4 ms·

> volunteering in a soup kitchen and then complain you didn’t get your money back or paid for your time in the soup kitchen No, its not like that at all. It w

> volunteering in a soup kitchen and then complain you didn’t get your money back or paid for your time in the soup kitchen No, its not like that at all. It would be like if you volunteered in a soup kitchen, where every single day, half of the patrons were individuals that couldn't afford the soup, and the other half were businesses that were taking the free soup, putting their name on it, and selling it. The first group of people I am fine with. Thats why soup kitchens exist, and pro bono exists. But once someone gets the ability to pay, they should pay. Thats why I support non-commerical licenses: https://polyformproject.org/licenses/noncommercial/1.0.0 https://polyformproject.org/licenses/noncommercial/1.0.0

ineedasername 4y ago
I generally agree, noncommercial licenses are the way to go. Otherwise it is very much like setting up a soup kitchen where businesses can take the soup & sell it. Although under this metaphor the soup, once a single can is made, has an infinite supply at zero cost save the nominal costs a business has to transport cans from the kitchen's infinite pantry... or they can take a single can and build their own infinite pantry... well, all metaphors break down if you try to map their attributes 1-to-1 onto the target domain. In this case though I intend the metaphor to extend only to the labor aspect of running a soup kitchen because that is a significant & necessary aspect of keeping it going, as with OSS projects. OSS projects have an advantage over soup kitchens in that non-labor resources are proportionately very small.
- svnpenn 4y ago
  > once a single can is made, has an infinite supply at zero cost The point is, the businesses are abusing the social contract. The unspoken agreement is, that the item is for people who cant afford it. The businesses can afford it. They just see that its free, so they are taking advantage of that fact. Yes, some licenses explicitly allow the business to do that. However I don't think some developers take the time to actually think about what their license means, and they end up giving up more rights than they would if they had a better understanding. If you told an open source developer that even AGPL allows commercial use, some might be surprised by that fact.
  - ineedasername 4y ago
    Thank you for engaging in such a thoughtful discussion here. I really appreciate opportunities that force me to consider my value judgements in an explicit fashion rather than as a general feeling, and I hope you similarly see my replies as good-faith engagement in that discussion. As such I would really like to see what you think of my reply to your last comment, if it stands up to the scrutiny of someone making thoughtful commentary that runs counter to its (my) own reasoning. Given that: I think I see the social contract differently, that it has evolved over the decades as OSS has permeated software culture. At this point in OSS history I do think developers generally understand what their license means. It seems like a developer would have to ignore most industry news to avoid having at least a general understanding that different licenses have commercial implications. As such, I don't see it as abusing the social contract when a business-- even a massive FAANG-- uses software with licenses that permit commercial use. I would certainly prefer that they give something back to those projects either in dev time by their own paid swe's working on the project or financial support. The later simply isn't possible though if the project has not set itself up in some way as a formal organization. GAAP doesn't really have a way for businesses to account for financial support to non-employee individuals when it isn't either a contractor relationship or formal non-profit status. If a developer does not understand the broad distinctions between licenses (such as the AGPL) then I have some sympathy for them if they make choices early on that don't align with their financial goals or social values. They should change their license in, if possible, a non-disruptive fashion. However I also regard such a situation as an easily avoidable mistake. In general I think it is fruitless to look at the status quo & rail against businesses that violate whatever you may perceive to be unspoken agreements or social contracts. It is highly unlikely to change businesses' behaviors. It would be much better for OSS developers to change their behavior so that it requires businesses to use their work in the way they intend. I view the four freedoms of FOSS as personal freedoms. Rights granted to individuals. And, US Supreme Court rulings notwithstanding, don not regard businesses as having attributes of personhood. It seems like the arguments for support/compensation models for developers of OSS imply similar values, and so proponents of those arguments should spend their time advocating for developers to choose corresponding licenses rather than advocating for businesses to change their practices.

ineedasername 4y ago

I generally agree, noncommercial licenses are the way to go. Otherwise it is very much like setting up a soup kitchen where businesses can take the soup & sell it. Although under this metaphor the soup, once a single can is made, has an infinite supply at zero cost save the nominal costs a business has to transport cans from the kitchen's infinite pantry... or they can take a single can and build their own infinite pantry... well, all metaphors break down if you try to map their attributes 1-to-1 onto the target domain. In this case though I intend the metaphor to extend only to the labor aspect of running a soup kitchen because that is a significant & necessary aspect of keeping it going, as with OSS projects. OSS projects have an advantage over soup kitchens in that non-labor resources are proportionately very small.

svnpenn 4y ago
> once a single can is made, has an infinite supply at zero cost The point is, the businesses are abusing the social contract. The unspoken agreement is, that the item is for people who cant afford it. The businesses can afford it. They just see that its free, so they are taking advantage of that fact. Yes, some licenses explicitly allow the business to do that. However I don't think some developers take the time to actually think about what their license means, and they end up giving up more rights than they would if they had a better understanding. If you told an open source developer that even AGPL allows commercial use, some might be surprised by that fact.
- ineedasername 4y ago
  Thank you for engaging in such a thoughtful discussion here. I really appreciate opportunities that force me to consider my value judgements in an explicit fashion rather than as a general feeling, and I hope you similarly see my replies as good-faith engagement in that discussion. As such I would really like to see what you think of my reply to your last comment, if it stands up to the scrutiny of someone making thoughtful commentary that runs counter to its (my) own reasoning. Given that: I think I see the social contract differently, that it has evolved over the decades as OSS has permeated software culture. At this point in OSS history I do think developers generally understand what their license means. It seems like a developer would have to ignore most industry news to avoid having at least a general understanding that different licenses have commercial implications. As such, I don't see it as abusing the social contract when a business-- even a massive FAANG-- uses software with licenses that permit commercial use. I would certainly prefer that they give something back to those projects either in dev time by their own paid swe's working on the project or financial support. The later simply isn't possible though if the project has not set itself up in some way as a formal organization. GAAP doesn't really have a way for businesses to account for financial support to non-employee individuals when it isn't either a contractor relationship or formal non-profit status. If a developer does not understand the broad distinctions between licenses (such as the AGPL) then I have some sympathy for them if they make choices early on that don't align with their financial goals or social values. They should change their license in, if possible, a non-disruptive fashion. However I also regard such a situation as an easily avoidable mistake. In general I think it is fruitless to look at the status quo & rail against businesses that violate whatever you may perceive to be unspoken agreements or social contracts. It is highly unlikely to change businesses' behaviors. It would be much better for OSS developers to change their behavior so that it requires businesses to use their work in the way they intend. I view the four freedoms of FOSS as personal freedoms. Rights granted to individuals. And, US Supreme Court rulings notwithstanding, don not regard businesses as having attributes of personhood. It seems like the arguments for support/compensation models for developers of OSS imply similar values, and so proponents of those arguments should spend their time advocating for developers to choose corresponding licenses rather than advocating for businesses to change their practices.