4 ms·

Those are not the terms of the AGPL, etc - the terms you actually cited fit MIT, instead. In any case, you're happy about leaving most businesses out - but tha

Those are not the terms of the AGPL, etc - the terms you actually cited fit MIT, instead. In any case, you're happy about leaving most businesses out - but that limits how much open source there is out there, and the quality. It forces, again and again, billions of dollars and scarce programming resources to be spent recreating software under one license to be replicated under, say, MIT. Witness the Android libraries replacing GNU libraries, Chromium replacing Webkit, and on and on and on. Absurdly wasteful, and in the end you get at least as much freeloading, which is the theft you're worrying about. That's what you're being happy about. Copyleft is a genius idea, a wonderful idea (without the patent grab) but it can't fit all cases. A law that restricted code copyrights to four years (and forced code to be revealed or put into escrow) would perhaps be a better solution.

jacooper 4y ago
> Those are not the terms of the AGPL, etc - the terms you actually cited fit MIT, instead. No they dont. MIT doesn't make sure that derived works are still FOSS, which is why it's one of the most favorite licenses for companies. > In any case, you're happy about leaving most businesses out - but that limits how much open source there is out there, and the quality. It forces, again and again, billions of dollars and scarce programming resources to be spent recreating software under one license to be replicated under, say, MIT. Witness the Android libraries replacing GNU libraries, Chromium replacing Webkit, and on and on and on. Absurdly wasteful, and in the end you get at least as much freeloading, which is the theft you're worrying about. That's what you're being happy about. Yes, that's great. Its Googles problem that they wanted to create a closed source version from Android. No body forced them to do that. They 'wasted' billion of dollars just to avoid giving back. You might say the Android is still open source so google has given back. Partially, because full android has many features and many DRM services that aren't included in AOSP.
- Nomentatus 4y ago
  What you said earlier doesn't imply anything about derived works; just that the original goes on: "The only things you can't do are deny access to that which you were given for free from the next guy, or scrub the existing credits to pretend you wrote it." Now you're saying you can't keep private what you added, which is a change. Google paid billions for the duplicated Nix library and then gave it away under a more permissive license. (That can't be said of all of Android, we agree, but I didn't mention all of Android.) You can't give everything to competitors all the time in business, in every circumstance.

jacooper 4y ago

> Those are not the terms of the AGPL, etc - the terms you actually cited fit MIT, instead. No they dont. MIT doesn't make sure that derived works are still FOSS, which is why it's one of the most favorite licenses for companies. > In any case, you're happy about leaving most businesses out - but that limits how much open source there is out there, and the quality. It forces, again and again, billions of dollars and scarce programming resources to be spent recreating software under one license to be replicated under, say, MIT. Witness the Android libraries replacing GNU libraries, Chromium replacing Webkit, and on and on and on. Absurdly wasteful, and in the end you get at least as much freeloading, which is the theft you're worrying about. That's what you're being happy about. Yes, that's great. Its Googles problem that they wanted to create a closed source version from Android. No body forced them to do that. They 'wasted' billion of dollars just to avoid giving back. You might say the Android is still open source so google has given back. Partially, because full android has many features and many DRM services that aren't included in AOSP.

Nomentatus 4y ago
What you said earlier doesn't imply anything about derived works; just that the original goes on: "The only things you can't do are deny access to that which you were given for free from the next guy, or scrub the existing credits to pretend you wrote it." Now you're saying you can't keep private what you added, which is a change. Google paid billions for the duplicated Nix library and then gave it away under a more permissive license. (That can't be said of all of Android, we agree, but I didn't mention all of Android.) You can't give everything to competitors all the time in business, in every circumstance.