4 ms·

> exploit permissive licenses to the max I feel like many people deciding to use an open source license for their project never consider the consequences of su

> exploit permissive licenses to the max I feel like many people deciding to use an open source license for their project never consider the consequences of such choice. They use OSS because it's "cool" or they hope to get some free work done for them. If you pick an open source license and someone uses your code to build something else within the license boundaries, that is not a Bad Thing(tm). I have released many open source projects under MIT and GPL licenses and I have no problem with anyone repackaging it however they please, as long as they respect the license terms. On the other hand, when I pick an OSS software to build upon, I pick it exactly because of the license and plan to use the license to the extent it is allowed. If the license doesn't look like a good fit, I use something else or write my own code. I don't feel like Google/Amazon/etc. owe anything to anyone just because they made it and now have a lot of money.

gshulegaard 8y ago
I generally agree with you. I just wanted to point out that from an Economic perspective this: > I don't feel like Google/Amazon/etc. owe anything to anyone just because they made it and now have a lot of money. And the ability to utilize that war chest to cannibalize the best of open source to create private differentiators raises the barrier of entry for competition. This market would naturally drift towards an oligopoly-like market equilibrium. Like I said, I agree with your perspective on licenses. I would just also like OSS to be the great equalizer that instills innovation and disruption in the greater tech market place. But so long as tech giants can take any good new OSS, pay top dollar to recruit great engineers, and then throw them at OSS then I don't think this ideal vision will come to fruition.
- nickpsecurity 8y ago
  Ill add patent trolling and copyright issues like API ruling to what you said. The companies with money can pay bribes to weaken or block FOSS activity in varios ways. Better if OSS/FOSS companies have business models with money to fight that.
setgree 8y ago
> I feel like many people deciding to use an open source license for their project never consider the consequences of such choice I might say instead that the norms of open source software development -- attribution, collaboration, good faith -- are so baked in to small, high-trust communities that they might seem as though they'll be obvious to everyone. And then your software makes it way to the public and you realize that those were just assumptions and not written into the letter of agreement at any point. I'm speaking as an outside observer on this.
- CydeWeys 8y ago
  The APGL exists for a reason. If that's the kind of development model you want, but then you instead pick a super permissive license like BSD/MIT, then that's on you. And I say this as someone who has released all of his software within the past decade using either GPLv3 or APGL, for exactly this reason.
eeZah7Ux 8y ago
Companies receive a lot from society: technology, employees, customers, physical safety... and sometimes free work in terms of FLOSS. When they fail to give back by dodging taxes, paying minimum wages, spying on people, cornering markets, competing against FLOSS project/orgs they are breaking good faith relations (and the spirit of law)
ashelmire 8y ago
My personal idea is that you shouldn't open source anything you plan to make money from. Technologies that you build along the way (like React out of Facebook and a million other examples) are good candidates for open source. Open source db software is suitable for these dual licenses - using it is free, but if you are going to sell products and services that are repackaged versions of the tool, you should pay the creator (like mysql).

gshulegaard 8y ago

I generally agree with you. I just wanted to point out that from an Economic perspective this: > I don't feel like Google/Amazon/etc. owe anything to anyone just because they made it and now have a lot of money. And the ability to utilize that war chest to cannibalize the best of open source to create private differentiators raises the barrier of entry for competition. This market would naturally drift towards an oligopoly-like market equilibrium. Like I said, I agree with your perspective on licenses. I would just also like OSS to be the great equalizer that instills innovation and disruption in the greater tech market place. But so long as tech giants can take any good new OSS, pay top dollar to recruit great engineers, and then throw them at OSS then I don't think this ideal vision will come to fruition.

nickpsecurity 8y ago
Ill add patent trolling and copyright issues like API ruling to what you said. The companies with money can pay bribes to weaken or block FOSS activity in varios ways. Better if OSS/FOSS companies have business models with money to fight that.

setgree 8y ago

> I feel like many people deciding to use an open source license for their project never consider the consequences of such choice I might say instead that the norms of open source software development -- attribution, collaboration, good faith -- are so baked in to small, high-trust communities that they might seem as though they'll be obvious to everyone. And then your software makes it way to the public and you realize that those were just assumptions and not written into the letter of agreement at any point. I'm speaking as an outside observer on this.

CydeWeys 8y ago
The APGL exists for a reason. If that's the kind of development model you want, but then you instead pick a super permissive license like BSD/MIT, then that's on you. And I say this as someone who has released all of his software within the past decade using either GPLv3 or APGL, for exactly this reason.

eeZah7Ux 8y ago

Companies receive a lot from society: technology, employees, customers, physical safety... and sometimes free work in terms of FLOSS. When they fail to give back by dodging taxes, paying minimum wages, spying on people, cornering markets, competing against FLOSS project/orgs they are breaking good faith relations (and the spirit of law)

ashelmire 8y ago

My personal idea is that you shouldn't open source anything you plan to make money from. Technologies that you build along the way (like React out of Facebook and a million other examples) are good candidates for open source. Open source db software is suitable for these dual licenses - using it is free, but if you are going to sell products and services that are repackaged versions of the tool, you should pay the creator (like mysql).