4 ms·

I think this is a fundamental misinterpretation of their position. OpenBSD can both complain about lack of contributions AND still believe that the BSD license

by nupark2 15y ago

I think this is a fundamental misinterpretation of their position. OpenBSD can both complain about lack of contributions AND still believe that the BSD license is most amenable to their goals. If I put a bowl of candy out at my restaurant, I will probably complain about a customer that takes all the candy in the bowl. However, I will still leave the candy out, and there's no fundamental incompatibility between my complaint and my choice to make the candy available. I would reserve special invective for a customer that took the entire candy bowl and then -- claiming to be a liberator -- passed it out on the street outside my restaurant alongside a coupon for their own restaurant. In my mind, the first example (takes all the candy) is the example of a commercial organization that doesn't give anything back. It's unfortunate, but it's the cost of doing business, and their decision doesn't directly negatively impact me (other than losing some cheap candy). The second example ("liberates" the candy and then uses it in a way that causes direct material damages to my restaurant's business) is how GPLers that fork BSD licensed code are perceived.

click170 15y ago
I think the op's point was that the perception of 'GPLers forking BSD licensed code as being bad' is the fundamental misunderstanding of some people using the BSD license. If they want contributions back, they are welcome to add a clause to the BSD license or use the GPL (or write their own), but they choose the BSD license in its current form and then get upset when someone stays within compliance of the license while doing something they don't like.
- nupark2 15y ago
  If they want contributions back, they are welcome to add a clause to the BSD license or use the GPL (or write their own), but they choose the BSD license in its current form and then get upset when someone stays within compliance of the license while doing something they don't like. The costs inherent in legally enforcing positive social behavior are exactly why BSD authors don't choose the GPL to begin with, and instead attempt to achieve their goals through social rather than legal means. Objecting to GPLers re-licensing their forks of BSD projects is part of that social mechanism, and is entirely consistent with the choice of license.
chimeracoder 15y ago
A better analogy would use a non-rival good, since taking all the candy precludes anybody else from having it. Something like a work of art might be better. Let's say you sculpt a statue, and you allow anybody to view it for free, including the right to take pictures of it for free. You have an optional donation box next to the statue, but nothing mandatory. Now, someone takes a picture of it, retouches it photo-editing software, and then sells that photo to millions of people and makes billions of dollars off of it. Is it a 'cost of doing business'? No, because the cost had already been assumed by the time you'd decided to license the statue the way you did. Is it illegal? Of course not, because that's how you licensed it. Are you worse off for it? No, because you lost nothing - viewing the statue is not a rival good. When viewed in this light, it certainly seems like a rather rude thing to do, but the artist knew that this was a risk when licensing his/her statue in that way.

by nupark2 15y ago

click170 15y ago

I think the op's point was that the perception of 'GPLers forking BSD licensed code as being bad' is the fundamental misunderstanding of some people using the BSD license. If they want contributions back, they are welcome to add a clause to the BSD license or use the GPL (or write their own), but they choose the BSD license in its current form and then get upset when someone stays within compliance of the license while doing something they don't like.

nupark2 15y ago
If they want contributions back, they are welcome to add a clause to the BSD license or use the GPL (or write their own), but they choose the BSD license in its current form and then get upset when someone stays within compliance of the license while doing something they don't like. The costs inherent in legally enforcing positive social behavior are exactly why BSD authors don't choose the GPL to begin with, and instead attempt to achieve their goals through social rather than legal means. Objecting to GPLers re-licensing their forks of BSD projects is part of that social mechanism, and is entirely consistent with the choice of license.

chimeracoder 15y ago

A better analogy would use a non-rival good, since taking all the candy precludes anybody else from having it. Something like a work of art might be better. Let's say you sculpt a statue, and you allow anybody to view it for free, including the right to take pictures of it for free. You have an optional donation box next to the statue, but nothing mandatory. Now, someone takes a picture of it, retouches it photo-editing software, and then sells that photo to millions of people and makes billions of dollars off of it. Is it a 'cost of doing business'? No, because the cost had already been assumed by the time you'd decided to license the statue the way you did. Is it illegal? Of course not, because that's how you licensed it. Are you worse off for it? No, because you lost nothing - viewing the statue is not a rival good. When viewed in this light, it certainly seems like a rather rude thing to do, but the artist knew that this was a risk when licensing his/her statue in that way.