3 ms·

> If you're using someone else's labor, it's only fair they're allowed to dictate the terms of how you're allowed to use it. And they are, that's what choosing

by d12bb 4y ago

> If you're using someone else's labor, it's only fair they're allowed to dictate the terms of how you're allowed to use it. And they are, that's what choosing a licence is all about. In case of MIT/ISC/BSD/WTFPL licensed software, this someone else just decided to dictate a lot less than he could have.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
pjmlp 4y ago
Except many of them then come out complaining how Amazon (just to pick an example) is leeching their work, while they are perfectly in line with the chosen license.
kuschku 4y ago
And that's why whenever I want to contribute to a MIT/ISC/BSD/WTFPL licensed project, instead I just fork it and make my own changes GPLv3 only. If companies can make proprietary forks, I can make a GPLv3 fork. Best of all, no company can take my changes and make them proprietary. And if the maintainers want to merge my changes, they've got to relicense to GPL.
- bentley 4y ago
  When you fix a bug in X11, you keep it in your one‐star‐on‐Gitlab personal fork under GPLv3 to prevent it from ever making it into HP‐UX, rather than contribute it to the upstream project, where tens or hundreds of thousands of individuals using X11 under free and open source licensing in free software distributions (not proprietary forks) could have experienced the benefit of your fix? I mean, you’re free to do that, but taking pride in it sure feels odd to me.
  - kuschku 4y ago
    I don't use X11, but I've had a very negative experience trying to contribute back to MIT/BSD/etc licensed projects anyway, as they're usually just one close team of developers publishing something and rejecting any outside PRs or requests. License choice is a political choice, and it's not a coincidence that corporate-friendly licenses are usually on projects that have a strict vision and reject outside changes. I've got the features I want, in the way that I want them. If you want to use them, you're free to switch — for some of my projects, tenthousands of people have done so.

by d12bb 4y ago

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

pjmlp 4y ago

Except many of them then come out complaining how Amazon (just to pick an example) is leeching their work, while they are perfectly in line with the chosen license.

kuschku 4y ago

And that's why whenever I want to contribute to a MIT/ISC/BSD/WTFPL licensed project, instead I just fork it and make my own changes GPLv3 only. If companies can make proprietary forks, I can make a GPLv3 fork. Best of all, no company can take my changes and make them proprietary. And if the maintainers want to merge my changes, they've got to relicense to GPL.

bentley 4y ago
When you fix a bug in X11, you keep it in your one‐star‐on‐Gitlab personal fork under GPLv3 to prevent it from ever making it into HP‐UX, rather than contribute it to the upstream project, where tens or hundreds of thousands of individuals using X11 under free and open source licensing in free software distributions (not proprietary forks) could have experienced the benefit of your fix? I mean, you’re free to do that, but taking pride in it sure feels odd to me.
- kuschku 4y ago
  I don't use X11, but I've had a very negative experience trying to contribute back to MIT/BSD/etc licensed projects anyway, as they're usually just one close team of developers publishing something and rejecting any outside PRs or requests. License choice is a political choice, and it's not a coincidence that corporate-friendly licenses are usually on projects that have a strict vision and reject outside changes. I've got the features I want, in the way that I want them. If you want to use them, you're free to switch — for some of my projects, tenthousands of people have done so.