4 ms·

There's a difference between what is legally required and the greater good. Obviously, no one involved in this post is guilty of any literal crime. As you're su

by ketzo 6y ago

There's a difference between what is legally required and the greater good. Obviously, no one involved in this post is guilty of any literal crime. As you're suggesting, the license is the license. But OSS is a fragile and wonderful thing, and an entity with the resources and clout of AWS would (at least in my opinion) do well to tend that garden rather than strip it bare.

kortilla 6y ago
This isn’t “stripping it bare”. Nothing is being taken away from the author nor is anything preventing the author or original contributors from continuing to work. That’s the whole point of the license. You’re putting code out there for others to use however they want. This isn’t even about legal requirement vs intent. If you put up a super permissive license, you are making the intent very clear that people can do whatever they want with it. The lack of obligation, both legal and societal, of using open source software is what makes it so useful and lets the whole ecosystem flourish. If your in open source for glory and getting monetary or promotional credit for your work, you’re doing it for the wrong reason.
- cacois 6y ago
  Think of it this way - often when people become extremely wealthy, they turn to philanthropy. Because they want to give back. If someone becomes ridiculously wealthy and gives nothing back, we as a society tend to think poorly of them. Why? Because they are extremely fortunate and highly successful - and they could so easily help others without any negative impact to themselves. That ease makes us unhappy with them _not_ giving back. Because in their particular circumstance, we generally consider it _right_ to use their resources help others. Not required, but right. Same thing with a company like Amazon. They are enormously wealthy. So we look poorly on them when they don't give back to those bringing them even more wealth. Because they easily could. Because it wouldn't hurt them at all. Because it is right.
jgowdy 6y ago
I have accepted your terms and I am using your software in a manner that is compliant with your terms. Yet you are trying to burden me with some extra ethereal terms that you're coming up with after the fact and justifying through weird collectivist statements like "the greater good." Use an open source license that contains ALL of the terms you want involved. You don't get to back out of the open source deal or heap guilt on others because you have regrets about other people literally complying with your terms.
solidsnack9000 6y ago
Part of the evolving legal landscape is narrowing the gap between what is legally required and the greater good. It's not about eliminating the gap but we definitely want to rethink things when it's a gaping fault.

by ketzo 6y ago

kortilla 6y ago

This isn’t “stripping it bare”. Nothing is being taken away from the author nor is anything preventing the author or original contributors from continuing to work. That’s the whole point of the license. You’re putting code out there for others to use however they want. This isn’t even about legal requirement vs intent. If you put up a super permissive license, you are making the intent very clear that people can do whatever they want with it. The lack of obligation, both legal and societal, of using open source software is what makes it so useful and lets the whole ecosystem flourish. If your in open source for glory and getting monetary or promotional credit for your work, you’re doing it for the wrong reason.

cacois 6y ago
Think of it this way - often when people become extremely wealthy, they turn to philanthropy. Because they want to give back. If someone becomes ridiculously wealthy and gives nothing back, we as a society tend to think poorly of them. Why? Because they are extremely fortunate and highly successful - and they could so easily help others without any negative impact to themselves. That ease makes us unhappy with them _not_ giving back. Because in their particular circumstance, we generally consider it _right_ to use their resources help others. Not required, but right. Same thing with a company like Amazon. They are enormously wealthy. So we look poorly on them when they don't give back to those bringing them even more wealth. Because they easily could. Because it wouldn't hurt them at all. Because it is right.

jgowdy 6y ago

I have accepted your terms and I am using your software in a manner that is compliant with your terms. Yet you are trying to burden me with some extra ethereal terms that you're coming up with after the fact and justifying through weird collectivist statements like "the greater good." Use an open source license that contains ALL of the terms you want involved. You don't get to back out of the open source deal or heap guilt on others because you have regrets about other people literally complying with your terms.

solidsnack9000 6y ago

Part of the evolving legal landscape is narrowing the gap between what is legally required and the greater good. It's not about eliminating the gap but we definitely want to rethink things when it's a gaping fault.