7 ms·

I believe a huge amount of programmers want to provide open source code to open source code projects, not for proprietary projects. Why not? Worst case scenari

by stephth 15y ago

I believe a huge amount of programmers want to provide open source code to open source code projects, not for proprietary projects. Why not? Worst case scenario, some people use their software without giving anything back. Best case scenario, improvements find their way back into their code. But none of this can happen if the license is prohibitive.

smcj 15y ago
Because they have the right to decide under which conditions others are allowed to use it? Most of the time (depending on the project) commercial entities never give back anything nor acknowledge the use. Restricting access to exclude free-riders (and therefore giving those who contribute an advantage makes sense).
rmc 15y ago
Worst case scenario, some person/group/company takes you code and makes it a million times better. But keeps it for themselves.
- flixic 15y ago
  It's their right. I really can't understand why people find this bad in any way. If they don't want to contribute, but they are capable of improving the code and making tons of money, great for them. Developer doesn't really lose anything.
  - Angostura 15y ago
    It's a philosophical issue. The original developer who uses GPL often thinks of what they are doing as gifting their work to the world. Having it sequestered into a money making project is rather like seeing the birthday present you bought for a friend sold on Ebay.
  - streptomycin 15y ago
    Scenario A: I make my code BSD. A company eagerly writes some proprietary improvements, and then goes bankrupt. Its code is a dead end. Scenario B: I make my code GPL. A company grudgingly writes some GPLed improvements, and then goes bankrupt. The community benefits from their improvements.
    - ceol 15y ago
      The company in scenario A isn't the same one in scenario B. If a company isn't going to contribute their improvements to a BSD project, what makes you think they're going to open-source their entire code base just to "grudgingly" use a GPL project?
      - streptomycin 15y ago
        How do you know they aren't the same company? Who said anything about "their entire code base"? As this article says, Apple distributes plenty of GPL software. Did they release their entire code base? Let me contrive a hypothetical, if it's still not clear to you... Imagine you're a ruthless corporation and you don't care at all about the open source community. There is an open source software package that solves 95% of a problem for you. If it's BSD, you will probably take it, write that 5%, use it, and not contribute anything back. If it's GPL, you will probably take it, write that 5%, use it, and then grudgingly release that 5% back to the community so you don't get sued. Note that I'm not saying GPL is always the best option and BSD is always worse. I'm just pointing out that, in your previous post, you miss out on one of the advantages of the GPL: it can encourage the release of open source code that otherwise would not have happened.
        ceol 15y ago
        Or, if it's GPL, you won't take it, and you will write your own in-house version which you'll never release. That is the more likely scenario. You're presenting a bit of a false dichotomy. If a company that's adamant against open-sourcing their work can't use a GPL solution, they're not going to shrug their shoulders, use it anyway, and then release their changes. They're going to spend more money on an in-house solution because they have complete control over it and know it won't bite them in the ass in the future.
        streptomycin 15y ago
        > Or, if it's GPL, you won't take it, and you will write your own in-house version which you'll never release. Yes, that's why I said "probably", not "definitely". It's misleading to ignore both possibilities and pretend that only one will ever happen. That's why I made my original post. > You're presenting a bit of a false dichotomy. Only if you misread my post. > If a company that's adamant against open-sourcing their work can't use a GPL solution, they're not going to shrug their shoulders, use it anyway, and then release their changes. If they're "adamant against open-sourcing their work", then by definition they will never open source anything. So? That's not the type of corporation I was talking about in my post.
  - bryanlarsen 15y ago
    They didn't lose anything, but they didn't gain anything either. If they had GPL'd their project, they would have gained improvements. So by choosing the BSD license they've lost potential gains. So it is seen by many as a loss.
- rimantas 15y ago
  So what? In that case they created a great value for someone (users). No imagine if the code was released under more restrictive license. They don't use, they create nothing greater, and users don't get better product. Whose win is this exactly?
  - streptomycin 15y ago
    Because that's a false dichotomy. Corporations will always prefer BSD code to GPL code. But there are many examples of corporations contributing GPL code to GPL projects. If the same projects were BSD licensed, then the corporation might have just forked them and their improvements would then not have been made widely available.
    - FlyingFish 15y ago
      You just gave another false dichotomy. Just because a corporation looks to use BSD licensing doesn't mean it won't contribute back. You're attempting to derive intent from a license choice. It's not that simple.
      - streptomycin 15y ago
        > You just gave another false dichotomy. No, I didn't. Notice how I used words like "might", implying that the scenario I described is but one of many plausible scenarios. Certainly corporations contribute code to BSD-licensed projects. But equally certain is the fact that some corporations contribute code to GPL-licensed projects when they otherwise would have kept their code to themselves if they weren't legally compelled to open it.
- bunderbunder 15y ago
  I've seen that happen. I've got no problem with it. In fact I think allowing it to happen is much more Free than the approach favored by the FSF. The code that I release to the world is my own work product, and it is my choice to make it available to others. If someone else improves on it, that's great. Period. I feel no need to try to dictate to them what they can do with it. That's their work product, and their choice if they want to make it available to others.

by stephth 15y ago

smcj 15y ago

Because they have the right to decide under which conditions others are allowed to use it? Most of the time (depending on the project) commercial entities never give back anything nor acknowledge the use. Restricting access to exclude free-riders (and therefore giving those who contribute an advantage makes sense).

rmc 15y ago

Worst case scenario, some person/group/company takes you code and makes it a million times better. But keeps it for themselves.

flixic 15y ago
It's their right. I really can't understand why people find this bad in any way. If they don't want to contribute, but they are capable of improving the code and making tons of money, great for them. Developer doesn't really lose anything.
- Angostura 15y ago
  It's a philosophical issue. The original developer who uses GPL often thinks of what they are doing as gifting their work to the world. Having it sequestered into a money making project is rather like seeing the birthday present you bought for a friend sold on Ebay.
- streptomycin 15y ago
  Scenario A: I make my code BSD. A company eagerly writes some proprietary improvements, and then goes bankrupt. Its code is a dead end. Scenario B: I make my code GPL. A company grudgingly writes some GPLed improvements, and then goes bankrupt. The community benefits from their improvements.
  - ceol 15y ago
    The company in scenario A isn't the same one in scenario B. If a company isn't going to contribute their improvements to a BSD project, what makes you think they're going to open-source their entire code base just to "grudgingly" use a GPL project?
    - streptomycin 15y ago
      How do you know they aren't the same company? Who said anything about "their entire code base"? As this article says, Apple distributes plenty of GPL software. Did they release their entire code base? Let me contrive a hypothetical, if it's still not clear to you... Imagine you're a ruthless corporation and you don't care at all about the open source community. There is an open source software package that solves 95% of a problem for you. If it's BSD, you will probably take it, write that 5%, use it, and not contribute anything back. If it's GPL, you will probably take it, write that 5%, use it, and then grudgingly release that 5% back to the community so you don't get sued. Note that I'm not saying GPL is always the best option and BSD is always worse. I'm just pointing out that, in your previous post, you miss out on one of the advantages of the GPL: it can encourage the release of open source code that otherwise would not have happened.
      - ceol 15y ago
        Or, if it's GPL, you won't take it, and you will write your own in-house version which you'll never release. That is the more likely scenario. You're presenting a bit of a false dichotomy. If a company that's adamant against open-sourcing their work can't use a GPL solution, they're not going to shrug their shoulders, use it anyway, and then release their changes. They're going to spend more money on an in-house solution because they have complete control over it and know it won't bite them in the ass in the future.
        streptomycin 15y ago
        > Or, if it's GPL, you won't take it, and you will write your own in-house version which you'll never release. Yes, that's why I said "probably", not "definitely". It's misleading to ignore both possibilities and pretend that only one will ever happen. That's why I made my original post. > You're presenting a bit of a false dichotomy. Only if you misread my post. > If a company that's adamant against open-sourcing their work can't use a GPL solution, they're not going to shrug their shoulders, use it anyway, and then release their changes. If they're "adamant against open-sourcing their work", then by definition they will never open source anything. So? That's not the type of corporation I was talking about in my post.
- bryanlarsen 15y ago
  They didn't lose anything, but they didn't gain anything either. If they had GPL'd their project, they would have gained improvements. So by choosing the BSD license they've lost potential gains. So it is seen by many as a loss.
rimantas 15y ago
So what? In that case they created a great value for someone (users). No imagine if the code was released under more restrictive license. They don't use, they create nothing greater, and users don't get better product. Whose win is this exactly?
- streptomycin 15y ago
  Because that's a false dichotomy. Corporations will always prefer BSD code to GPL code. But there are many examples of corporations contributing GPL code to GPL projects. If the same projects were BSD licensed, then the corporation might have just forked them and their improvements would then not have been made widely available.
  - FlyingFish 15y ago
    You just gave another false dichotomy. Just because a corporation looks to use BSD licensing doesn't mean it won't contribute back. You're attempting to derive intent from a license choice. It's not that simple.
    - streptomycin 15y ago
      > You just gave another false dichotomy. No, I didn't. Notice how I used words like "might", implying that the scenario I described is but one of many plausible scenarios. Certainly corporations contribute code to BSD-licensed projects. But equally certain is the fact that some corporations contribute code to GPL-licensed projects when they otherwise would have kept their code to themselves if they weren't legally compelled to open it.
bunderbunder 15y ago
I've seen that happen. I've got no problem with it. In fact I think allowing it to happen is much more Free than the approach favored by the FSF. The code that I release to the world is my own work product, and it is my choice to make it available to others. If someone else improves on it, that's great. Period. I feel no need to try to dictate to them what they can do with it. That's their work product, and their choice if they want to make it available to others.