4 ms·

Well I'd rather it be like this than the opposite extreme where companies take any (MIT licensed) software they want but never give back or publish FOSS of thei

by umvi 6y ago

Well I'd rather it be like this than the opposite extreme where companies take any (MIT licensed) software they want but never give back or publish FOSS of their own

capableweb 6y ago
Yeah, fuck any type of balance in the world right? It's either stealing software or never give back to FOSS, no middle grounds here.
- Lammy 6y ago
  This comment is the one that seems to be two extremes with no balance. Those companies make absurd amounts of money and would not be able to be nearly as profitable (or maybe even exist at all!) without FOSS scaffolding to build on. It's a power imbalance. Any giving back they do in terms of money or manpower is peanuts compared to what their top-earners are pocketing. Dear downvoters: I have worked at these companies too. I've been the one doing the pocketing. Is my experience not valid enough to speak?
  - capableweb 6y ago
    > This comment is the one that seems to be two extremes with no balance Indeed. Frustrated with the black & white view from umvi I responded with my extreme view. I'm sorry about that. I agree with you that companies should, if they can, contribute back to open source, either with funds or time spent contributing to the project. I only responded like that because I don't think it's either "companies take open source and never contribute" OR "companies take open source, overwrite the license holder and doesn't credit the author". I think the issue is much more nuanced than that, but I let my feelings write my previous comment.
- umvi 6y ago
  That's not what I meant. And clearly Facebook isn't currently at the extreme yet. Facebook doesn't just steal - it seems like it happens every once in a while, but they have given lots of FOSS gifts to the world that have genuinely improved web development.
yjftsjthsd-h 6y ago
If you don't like companies using MIT-licensed software under the terms of the license, then don't publish your software with the MIT license.
- Xylakant 6y ago
  Without judging the merits or truthfulness of the claims, the author of the MIT licensed software is alleging two things: * taking the name of an MIT licensed thing which is entirely not covered by the License and I’d at least consider that bad form. * A breach of the MIT license by the Facebook engineer - specifically removing the license and passing it off as their own work. So the author is not - as you seem to imply - complaining about someone using their software under the MIT license.
  - doc_gunthrop 6y ago
    Perhaps someone with some experience dealing with violations of MIT licenses can chime in on this. How different does one project's code have to be from another similar project before you can claim copyright and slap your own license on it? If a dev simply copied the entirety of someone's code and simply renamed some variables, could they claim it's their own original work (without worry of legal recourse)? I'd figure not, in which case, how much of a difference is different enough?
    - Xylakant 6y ago
      > if a dev simply copied the entirety of someone's code and simply renamed some variables, could they claim it's their own original work (without worry of legal recourse)? I'd figure not, in which case, how much of a difference is different enough? This would most definitely not be enough. That would basically make all licenses useless - commercial and noncommercial alike. The MIT license is no different than any other license in that regard. In case of the MIT license, whenever I copy any code (files or parts), I always place a comment right next to the section, pointing to the source of the copy and containing the license of the code/copyright marker. Honestly, what’s the cost? My ego doesn’t take a hit from admitting that I found and adapted something useful. The possible uses of the code are unaffected. License situation is clarified for audits. The original author gets credit for their work. There’s only upsides.

by umvi 6y ago

Well I'd rather it be like this than the opposite extreme where companies take any (MIT licensed) software they want but never give back or publish FOSS of their own

capableweb 6y ago

Yeah, fuck any type of balance in the world right? It's either stealing software or never give back to FOSS, no middle grounds here.

Lammy 6y ago
This comment is the one that seems to be two extremes with no balance. Those companies make absurd amounts of money and would not be able to be nearly as profitable (or maybe even exist at all!) without FOSS scaffolding to build on. It's a power imbalance. Any giving back they do in terms of money or manpower is peanuts compared to what their top-earners are pocketing. Dear downvoters: I have worked at these companies too. I've been the one doing the pocketing. Is my experience not valid enough to speak?
- capableweb 6y ago
  > This comment is the one that seems to be two extremes with no balance Indeed. Frustrated with the black & white view from umvi I responded with my extreme view. I'm sorry about that. I agree with you that companies should, if they can, contribute back to open source, either with funds or time spent contributing to the project. I only responded like that because I don't think it's either "companies take open source and never contribute" OR "companies take open source, overwrite the license holder and doesn't credit the author". I think the issue is much more nuanced than that, but I let my feelings write my previous comment.
umvi 6y ago
That's not what I meant. And clearly Facebook isn't currently at the extreme yet. Facebook doesn't just steal - it seems like it happens every once in a while, but they have given lots of FOSS gifts to the world that have genuinely improved web development.

yjftsjthsd-h 6y ago

If you don't like companies using MIT-licensed software under the terms of the license, then don't publish your software with the MIT license.

Xylakant 6y ago
Without judging the merits or truthfulness of the claims, the author of the MIT licensed software is alleging two things: * taking the name of an MIT licensed thing which is entirely not covered by the License and I’d at least consider that bad form. * A breach of the MIT license by the Facebook engineer - specifically removing the license and passing it off as their own work. So the author is not - as you seem to imply - complaining about someone using their software under the MIT license.
- doc_gunthrop 6y ago
  Perhaps someone with some experience dealing with violations of MIT licenses can chime in on this. How different does one project's code have to be from another similar project before you can claim copyright and slap your own license on it? If a dev simply copied the entirety of someone's code and simply renamed some variables, could they claim it's their own original work (without worry of legal recourse)? I'd figure not, in which case, how much of a difference is different enough?
  - Xylakant 6y ago
    > if a dev simply copied the entirety of someone's code and simply renamed some variables, could they claim it's their own original work (without worry of legal recourse)? I'd figure not, in which case, how much of a difference is different enough? This would most definitely not be enough. That would basically make all licenses useless - commercial and noncommercial alike. The MIT license is no different than any other license in that regard. In case of the MIT license, whenever I copy any code (files or parts), I always place a comment right next to the section, pointing to the source of the copy and containing the license of the code/copyright marker. Honestly, what’s the cost? My ego doesn’t take a hit from admitting that I found and adapted something useful. The possible uses of the code are unaffected. License situation is clarified for audits. The original author gets credit for their work. There’s only upsides.