10 ms·

You seem to be having a problem understanding why people would be motivated to release genuinely free software. Open source can mean complete freedom, including

You seem to be having a problem understanding why people would be motivated to release genuinely free software. Open source can mean complete freedom, including the freedom to take the software, modify it, gain a competitive advantage and generate economic value, according to the license choice of the original author.

tgragnato 9y ago
There's not an absolute in licensing; it depends on what your thoughts and motivations are. In practise, seeing ME as a competitive advantage is something that's at least questionable.
kunimu 9y ago
Nobody is denying the freedom for commercial use is a core part of open source software. However no developer has to make a certain business model easy for you, and I think it is well within the correct view to discourage such a business practice which restricts the freedom of users by making that impossible but allowing a "competitor" (if we really must think of it this way) to generate "economic value" (i.e selling open source software, which the GPL does allow you to do). The freedom debate is unending. Personally I am very skeptical of all forms of economic freedom, as frequently they have the result of pidgeonholing people and their freedom is restricted.
- digi_owl 9y ago
  Never mind that RMS' intent with GPL is to preserve the initial freedom into the distant future. If you get access to the source, so should everyone that comes after you. And he formulated this after he had some hard earned experiences with suppliers at MIT.
  - Wintamute 9y ago
    > If you get access to the source, so should everyone that comes after you. Why should they? That is up to the software author.
    - teddyh 9y ago
      Is this the programmers’ version of “I got mine”?
Radim 9y ago
Indeed, because nothing is ever free. The cost is simply paid by someone else. Listen, I understand why that ideology is appealing, particularly if you haven't seen it play out before. How many "successful" open source projects have you seen whinge and struggle and eventually be abandoned and collapse, due to their lack of sustainability? All the while scrambling to offer the most permissive license possible? Even projects that shoulder entire ecosystems! It's better when the costs and assumptions are above board: better for the project, better for the users. I'm not familiar with the MINIX project, they've clearly found a way to stay sustainable if they've been around for 17 years. Just that paragraph quoted by OP struck me as very odd as well. Just pay your dues rather than see your favourite project die. Businesses understand this. "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs" offers some initial thrill but is not long-term sustainable.
geocar 9y ago
> You seem to be having a problem understanding why people would be motivated to release genuinely free software. Yes, I do have a problem understanding why people work for free. I don't see cops working for free, or bankers, or chip designers, or the guy who served my dinner working for free. Even Andrew doesn't work for free. I can understand licensing software that was built or purchased using [socialist] tax dollars under the GPL for moral reasons, but I don't understand why I have to pay Andrew to help Intel maintain their competitive (size) advantage.
- Jedd 9y ago
  > Yes, I do have a problem understanding why people work for free. And yet, despite your inability to understand it, it continues to happen. A lot. I suspect part of the challenge is your misuse (or just misapplication) of the word 'work'.
- Wintamute 9y ago
  How are you paying Andrew? That makes no sense.
  - geocar 9y ago
    Andrew S. Tanenbaum works for a publicly funded (tax dollars) research university.
    - ddalex 9y ago
      That would be tax euros, actually.
  - jcelerier 9y ago
    with whose money do you think researchers are paid ?
  - jhasse 9y ago
    taxes
- boomlinde 9y ago
badsectoracula 9y ago
> including the freedom to take the software, modify it, gain a competitive advantage and generate economic value ...and create backbox systems with backdoors that no user has the freedom to inspect, change or disable :-)
simias 9y ago
I don't have any problem with that. I have a problem with Tanenbaum claiming that having Intel ask him to work for free then taking his work to implement a hardware backdoor without giving anything back (not even credit) is somehow a great thing and a proof that BSD is superior to the GPL. And that only because it means that he can say that MINIX is somehow "most widely used operating system in the world on x86 computers", which, I guess, is kind of technically right. Somebody should send him a t-shirt or something. I license my code with BSD because "I don't care what you do with it", mostly. I won't write a thank you note if some of my code ends up in some closed source product, especially something as shady as Intel's ME. And I definitely wouldn't knowingly do custom work for a company as big as Intel for free.
- Wintamute 9y ago
  Intel didn't ask him to work for free, read the letter again.
  - loopbit 9y ago
    Without getting into the licence discussion: > [...]your engineering teams contacted me about some secret internal project and asked a large number of technical questions[...]. > [...]your engineers began asking me to make a number of changes[...] Those are two cases where Intel asked Tanenbaum to work for free. First as consultant and then implementing custom code modifications. Yes, not many people will charge for answering questions and maybe he thought that the changes requested by the Intel engineers were appropriate and useful for the project itself, but the fact remains that this work was valuable to Intel and required Tanenbaum to spend time on it. Edit: Formatting
    - Wintamute 9y ago
      I think it's debatable whether being contacted for information or asked to make changes to your open source project is "working for free". It's being asked to work on open source software, there's a difference.

tgragnato 9y ago

There's not an absolute in licensing; it depends on what your thoughts and motivations are. In practise, seeing ME as a competitive advantage is something that's at least questionable.

kunimu 9y ago

Nobody is denying the freedom for commercial use is a core part of open source software. However no developer has to make a certain business model easy for you, and I think it is well within the correct view to discourage such a business practice which restricts the freedom of users by making that impossible but allowing a "competitor" (if we really must think of it this way) to generate "economic value" (i.e selling open source software, which the GPL does allow you to do). The freedom debate is unending. Personally I am very skeptical of all forms of economic freedom, as frequently they have the result of pidgeonholing people and their freedom is restricted.

digi_owl 9y ago
Never mind that RMS' intent with GPL is to preserve the initial freedom into the distant future. If you get access to the source, so should everyone that comes after you. And he formulated this after he had some hard earned experiences with suppliers at MIT.
- Wintamute 9y ago
  > If you get access to the source, so should everyone that comes after you. Why should they? That is up to the software author.
  - teddyh 9y ago
    Is this the programmers’ version of “I got mine”?

Radim 9y ago

Indeed, because nothing is ever free. The cost is simply paid by someone else. Listen, I understand why that ideology is appealing, particularly if you haven't seen it play out before. How many "successful" open source projects have you seen whinge and struggle and eventually be abandoned and collapse, due to their lack of sustainability? All the while scrambling to offer the most permissive license possible? Even projects that shoulder entire ecosystems! It's better when the costs and assumptions are above board: better for the project, better for the users. I'm not familiar with the MINIX project, they've clearly found a way to stay sustainable if they've been around for 17 years. Just that paragraph quoted by OP struck me as very odd as well. Just pay your dues rather than see your favourite project die. Businesses understand this. "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs" offers some initial thrill but is not long-term sustainable.

geocar 9y ago

> You seem to be having a problem understanding why people would be motivated to release genuinely free software. Yes, I do have a problem understanding why people work for free. I don't see cops working for free, or bankers, or chip designers, or the guy who served my dinner working for free. Even Andrew doesn't work for free. I can understand licensing software that was built or purchased using [socialist] tax dollars under the GPL for moral reasons, but I don't understand why I have to pay Andrew to help Intel maintain their competitive (size) advantage.

Jedd 9y ago
> Yes, I do have a problem understanding why people work for free. And yet, despite your inability to understand it, it continues to happen. A lot. I suspect part of the challenge is your misuse (or just misapplication) of the word 'work'.
Wintamute 9y ago
How are you paying Andrew? That makes no sense.
- geocar 9y ago
  Andrew S. Tanenbaum works for a publicly funded (tax dollars) research university.
  - ddalex 9y ago
    That would be tax euros, actually.
- jcelerier 9y ago
  with whose money do you think researchers are paid ?
- jhasse 9y ago
  taxes
boomlinde 9y ago

badsectoracula 9y ago

> including the freedom to take the software, modify it, gain a competitive advantage and generate economic value ...and create backbox systems with backdoors that no user has the freedom to inspect, change or disable :-)

simias 9y ago

I don't have any problem with that. I have a problem with Tanenbaum claiming that having Intel ask him to work for free then taking his work to implement a hardware backdoor without giving anything back (not even credit) is somehow a great thing and a proof that BSD is superior to the GPL. And that only because it means that he can say that MINIX is somehow "most widely used operating system in the world on x86 computers", which, I guess, is kind of technically right. Somebody should send him a t-shirt or something. I license my code with BSD because "I don't care what you do with it", mostly. I won't write a thank you note if some of my code ends up in some closed source product, especially something as shady as Intel's ME. And I definitely wouldn't knowingly do custom work for a company as big as Intel for free.

Wintamute 9y ago
Intel didn't ask him to work for free, read the letter again.
- loopbit 9y ago
  Without getting into the licence discussion: > [...]your engineering teams contacted me about some secret internal project and asked a large number of technical questions[...]. > [...]your engineers began asking me to make a number of changes[...] Those are two cases where Intel asked Tanenbaum to work for free. First as consultant and then implementing custom code modifications. Yes, not many people will charge for answering questions and maybe he thought that the changes requested by the Intel engineers were appropriate and useful for the project itself, but the fact remains that this work was valuable to Intel and required Tanenbaum to spend time on it. Edit: Formatting
  - Wintamute 9y ago
    I think it's debatable whether being contacted for information or asked to make changes to your open source project is "working for free". It's being asked to work on open source software, there's a difference.