3 ms·
> My goal is to help people set up RDS and I don’t care about commercialization. This feels like the same philosophical difference that leads to debates about
by koreth1 3y ago
> My goal is to help people set up RDS and I don’t care about commercialization.
This feels like the same philosophical difference that leads to debates about GPL vs. Apache licenses. The "how dare someone else make money using my work" camp vs. the "if someone else is able to make money using my work, more power to them" camp.
- pydry 3y agoThat was more about Google/Microsoft crying about not being given absolute freedom to do whatever they wanted with somebody else's IP. Google even banned AGPL at one point from its code hosting platform - it was that upset with open source.
- fabrice_d 3y agoMonetization is not what GPL vs. Apache license is about, even if that's often how the Apache proponents want to paint things. The GPL doesn't prevent you from making money; it only requires you to contribute your changes back. That way others can also make money based on your work, like... you just did!
- prepend 3y ago> The GPL doesn't prevent you from making money; it only requires you to contribute your changes back. I think it does though as if my contribution is made public others are less likely to buy it. With Apache/etc, I can make modifications and sell more easily.
- prepend 3y agoI agree and have been having this discussion for decades of people who don’t care and just want their work to help others (Apache/bsd/mit/etc) vs those that want to have a specific ideology furthered (gpl) that all software should be free. It’s not exactly the same, but I’ve frequently heard “I don’t want someone to take my code and just sell it.” So want to use gpl or some other license that opens but prohibits selling. I don’t think the latter really works out that well, but people seem to ask for it quite a bit.