5 ms·

They do it at no benefit to the OSS providers, that's the issue.

by Grimm1 6y ago

xyzzy_plugh 6y ago
Why do they need to benefit the OSS provider? The license doesn't contain anything suggesting otherwise. If authors want credit and money, the license needs to state as much. You can't publish something saying "do whatever you want" and then complain that people aren't being fair to you.
- Signez 6y ago
  > You can't publish something saying "do whatever you want" and then complain that people aren't being fair to you. Well… you can complain. You just can't sue them. But the complaint would still be valid. You can act like a jerk and follow all the laws at the same time, it's just that the consequences for you won't be identical.
  - sukilot 6y ago
    Doing exactly as you are told by the copyright holder isn't being a jerk.
- typomatic 6y ago
  My parents asked me for some money the other day, but I told them to pound sand--if they wanted my help they should have made me sign something before they gave me all that free room and board. Suckers!
  - tathougies 6y ago
    Legally, yes, that is how it should be. even if worthy of criticism socially.
- Sean-Der 6y ago
  Do you believe that authoritarian measures is the only thing that makes people do the just thing? I am sure some people don't steal/murder because of laws, but I optimistically think the majority don't because they don't wish to hurt others.
- Grimm1 6y ago
  1 point by Grimm1 8 minutes ago | edit | delete [–] The licenses weren't conceived of with the thought of something like AWS. Now that we're in the midst of things that's changing but what is an officially supported open source license [0] is too slow so you can't use the OSS label if you've you're not using the approved licenses. Both Mongo and Elasticsearch have changed their licenses to prevent cloud players from taking advantage of their work and companies like Gitlab make a clear distinction between their FOSS parts and what they make money on by using two different licenses. The issues are only a little over a half decade old now the OSS players are starting to figure it out. Open source just doesn't mean anyone can use it, there's a definition to adhere to and and org managing that definition. [1] It was never intended as a free for all. [0] https://opensource.org/licenses https://opensource.org/licenses [1] https://opensource.org/about https://opensource.org/about
  - baddox 6y ago
    > The licenses weren't conceived of with the thought of something like AWS. You mean...a hosting company? I find it hard to believe that the open source movement was blindsided by the realization that there are companies that sell hosting services and that somehow this destroys the viability of their movement.
MattGaiser 6y ago
But isn't that part of the point of open source? If you want people to have to pay for it in some way, it needs to be part of the license. The license is essentially free for all.
- searchableguy 6y ago
  Legality doesn't always cover everything because that would result in a lot of problems. People operate on the spirit of the law, not the actual words or at least they are supposed to. There is an expectation of contribution back.
  - sukilot 6y ago
    The spirit of open source is to protect the users, not benefit the authors.
  - ric2b 6y ago
    With GPL yes, with MIT no.
- Grimm1 6y ago
  The licenses weren't conceived of with the thought of something like AWS. Now that we're in the midst of things that's changing but what is an officially supported open source license [0] is too slow so you can't use the OSS label if you've you're not using the approved licenses. Both Mongo and Elasticsearch have changed their licenses to prevent cloud players from taking advantage of their work and companies like Gitlab make a clear distinction between their FOSS parts and what they make money on by using two different licenses. The issues are only a little over a half decade old now the OSS players are starting to figure it out. Open source just doesn't mean anyone can use it, there's a definition to adhere to and and org managing that definition. [1] It was never intended as a free for all. [0] https://opensource.org/licenses https://opensource.org/licenses [1] https://opensource.org/about https://opensource.org/about
- Sean-Der 6y ago
  Open Source isn't just one mindset. This isn't exhaustive, but the ones I encounter the most. * You have people that are ideologically driven (FSF) * You have companies that Open Source as a weapon [0] (Chromium) * You have projects that are very pragmatic. They believe it is the path to technical excellence. * You have individuals do it for their resume * You have individuals that do it just for fun :) [0] https://www.gwern.net/Complement#open-source-as-a-strategic-weapon https://www.gwern.net/Complement#open-source-as-a-strategic-...

They do it at no benefit to the OSS providers, that's the issue.

by Grimm1 6y ago

They do it at no benefit to the OSS providers, that's the issue.

Why do they need to benefit the OSS provider? The license doesn't contain anything suggesting otherwise. If authors want credit and money, the license needs to state as much. You can't publish something saying "do whatever you want" and then complain that people aren't being fair to you.

Signez 6y ago
> You can't publish something saying "do whatever you want" and then complain that people aren't being fair to you. Well… you can complain. You just can't sue them. But the complaint would still be valid. You can act like a jerk and follow all the laws at the same time, it's just that the consequences for you won't be identical.
- sukilot 6y ago
  Doing exactly as you are told by the copyright holder isn't being a jerk.
typomatic 6y ago
My parents asked me for some money the other day, but I told them to pound sand--if they wanted my help they should have made me sign something before they gave me all that free room and board. Suckers!
- tathougies 6y ago
  Legally, yes, that is how it should be. even if worthy of criticism socially.
Sean-Der 6y ago
Do you believe that authoritarian measures is the only thing that makes people do the just thing? I am sure some people don't steal/murder because of laws, but I optimistically think the majority don't because they don't wish to hurt others.
Grimm1 6y ago
1 point by Grimm1 8 minutes ago | edit | delete [–] The licenses weren't conceived of with the thought of something like AWS. Now that we're in the midst of things that's changing but what is an officially supported open source license [0] is too slow so you can't use the OSS label if you've you're not using the approved licenses. Both Mongo and Elasticsearch have changed their licenses to prevent cloud players from taking advantage of their work and companies like Gitlab make a clear distinction between their FOSS parts and what they make money on by using two different licenses. The issues are only a little over a half decade old now the OSS players are starting to figure it out. Open source just doesn't mean anyone can use it, there's a definition to adhere to and and org managing that definition. [1] It was never intended as a free for all. [0] https://opensource.org/licenses https://opensource.org/licenses [1] https://opensource.org/about https://opensource.org/about
- baddox 6y ago
  > The licenses weren't conceived of with the thought of something like AWS. You mean...a hosting company? I find it hard to believe that the open source movement was blindsided by the realization that there are companies that sell hosting services and that somehow this destroys the viability of their movement.

MattGaiser 6y ago

But isn't that part of the point of open source? If you want people to have to pay for it in some way, it needs to be part of the license. The license is essentially free for all.

searchableguy 6y ago
Legality doesn't always cover everything because that would result in a lot of problems. People operate on the spirit of the law, not the actual words or at least they are supposed to. There is an expectation of contribution back.
- sukilot 6y ago
  The spirit of open source is to protect the users, not benefit the authors.
- ric2b 6y ago
  With GPL yes, with MIT no.
Grimm1 6y ago
The licenses weren't conceived of with the thought of something like AWS. Now that we're in the midst of things that's changing but what is an officially supported open source license [0] is too slow so you can't use the OSS label if you've you're not using the approved licenses. Both Mongo and Elasticsearch have changed their licenses to prevent cloud players from taking advantage of their work and companies like Gitlab make a clear distinction between their FOSS parts and what they make money on by using two different licenses. The issues are only a little over a half decade old now the OSS players are starting to figure it out. Open source just doesn't mean anyone can use it, there's a definition to adhere to and and org managing that definition. [1] It was never intended as a free for all. [0] https://opensource.org/licenses https://opensource.org/licenses [1] https://opensource.org/about https://opensource.org/about
Sean-Der 6y ago
Open Source isn't just one mindset. This isn't exhaustive, but the ones I encounter the most. * You have people that are ideologically driven (FSF) * You have companies that Open Source as a weapon [0] (Chromium) * You have projects that are very pragmatic. They believe it is the path to technical excellence. * You have individuals do it for their resume * You have individuals that do it just for fun :) [0] https://www.gwern.net/Complement#open-source-as-a-strategic-weapon https://www.gwern.net/Complement#open-source-as-a-strategic-...