3 ms·

IMHO, I think this counters a philosophical point of open source software. The open code to the software we use should not be a handout or a gift ex post facto

IMHO, I think this counters a philosophical point of open source software. The open code to the software we use should not be a handout or a gift ex post facto. The open code to the software should be an invitation: to collaborate on it, audit it, or frankly do anything you want with it (e.g. WTFPL); before, during, and after using it.

Ericson2314 6y ago
That's like saying "landlords shouldn't be incentivized to hand over apartment over to residents after x years, because all housing should be publicly held" You're not wrong, but given the world we live in the incentive would be better. And I would say that's the sort of "non-reformist reform" that's liable to push towards the ideal, not appease and reinforce the status quo.
- thaumasiotes 6y ago
  > That's like saying "landlords shouldn't be incentivized to hand over apartment over to residents after x years, because all housing should be publicly held" > You're not wrong "Not wrong" seems like a... generous... description of this viewpoint. Lots of places tried the system of "all housing is publicly held"; it was not a success.
_jal 6y ago
There are times to hold fast to ideals, and times when demanding purity is self-destructive. (And of course wisdom is knowing the difference, and much harder than it looks.) Open source should be a big tent - it should be an answer to questions people have many different motives for asking. Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good.
- thejynxed 6y ago
  The old cathedral vs bazaar argument never goes away ;)
rrdharan 6y ago
Ironically of course WTFPL is in fact not "do anything you want with it" despite the claims of the author and fans of the license. https://opensource.google/docs/thirdparty/licenses/#wtfpl-not-allowed https://opensource.google/docs/thirdparty/licenses/#wtfpl-no... https://law.stackexchange.com/questions/29718/is-the-wtfpl-globally-valid https://law.stackexchange.com/questions/29718/is-the-wtfpl-g...
- mokus 6y ago
  It’s really quite infuriating to me that I can’t just say “yeah I made this, but anyone can have it.” I mean, really. It just seems batshit insane to me that this is problematic.
  - alexhutcheson 6y ago
    https://opensource.org/licenses/0BSD https://opensource.org/licenses/0BSD
- MaxBarraclough 6y ago
  I'd never read that Google page before. I can't make sense of the section there named The ‘restricted’ licenses. It says: > Third-party software made available under one of these licenses must not be part of Google products that are delivered to outside customers. This policy covers all 3 versions of the GPL. And yet they made Android, based on the Linux kernel.

Ericson2314 6y ago

That's like saying "landlords shouldn't be incentivized to hand over apartment over to residents after x years, because all housing should be publicly held" You're not wrong, but given the world we live in the incentive would be better. And I would say that's the sort of "non-reformist reform" that's liable to push towards the ideal, not appease and reinforce the status quo.

thaumasiotes 6y ago
> That's like saying "landlords shouldn't be incentivized to hand over apartment over to residents after x years, because all housing should be publicly held" > You're not wrong "Not wrong" seems like a... generous... description of this viewpoint. Lots of places tried the system of "all housing is publicly held"; it was not a success.

_jal 6y ago

There are times to hold fast to ideals, and times when demanding purity is self-destructive. (And of course wisdom is knowing the difference, and much harder than it looks.) Open source should be a big tent - it should be an answer to questions people have many different motives for asking. Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good.

thejynxed 6y ago
The old cathedral vs bazaar argument never goes away ;)

rrdharan 6y ago

Ironically of course WTFPL is in fact not "do anything you want with it" despite the claims of the author and fans of the license. https://opensource.google/docs/thirdparty/licenses/#wtfpl-not-allowed https://opensource.google/docs/thirdparty/licenses/#wtfpl-no... https://law.stackexchange.com/questions/29718/is-the-wtfpl-globally-valid https://law.stackexchange.com/questions/29718/is-the-wtfpl-g...

mokus 6y ago
It’s really quite infuriating to me that I can’t just say “yeah I made this, but anyone can have it.” I mean, really. It just seems batshit insane to me that this is problematic.
- alexhutcheson 6y ago
  https://opensource.org/licenses/0BSD https://opensource.org/licenses/0BSD
MaxBarraclough 6y ago
I'd never read that Google page before. I can't make sense of the section there named The ‘restricted’ licenses. It says: > Third-party software made available under one of these licenses must not be part of Google products that are delivered to outside customers. This policy covers all 3 versions of the GPL. And yet they made Android, based on the Linux kernel.