4 ms·

Stealing momentum and stealing a product are entirely different things, I never said using open source products in your business without contributing is stealin

Stealing momentum and stealing a product are entirely different things, I never said using open source products in your business without contributing is stealing. It can however rob a project of momentum. Yes a business can share their progress, but without the gpl they do not have to. I should have known that was a loaded word, what word would you have used there so that I don't upset you in the future?

bonzini 9y ago
Even with the GPL, as long the software is only run in house, you don't have to contribute back.
- vorotato 9y ago
  There is no software license where that isn't true. I don't even know how such a license could be enforced anyway so it's a bit silly. Neat fact though.
striking 9y ago
No word would avoid "upsetting" me, as it's not the word I take issue with. I think the premise of your argument is wrong. If a company comes up with a new feature for a piece of open source software, it is in their best interests to push that code upstream. When they do so, the maintainers will continue to develop new features while maintaining this upstreamed feature. As long as someone else finds use in that feature, the company basically recoups their "investment" made by publishing it. This is true no matter what OSS license your code is published under. And companies that don't upstream their code will fall behind those that do (except when it comes to companies that deal with drivers and hardware; that's a whole different ballpark). With less-copyleft-than-GPL licenses, companies are allowed to choose what they share. I believe this weans them onto the Open Source train rather than purely allowing them to steal from it. If you're rallying for software freedom above all else, why not back the AGPL instead? It's so copyleft it's GPL incompatible, because it covers SaaS as well as traditional software.
- vorotato 9y ago
  I do support the AGPL as well, I just don't see it being a large concern that this operating system will become a web service. I don't see issue with other open source licenses, they all push toward the correct direction. I just also prefer licenses that prevent corporations from hiding the code in a binary after selling it. Sometimes the corporation benefits from taking an adversarial relationship, especially those who are hoping to hide their flaws and backdoors from users. You can argue once the users find out it really hurts the corporation, and they'll always eventually find out, but you can bet that the shareholders will have cashed out long before that happened. While the best growth is always mutual gain, some are willing to take a less effort win/lose, and I would like to be able to trust that some of our software is safe from that. It's my personal opinion that FreeBSD throws pearls to swine, and that we should be using such a license for libraries that we don't mind being incorporated into commercial software, but not for our entire operating system. We both benefit from the competition, but I don't see much benefit in giving the most powerful party even more power than they already have.

bonzini 9y ago

Even with the GPL, as long the software is only run in house, you don't have to contribute back.

vorotato 9y ago
There is no software license where that isn't true. I don't even know how such a license could be enforced anyway so it's a bit silly. Neat fact though.

striking 9y ago

No word would avoid "upsetting" me, as it's not the word I take issue with. I think the premise of your argument is wrong. If a company comes up with a new feature for a piece of open source software, it is in their best interests to push that code upstream. When they do so, the maintainers will continue to develop new features while maintaining this upstreamed feature. As long as someone else finds use in that feature, the company basically recoups their "investment" made by publishing it. This is true no matter what OSS license your code is published under. And companies that don't upstream their code will fall behind those that do (except when it comes to companies that deal with drivers and hardware; that's a whole different ballpark). With less-copyleft-than-GPL licenses, companies are allowed to choose what they share. I believe this weans them onto the Open Source train rather than purely allowing them to steal from it. If you're rallying for software freedom above all else, why not back the AGPL instead? It's so copyleft it's GPL incompatible, because it covers SaaS as well as traditional software.

vorotato 9y ago
I do support the AGPL as well, I just don't see it being a large concern that this operating system will become a web service. I don't see issue with other open source licenses, they all push toward the correct direction. I just also prefer licenses that prevent corporations from hiding the code in a binary after selling it. Sometimes the corporation benefits from taking an adversarial relationship, especially those who are hoping to hide their flaws and backdoors from users. You can argue once the users find out it really hurts the corporation, and they'll always eventually find out, but you can bet that the shareholders will have cashed out long before that happened. While the best growth is always mutual gain, some are willing to take a less effort win/lose, and I would like to be able to trust that some of our software is safe from that. It's my personal opinion that FreeBSD throws pearls to swine, and that we should be using such a license for libraries that we don't mind being incorporated into commercial software, but not for our entire operating system. We both benefit from the competition, but I don't see much benefit in giving the most powerful party even more power than they already have.