2 ms·

I keep rephrasing myself because you seem not to understand. I am not suggesting that this model should replace the GPL or more permissive licenses entirely. I

I keep rephrasing myself because you seem not to understand. I am not suggesting that this model should replace the GPL or more permissive licenses entirely. I am not suggesting it will crush or destroy all free software and all extant models of free software licensing or development. I am merely suggesting a middle ground that would get source in the hands of licensed users instead of leaving them with nothing and promoting the idea that distributing source is the same as ruining your investment. I understand that this would be more restrictive because it wouldn't allow you to share with certain people. The details, of course, are dependent on the final language of this hypothetical license, but as I said I would like most of the burden of compliance to rest on the individual consumer and not the publisher, i.e., "Do not use this if you do not have a valid license". This is not any different than what we have now -- commercial vendors put out closed-source software that says "You promise not to use this unless you are supposed to" in the EULA and this is blatantly violated by those who choose to pirate the software. I don't see how or why releasing the source would make this any worse, and I think it stands to improve profitability from specific games significantly. You seem to believe that under this license forks would be impossible. I don't understand why you think that. Forks are by definition derivative works ("modified code") and as long as you comply with the license restrictions on distribution you can continue to release and host forks on GitHub et al.

JoshTriplett 15y ago
Don't assume that people who disagree with you simply don't understand you. I don't mean "fork" in the sense of "hit the fork button on github to do a 'git clone'". I mean "fork" in the sense of "I've taken over maintenance of this project due to lack of maintenance or fundamental disagreements with the existing maintainers". You can't usefully fork software in that sense when the original authors maintain effective veto power over the entire community. The ability to fork software in that way, though rarely actually invoked, prevents a large number of problems simply by always remaining an available option. Apart from that, you've just attempted to reinvent a new way of profiting from proprietary software, except that numerous vendors have already tried it in numerous forms and failed. Heed the warning. Or, alternatively, don't: http://www.despair.com/mis24x30prin.html http://www.despair.com/mis24x30prin.html If you want to write proprietary software, do so. If you want to foster a development community around your source code, do so. Don't try to mix the two; you'll annoy both sides, and that won't end well.
- cookiecaper 15y ago
  >Don't assume that people who disagree with you simply don't understand you. It's not that you disagree, it's that you imply that forks would be impossible or that the suggestion amounts to "look but don't touch". These suppositions are clearly NOT what I am saying, so I am replying to correct and/or clarify my position. I don't really have anything new to contribute to your arguments other than I consider a license grant irrevocable based on purchasing the game or whatever. Just as you can't go take back someone's copy of Windows because you don't like their political views, you shouldn't be able to go and take away someone's license for new_game because you disagree or think they should have paid more or whatever. It is true that under this proposition the original author would have to be paid if you wanted to use a fork and had never paid for the original copy of the software.
  - JoshTriplett 15y ago
    And if the original author disappears, or stops selling licenses at all, or changes their license to "we will not sell you a copy if you use $OTHER_FORK"? As I said, the original author can easily kill the entire community or any individual part of it at any time. Consider what would have happened if Oracle had that kind of power over the communities that formed LibreOffice or Jenkins; those projects wouldn't have survived in such an environment. On top of all of that, what makes the original author so special here? The community adds a huge pile of value, often more than the original author, and yet only the original author gets to demand payment? Or should this become like the NetBSD license's ever-accumulating attribution clauses, with a hundred different authors to pay license fees to?

JoshTriplett 15y ago

Don't assume that people who disagree with you simply don't understand you. I don't mean "fork" in the sense of "hit the fork button on github to do a 'git clone'". I mean "fork" in the sense of "I've taken over maintenance of this project due to lack of maintenance or fundamental disagreements with the existing maintainers". You can't usefully fork software in that sense when the original authors maintain effective veto power over the entire community. The ability to fork software in that way, though rarely actually invoked, prevents a large number of problems simply by always remaining an available option. Apart from that, you've just attempted to reinvent a new way of profiting from proprietary software, except that numerous vendors have already tried it in numerous forms and failed. Heed the warning. Or, alternatively, don't: http://www.despair.com/mis24x30prin.html http://www.despair.com/mis24x30prin.html If you want to write proprietary software, do so. If you want to foster a development community around your source code, do so. Don't try to mix the two; you'll annoy both sides, and that won't end well.

cookiecaper 15y ago
>Don't assume that people who disagree with you simply don't understand you. It's not that you disagree, it's that you imply that forks would be impossible or that the suggestion amounts to "look but don't touch". These suppositions are clearly NOT what I am saying, so I am replying to correct and/or clarify my position. I don't really have anything new to contribute to your arguments other than I consider a license grant irrevocable based on purchasing the game or whatever. Just as you can't go take back someone's copy of Windows because you don't like their political views, you shouldn't be able to go and take away someone's license for new_game because you disagree or think they should have paid more or whatever. It is true that under this proposition the original author would have to be paid if you wanted to use a fork and had never paid for the original copy of the software.
- JoshTriplett 15y ago
  And if the original author disappears, or stops selling licenses at all, or changes their license to "we will not sell you a copy if you use $OTHER_FORK"? As I said, the original author can easily kill the entire community or any individual part of it at any time. Consider what would have happened if Oracle had that kind of power over the communities that formed LibreOffice or Jenkins; those projects wouldn't have survived in such an environment. On top of all of that, what makes the original author so special here? The community adds a huge pile of value, often more than the original author, and yet only the original author gets to demand payment? Or should this become like the NetBSD license's ever-accumulating attribution clauses, with a hundred different authors to pay license fees to?