4 ms·

> If I want to share my code freely with hobbyists and individuals, while ensuring that Amazon can't just steal it, pervert it into something I hate, and then b

> If I want to share my code freely with hobbyists and individuals, while ensuring that Amazon can't just steal it, pervert it into something I hate, and then borrow my own reputation to help them sell it, is it morally bad to add a license that stops this behavior? It isn't morally bankrupt but it is in contradiction to "share my code freely". Libre sharing of code with others invites contributions, which may or may not take the form of commercial enterprise around the fringes and/or of the code in-question itself. Think WordPress and Linux/RedHat; and not Redis and ElasticSearch. I agree that companies like Docker that created real value couldn't capture it all for themselves, but that's down to the rest of the ecosystem catching up to them and eventually overhauling them (some would argue, this is how it is supposed to work). If it is any consolation, they did end up creating an enormous amount of value with an industry changing innovation, but that happened on back of permissive licensing. You cite Amazon as an example, but as one counter, AWS now employs the RTOS lead developer and continue to fund the effort. Something similar happened when Rust-lang engineers were let go by Mozilla. So, it isn't all bed of nails. I hack on FOSS full-time, and in my view, favouring permissive licenses over restrictive ones is how the FOSS ecosystem flourished in the first place. Besides, unlike other forms of work, digital work inherently wants to be free. There's no caging it. And in letting it be is how we let it grow.

user-the-name 5y ago
> And in letting it be is how we let it grow. Is it? Can you truly support this argument? I can't work on open-source code full time without getting paid. I have bills to pay. If I release a project, try to make some money on the side, and Amazon swoops in, takes all my code, and offers it for less than I can afford, I will have to stop working on it. Does the software still grow now?
- ignoramous 5y ago
  The economics of FOSS and its sociology can reinforce each other, and that's where the true benefit lies. Throwing the code at the wall to see if its sticks and if it does, then expecting it pay one's bills isn't what FOSS is about, unfortunately. On economics of software, these posts make for a good reading: https://www.joelonsoftware.com/2002/06/12/strategy-letter-v/ https://www.joelonsoftware.com/2002/06/12/strategy-letter-v/ http://dtrace.org/blogs/bmc/2004/12/16/the-economics-of-software-redux/ http://dtrace.org/blogs/bmc/2004/12/16/the-economics-of-soft... On FOSS and permissive licensing, see these: https://blogs.apache.org/foundation/entry/the-apache-way-to-sustainable https://blogs.apache.org/foundation/entry/the-apache-way-to-... http://dtrace.org/blogs/bmc/2018/12/14/open-source-confronts-its-midlife-crisis/ http://dtrace.org/blogs/bmc/2018/12/14/open-source-confronts... > Is it? Can you truly support this argument? https://kk.org/thetechnium/technology-want/ https://kk.org/thetechnium/technology-want/
  - user-the-name 5y ago
    > The economics of FOSS and its sociology can reinforce each other, The word "can" is doing a lot of heavy lifting in this sentence. Does it do that, in practice?
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
    - ignoramous 5y ago
      It has been done? For ex, citus-data (mysql), redhat (linux), 2ndQuadrant (postgres), github/gitlab (git).
      - user-the-name 5y ago
        Yes. But are those the minority exceptions?

user-the-name 5y ago

> And in letting it be is how we let it grow. Is it? Can you truly support this argument? I can't work on open-source code full time without getting paid. I have bills to pay. If I release a project, try to make some money on the side, and Amazon swoops in, takes all my code, and offers it for less than I can afford, I will have to stop working on it. Does the software still grow now?

ignoramous 5y ago
The economics of FOSS and its sociology can reinforce each other, and that's where the true benefit lies. Throwing the code at the wall to see if its sticks and if it does, then expecting it pay one's bills isn't what FOSS is about, unfortunately. On economics of software, these posts make for a good reading: https://www.joelonsoftware.com/2002/06/12/strategy-letter-v/ https://www.joelonsoftware.com/2002/06/12/strategy-letter-v/ http://dtrace.org/blogs/bmc/2004/12/16/the-economics-of-software-redux/ http://dtrace.org/blogs/bmc/2004/12/16/the-economics-of-soft... On FOSS and permissive licensing, see these: https://blogs.apache.org/foundation/entry/the-apache-way-to-sustainable https://blogs.apache.org/foundation/entry/the-apache-way-to-... http://dtrace.org/blogs/bmc/2018/12/14/open-source-confronts-its-midlife-crisis/ http://dtrace.org/blogs/bmc/2018/12/14/open-source-confronts... > Is it? Can you truly support this argument? https://kk.org/thetechnium/technology-want/ https://kk.org/thetechnium/technology-want/
- user-the-name 5y ago
  > The economics of FOSS and its sociology can reinforce each other, The word "can" is doing a lot of heavy lifting in this sentence. Does it do that, in practice?
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - ignoramous 5y ago
    It has been done? For ex, citus-data (mysql), redhat (linux), 2ndQuadrant (postgres), github/gitlab (git).
    - user-the-name 5y ago
      Yes. But are those the minority exceptions?