3 ms·

Open source fits "pay it forward" very well. I'm a little surprised that it wasn't mentioned.

by JoachimSchipper 15y ago

0x12 15y ago
I think that is because the introduction is set in the past, when open source wasn't on the horizon yet.
- lukeschlather 15y ago
  Open source was the rule rather than a choice in those days. Nobody would pay for source code that only ran on your hardware. It was only in the 80's that the closed source systems started to emerge.
  - ThaddeusQuay2 15y ago
    "Nobody would pay for source code that only ran on your hardware." Unless your hardware was a mainframe. IBM distributed quite a lot of code in source form, with the implied assurance that there were no cheap, alternative means to run it. OS/360 wasn't even copyrighted, which is why it's legal to run on today's PCs. IBM, without trying, and probably even without realizing it, was an early pioneer in the open source niche of this "Pay-It-Forward" culture. "SHARE Inc. is a volunteer-run user group for IBM mainframe computers that was founded in 1955 by Los Angeles-area IBM 701 users. A major resource of SHARE from the beginning was the SHARE library. Originally, IBM's operating systems were distributed in source form and it was common for systems programmers to make small local additions or modifications and to exchange them with other users. The SHARE library and the process of distributed development it fostered was one of the major origins of open source software." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SHARE_(computing) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SHARE_(computing)
icebraining 15y ago
In fact, the GPL is a legal enforcement of the concept. Unlike the common misconception, you're not obliged to give back your modifications to the original dev - you're obliged to pay it forward by giving your users the same rights you got. (Whether this should be enforced legally is a different discussion, of course)
- 0x12 15y ago
  Given the number of attempted GPL violations I think that the answer is 'yes', it should be enforced legally. Corporations would run roughshod over he rights of their users otherwise. The GPL is one of the most creative uses of the copyright system ever.
  - icebraining 15y ago
    I like what the GPL is trying to achieve, but frankly I dislike the 'collateral damage'; blocking proprietary software from using it is fine, but it also blocks the non-copyleft licensed (MIT, BSD, Apache, etc) projects from benefiting from the code. In the OSS/Free Software world, GPL takes and never "gives back". I'm not comfortable with that position.
sac23e123 15y ago
It's too bad that startups exiting with boatload of cash don't pay it "backward" to open source project they extensively leveraged.

Open source fits "pay it forward" very well. I'm a little surprised that it wasn't mentioned.

0x12 15y ago

I think that is because the introduction is set in the past, when open source wasn't on the horizon yet.

lukeschlather 15y ago
Open source was the rule rather than a choice in those days. Nobody would pay for source code that only ran on your hardware. It was only in the 80's that the closed source systems started to emerge.
- ThaddeusQuay2 15y ago
  "Nobody would pay for source code that only ran on your hardware." Unless your hardware was a mainframe. IBM distributed quite a lot of code in source form, with the implied assurance that there were no cheap, alternative means to run it. OS/360 wasn't even copyrighted, which is why it's legal to run on today's PCs. IBM, without trying, and probably even without realizing it, was an early pioneer in the open source niche of this "Pay-It-Forward" culture. "SHARE Inc. is a volunteer-run user group for IBM mainframe computers that was founded in 1955 by Los Angeles-area IBM 701 users. A major resource of SHARE from the beginning was the SHARE library. Originally, IBM's operating systems were distributed in source form and it was common for systems programmers to make small local additions or modifications and to exchange them with other users. The SHARE library and the process of distributed development it fostered was one of the major origins of open source software." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SHARE_(computing) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SHARE_(computing)

icebraining 15y ago

In fact, the GPL is a legal enforcement of the concept. Unlike the common misconception, you're not obliged to give back your modifications to the original dev - you're obliged to pay it forward by giving your users the same rights you got. (Whether this should be enforced legally is a different discussion, of course)

0x12 15y ago
Given the number of attempted GPL violations I think that the answer is 'yes', it should be enforced legally. Corporations would run roughshod over he rights of their users otherwise. The GPL is one of the most creative uses of the copyright system ever.
- icebraining 15y ago
  I like what the GPL is trying to achieve, but frankly I dislike the 'collateral damage'; blocking proprietary software from using it is fine, but it also blocks the non-copyleft licensed (MIT, BSD, Apache, etc) projects from benefiting from the code. In the OSS/Free Software world, GPL takes and never "gives back". I'm not comfortable with that position.

sac23e123 15y ago

It's too bad that startups exiting with boatload of cash don't pay it "backward" to open source project they extensively leveraged.