3 ms·

People here seem to be forgetting that Open Source was a community driven ideal first. The License came later as "protection". Corporations were stealing code a

People here seem to be forgetting that Open Source was a community driven ideal first. The License came later as "protection". Corporations were stealing code and there was no recourse. The variety of open source licenses were created to provide a framework for the community, to fight off stealing, to keep it open. Programmers want to program, they started sharing code, then corporations started using it, and erasing the authors names. Originally there was no 'License', programmers didn't come together for the fun of creating 'Licenses'. They were forced to create license to cover their code to keep it open for anybody to use. The original licenses were really just to keep it free and provide attribution, so the authors were known.

zelphirkalt 4y ago
This almost sounds like mixing up the terms or history of open source and free software. While both may have been driven by ideals, many of the licenses typically applied by people who call themselves "open source developers" do not contain copyleft. Therefore it is inherently easy for corporations to "steal" the code. "Steal" in quotes, because when the developers chose a license, they should have been aware of that their software can be used in any context without they themselves ever learning about it or seeing any contributions flowing back, so it is not really stealing anything, but the developers short-sighted choice of license. Sustainability in terms of keeping things open (libre) is more an area of licenses like GPL, AGPL, which contain copyleft. These are more commonly applied by developers calling themselves "free software developers". Most self-respecting free software developers will also call their software free (libre) software, instead of saying open source, even, if many open source licenses are also valid free software licenses.
- FrustratedMonky 4y ago
  Guess, I'm thinking farther back, when developers first started sharing code openly with no licenses at all. Just groups working together to build something. Then some corporation, or guess anybody, could take it, erase the names, and start making money. Then there was a profusion of new licenses of all types trying to strike a balance, but all to protect the programmers from being erased. Some to make money and some just for joy.
  - pabs3 4y ago
    Initially software wasn't even copyrightable, so it wasn't even possible to apply a license because there were no laws against taking code like that.
- w4ffl35 4y ago
  good points. my main projects are free software as they are using GPL and AGPL
pabs3 4y ago
Corporations are still stealing open source code, nothing has changed there. Hopefully the Conservancy vs Vizio lawsuit will make it easier to sue companies for source code. That aims to make it possible for end users to sue, rather than copyright holders being the ones to sue. https://sfconservancy.org/copyleft-compliance/vizio.html https://sfconservancy.org/copyleft-compliance/vizio.html

zelphirkalt 4y ago

This almost sounds like mixing up the terms or history of open source and free software. While both may have been driven by ideals, many of the licenses typically applied by people who call themselves "open source developers" do not contain copyleft. Therefore it is inherently easy for corporations to "steal" the code. "Steal" in quotes, because when the developers chose a license, they should have been aware of that their software can be used in any context without they themselves ever learning about it or seeing any contributions flowing back, so it is not really stealing anything, but the developers short-sighted choice of license. Sustainability in terms of keeping things open (libre) is more an area of licenses like GPL, AGPL, which contain copyleft. These are more commonly applied by developers calling themselves "free software developers". Most self-respecting free software developers will also call their software free (libre) software, instead of saying open source, even, if many open source licenses are also valid free software licenses.

FrustratedMonky 4y ago
Guess, I'm thinking farther back, when developers first started sharing code openly with no licenses at all. Just groups working together to build something. Then some corporation, or guess anybody, could take it, erase the names, and start making money. Then there was a profusion of new licenses of all types trying to strike a balance, but all to protect the programmers from being erased. Some to make money and some just for joy.
- pabs3 4y ago
  Initially software wasn't even copyrightable, so it wasn't even possible to apply a license because there were no laws against taking code like that.
w4ffl35 4y ago
good points. my main projects are free software as they are using GPL and AGPL

pabs3 4y ago

Corporations are still stealing open source code, nothing has changed there. Hopefully the Conservancy vs Vizio lawsuit will make it easier to sue companies for source code. That aims to make it possible for end users to sue, rather than copyright holders being the ones to sue. https://sfconservancy.org/copyleft-compliance/vizio.html https://sfconservancy.org/copyleft-compliance/vizio.html