5 ms·

I hear what you are saying. Personally, as a contributor to open source, I would like my contributions to go to projects that enable and encourage business. I

I hear what you are saying. Personally, as a contributor to open source, I would like my contributions to go to projects that enable and encourage business. I prefer not to make code contributions to projects that cannot freely be used by all, including business. I consider that to be the spirit of open source. Sure, some businesses will take advantage of Node.js for example because it has an MIT license, but the vast majority will benefit. Startups that build on open source can be more efficient, for the benefit of the customers those businesses exist to serve, honorably, at a profit.

cyphar 10y ago
> I hear what you are saying. I don't think you do, because all you talk about is how lax free software licenses mean businesses can make money. That's a misunderstanding of how copyleft licenses work. No free software copyleft license says you cannot make money. > I would like my contributions to go to projects that enable and encourage business. Many businesses use and develop free software under copyleft licenses. They sell support contracts, it's a very standard model and nothing new. > I prefer not to make code contributions to projects that cannot freely be used by all Copyleft's only restriction is that distributors have to respect the freedom of the people the distribute software to. If you're not a distributor, you don't care. If you're a company that distributes proprietary software and cannot even consider distributing free software, then honestly I wouldn't want my software to be part of your products. It's as simple as that. My main concern is the users of my software. I want to make sure that no distributor or developer can take away the freedoms I intended them to have, and that's what I care about. > Startups that build on open source can be more efficient And what's wrong with that free software being copyleft in that instance? They are taking advantage of very large amounts of human effort to be "more efficient". The least they can do is make their modifications freely available to people they give their software to. And even better would be if they realised that liberating their software is a net benefit to everyone involved. But most startups (unfortunately) don't care about software freedom. > honorably, at a profit. No part of any free software license requires that you cannot charge money for the software or services. Nor does any free software license state that you cannot make a profit. These are strawmen.
- jorangreef 10y ago
  "But most startups (unfortunately) don't care about software freedom." I think most startups do care, and have cared. And even if some didn't, then I wouldn't want to introduce any potential for them to be forced on the issue with a lawsuit. What do you think of the ZFS/Linux licensing issue? Surely ZFS would have seen broader adoption if not considered a derivative of the kernel by the GPL?
  - cyphar 10y ago
    > I think most startups do care, and have cared. Maybe since I'm not in that space, that's why I haven't have seen that. > What do you think of the ZFS/Linux licensing issue? I am sad that Sun decided to make a GPL-incompatible license. However, a better question is "would there be proprietary ZFS forks if ZFS wasn't under a copyleft license". I can think of at least one company that would have such a fork and that alone is worth not making it permissively licensed. Same argument goes for DTrace, which has been ported to several proprietary operating systems (but you can get their modified versions of DTrace). At the same time, the CDDL isn't as strong as it should be but it's inconvenient enough that practically most companies won't bother to make a proprietary fork. Overall, while it sucks for the GNU/Linux community IMO the net benefit for free software is greater (you can use illumos or even FreeBSD which incldues ZFS). > if not considered a derivative of the kernel by the GPL? I don't think anyone thinks of ZFS as a derivative work of the Linux kernel. The translation layer definitely would be, but nobody could seriously think a project almost as old as Linux and developed completely separately would be classified as a "derivative work" of Linux. DTrace is a separate topic.
    - jorangreef 10y ago
      "I don't think anyone thinks of ZFS as a derivative work of the Linux kernel." Yes, I wouldn't have thought so either, but the legal technicalities hinged on this, and this was the opinion of many, including Richard Stallman. He stated there was no way that ZFS could be bundled with a Linux distribution without infringing on the GPL. Ubuntu sought separate legal opinion and concluded differently. They are now shipping ZFS as part of their distribution. I think this is an example of why some people are averse to the GPL. Right-spirited use of GPL software could risk exposure to a lawsuit. I guess this could be called the "ten foot pole" argument in favor of more permissive licenses.

cyphar 10y ago

> I hear what you are saying. I don't think you do, because all you talk about is how lax free software licenses mean businesses can make money. That's a misunderstanding of how copyleft licenses work. No free software copyleft license says you cannot make money. > I would like my contributions to go to projects that enable and encourage business. Many businesses use and develop free software under copyleft licenses. They sell support contracts, it's a very standard model and nothing new. > I prefer not to make code contributions to projects that cannot freely be used by all Copyleft's only restriction is that distributors have to respect the freedom of the people the distribute software to. If you're not a distributor, you don't care. If you're a company that distributes proprietary software and cannot even consider distributing free software, then honestly I wouldn't want my software to be part of your products. It's as simple as that. My main concern is the users of my software. I want to make sure that no distributor or developer can take away the freedoms I intended them to have, and that's what I care about. > Startups that build on open source can be more efficient And what's wrong with that free software being copyleft in that instance? They are taking advantage of very large amounts of human effort to be "more efficient". The least they can do is make their modifications freely available to people they give their software to. And even better would be if they realised that liberating their software is a net benefit to everyone involved. But most startups (unfortunately) don't care about software freedom. > honorably, at a profit. No part of any free software license requires that you cannot charge money for the software or services. Nor does any free software license state that you cannot make a profit. These are strawmen.

jorangreef 10y ago
"But most startups (unfortunately) don't care about software freedom." I think most startups do care, and have cared. And even if some didn't, then I wouldn't want to introduce any potential for them to be forced on the issue with a lawsuit. What do you think of the ZFS/Linux licensing issue? Surely ZFS would have seen broader adoption if not considered a derivative of the kernel by the GPL?
- cyphar 10y ago
  > I think most startups do care, and have cared. Maybe since I'm not in that space, that's why I haven't have seen that. > What do you think of the ZFS/Linux licensing issue? I am sad that Sun decided to make a GPL-incompatible license. However, a better question is "would there be proprietary ZFS forks if ZFS wasn't under a copyleft license". I can think of at least one company that would have such a fork and that alone is worth not making it permissively licensed. Same argument goes for DTrace, which has been ported to several proprietary operating systems (but you can get their modified versions of DTrace). At the same time, the CDDL isn't as strong as it should be but it's inconvenient enough that practically most companies won't bother to make a proprietary fork. Overall, while it sucks for the GNU/Linux community IMO the net benefit for free software is greater (you can use illumos or even FreeBSD which incldues ZFS). > if not considered a derivative of the kernel by the GPL? I don't think anyone thinks of ZFS as a derivative work of the Linux kernel. The translation layer definitely would be, but nobody could seriously think a project almost as old as Linux and developed completely separately would be classified as a "derivative work" of Linux. DTrace is a separate topic.
  - jorangreef 10y ago
    "I don't think anyone thinks of ZFS as a derivative work of the Linux kernel." Yes, I wouldn't have thought so either, but the legal technicalities hinged on this, and this was the opinion of many, including Richard Stallman. He stated there was no way that ZFS could be bundled with a Linux distribution without infringing on the GPL. Ubuntu sought separate legal opinion and concluded differently. They are now shipping ZFS as part of their distribution. I think this is an example of why some people are averse to the GPL. Right-spirited use of GPL software could risk exposure to a lawsuit. I guess this could be called the "ten foot pole" argument in favor of more permissive licenses.