4 ms·

> but at the same time prevent said organizations from using it at scale to charge subscription fees for someone else's IP. What you are describing is a nonfre

by sneak 3y ago

> but at the same time prevent said organizations from using it at scale to charge subscription fees for someone else's IP. What you are describing is a nonfree license (like the BSL). Freedom means freedom to profit, too. It's silly to place restrictions on a gift, in my view. When you release free software, you gift it to the world. It's no longer "yours". Thinking that you have some say in how others use it after that is fundamentally incompatible with free software ideology.

jraph 3y ago
> fundamentally incompatible with free software ideology The free software ideology has pretty much been shaped by the FSF and the GNU project, and they pretty much advocate for putting restrictions (like those in the *GPL licenses). Because the Free software movement it not about doing gifts and not having (developer) restrictions. It is about ensuring end-user rights. And this arguably requires putting restrictions. What you describe is something else, more in line with what permissive licenses do (which do allow someone else to put restrictions, which is the whole issue). Most permissive license still require attribution though. Your code is still yours. In some jurisdictions, some form of "yours" cannot be given up at all (moral rights).
stavros 3y ago
> It's silly to place restrictions on a gift, in my view. When you release free software, you gift it to the world. You beg the question, though. "When you release free software" already assumes you're releasing free software. The GP doesn't want to release free software, they want to release software with restrictions, as is their right. I also want my software to be used by hackers and hobbyists for free, but I want anyone making a profit on it to pay me. Why would I donate my work to their for-profit company, when they don't even share alike? That's not even the spirit of open source.
- sneak 3y ago
  > I also want my software to be used by hackers and hobbyists for free, but I want anyone making a profit on it to pay me. All I can say to such things is that I'm glad Linus didn't take this approach.
  - stavros 3y ago
    I guess he didn't have to worry that AWS would sell his kernel as a service for ridiculous profit.
    - sneak 3y ago
      They do precisely that: it's called EC2.
Tade0 3y ago
> It's silly to place restrictions on a gift, in my view. Is it silly to give it to select people, though? Rhetorical question, because the vast majority of gifts are given like that. That's what I wish to do. If I ever wish to create a truly open-source project, it will be truly open source. I've been following Denis Pushkarev's story and to me it looks like nowadays doing open source is asking for headaches which are too much for a single person.

by sneak 3y ago

jraph 3y ago

> fundamentally incompatible with free software ideology The free software ideology has pretty much been shaped by the FSF and the GNU project, and they pretty much advocate for putting restrictions (like those in the *GPL licenses). Because the Free software movement it not about doing gifts and not having (developer) restrictions. It is about ensuring end-user rights. And this arguably requires putting restrictions. What you describe is something else, more in line with what permissive licenses do (which do allow someone else to put restrictions, which is the whole issue). Most permissive license still require attribution though. Your code is still yours. In some jurisdictions, some form of "yours" cannot be given up at all (moral rights).

stavros 3y ago

> It's silly to place restrictions on a gift, in my view. When you release free software, you gift it to the world. You beg the question, though. "When you release free software" already assumes you're releasing free software. The GP doesn't want to release free software, they want to release software with restrictions, as is their right. I also want my software to be used by hackers and hobbyists for free, but I want anyone making a profit on it to pay me. Why would I donate my work to their for-profit company, when they don't even share alike? That's not even the spirit of open source.

sneak 3y ago
> I also want my software to be used by hackers and hobbyists for free, but I want anyone making a profit on it to pay me. All I can say to such things is that I'm glad Linus didn't take this approach.
- stavros 3y ago
  I guess he didn't have to worry that AWS would sell his kernel as a service for ridiculous profit.
  - sneak 3y ago
    They do precisely that: it's called EC2.

Tade0 3y ago

> It's silly to place restrictions on a gift, in my view. Is it silly to give it to select people, though? Rhetorical question, because the vast majority of gifts are given like that. That's what I wish to do. If I ever wish to create a truly open-source project, it will be truly open source. I've been following Denis Pushkarev's story and to me it looks like nowadays doing open source is asking for headaches which are too much for a single person.