?

    Maybe two merged pulls would be better - any opinions from others?

    Loading translation...
  • at least I’d like that the license would be a reward for those who want it, not “ask and you’ll get it”

    I agree with that.

    Besides, we can milk a few commits here and there by putting that as a requirement :D

    I’m afraid that meet some of the previous objection, i.e : making publicity to a proprietary tool from a community project, no ?

    Loomio and generic community participation is important, but it is hard to measure. IMHO the license is probably only really wanted by people who write code anyway?

    Don’t interessted poeplein contributing usually invest themselves here ? Maybe it’s not important. I don’t know. Up to the others to decide :D

    Loading translation...
  • Besides, we can milk a few commits here and there by putting that as a requirement :D

    I’m afraid that meet some of the previous objection, i.e : making publicity to a proprietary tool from a community project, no ?

    Sure, if people feel that way we can keep it low key - small mention in the wiki that you can ask for a license when fulfilling certain conditions, like second pull merged or whatever we decide.

    Loading translation...
  • Third merged pull request?

    Something like this sounds sensible. Or something like a higher number of small PRs or just one major commit to the core code (like sorting out federation or something like that).

    However I think a minimum period of contribution/involvement as well, otherwise we might give away a lot of licences to people who make a few commits and disappear forever (which happens all the time, for any number of reasons). It would be good to have some sign that the people we give licences to will stick around to use their copy of RubyMine to create more code for Diaspora in the future.

    Loading translation...
  • we might give away a lot of licences to people who make a few commits and disappear forever (which happens all the time, for any number of reasons).

    This risk is however a bit limited by the fact that Ruby Mine licenses are on for a year.

    Loading translation...
  • Yup, let’s not make things too bureaucratic - JetBrains themselves said “use common sense” :)

    @goob putting pulls into different categories and trying to constrain licenses to only those who contribute often will just add management overhead - which is what we don’t want. We have licenses, we have contributors - I really think we just need a simple rule that we can put in the wiki for example. And then of course all the previous contributors can “cash in” their license if they want - this is probably more important than promoting for new contribs, kind of a thank you for previous contributions.

    I think the interest in this is kinda low (amount of votes, amount of comments here) - so we shouldn’t spend too much time messing with minor details imho.

    Two merged pulls or any other concrete proposals how we should handle giving out the keys? I can make a wiki entry.

    Loading translation...
  • Sure, I don’t object to that. Was just putting some ideas forwards. It would be good to get more views from core development team members, I’m happy for you guys to decide how to administer this. Well done for getting the free licences, by the way.

    Loading translation...
  • Why did I not receive ANY notification for this? :( I can’t approve of this personally speaking. It goes against my morals.

    But then again, I do believe in the saying, “If you want to make an omelet, you gotta break some eggs.”

    Eh, I guess I have mixed emotions.

    Loading translation...
  • @theatrex This is a “follow stuff that you’re interested in and participate if you want” community - we can’t inform everyone of everything ;)

    If you want to re-raise the issue you are welcome to do so. But to be honest, this whole thing didn’t seem to generate much discussion or interest :)

    Loading translation...
  • Jason Robinson created a proposal: Post on social media accounts relating to free RubyMine licenses
    8 months ago
  • Oh BTW, anyone reading this who has made two successful pull requests to a diaspora* project owned repository (the chat repos must count too imho) - ping me and I’ll send you a license key :)

    Loading translation...
  • Jason Robinson agreed: We need developers. Let's post out to them. We're making FOSS anyway, I'm not picky whether someone does it with FOSS editors or not. I use a proprietary editor, Sublime Text.
    8 months ago
  • Augier agreed: Nothing better than Jason.
    8 months ago
  • What about the project-site repo? :P

    Loading translation...
  • Makes sense to me at least that that should be counted in?

    Loading translation...
  • Oh sorry, you said diaspora-owned repo (which includes the project-site one anyway), misread your post, sorry ignore me.

    Loading translation...
  • Come on, people… Get free licences of a proprietary software in the name of Diaspora, really ?

    Remember you do that on behalf of the Diaspora community. Even if there’s a vote here, what does it mean with only 5 voters ?

    Is it really the image of the D* project you want to give to the public and potential future developers ?

    Everybody is free to use the software they chose, but “rewarding” people with non-free software won’t help build a sense of community about D*, and will only scare some dev away, because they will doubt the values of the community.

    I won’t mention the opinions expressed in this thread about “Stallmanians” (they are out of subject, to say the least), but you’re a community and you’re making FOSS: you have every rights to expect others to respect your right to use non-free software, but you should at least respect people that think D* shouldn’t promote proprietary software in any way.

    Or may be you have enough developers and don’t need those that don’t want to be involved (even indirectly) in non-free software promotion ?

    Loading translation...
  • Wonko disagreed: This would send a bad signal to potential developers (and to the public at large) that are fond of free software, in the name of the whole Diaspora* community.
    8 months ago
  • May be I could summarise my point of view that way: everybody is free to use the IDE they like. By promoting one (especially a non-free one), you can only hurt the community, not help build it.

    Loading translation...

To add a comment, go to the end of the discussion.