4 ms·

Forgive me, but could you expound further on how public domain works are inherently more evil than FOSS?

jemfinch 15y ago
I believe you'll find his explanation in the dictionary, somewhere between "humor" and "sarcasm".
peterwwillis 15y ago
First read the Open Source Definition: http://www.opensource.org/docs/osd http://www.opensource.org/docs/osd Almost everything in there is dedicated to giving rights to the user instead of the other way around. In the end, even if a work is created "for evil", you can get the source code, change it and make it be for good. (Not to mention the whole non-discrimination thing is considered by some to be pretty "good" in nature) Public domain allows you to do anything you want at all with the source material and the product never has to give anyone any rights, prevent discrimination, allow access to the source code, or do anything positive whatsoever. I can take the SQLite source code, rebrand it "SQLPeter", change it so it corrupts your data randomly, remove all documentation and tests and keep the source code from you and charge $1,000 for support. The work itself may be made with the best of intentions, but the license (public domain) allows it to be used for more evil than the Open Source license would have permitted.
- knowtheory 15y ago
  Er, how does what you've asserted comport with code released via MIT/BSD? The only strictures that they impose is retaining copyright and license notice. No restriction on usage or brand confusion. That seems a rather immaterial difference along a hypothetical alignment spectrum.
- pgroves 15y ago
  Just don't try rebranding Linux b/c you'll end up trying to sell something called Penux.
ubernostrum 15y ago
The complaint is going to be the same tired old saw that "OMG if you release under anything that isn't the GPL with assignment to FSF, um, I mean, anything that isn't strong-copyleft, then some EVIL COMPANY might take the software and build it into a commercial project!" GPL folks are willing to accept fewer rights in exchange for a guarantee that at least that subset of rights will be passed on to all parties. Permissive (BSD/MIT/etc.) folks are OK with the idea that someone might build proprietary software someday, and prefer the license that lets you do the most stuff right now.

I believe you'll find his explanation in the dictionary, somewhere between "humor" and "sarcasm".

First read the Open Source Definition: http://www.opensource.org/docs/osd http://www.opensource.org/docs/osd Almost everything in there is dedicated to giving rights to the user instead of the other way around. In the end, even if a work is created "for evil", you can get the source code, change it and make it be for good. (Not to mention the whole non-discrimination thing is considered by some to be pretty "good" in nature) Public domain allows you to do anything you want at all with the source material and the product never has to give anyone any rights, prevent discrimination, allow access to the source code, or do anything positive whatsoever. I can take the SQLite source code, rebrand it "SQLPeter", change it so it corrupts your data randomly, remove all documentation and tests and keep the source code from you and charge $1,000 for support. The work itself may be made with the best of intentions, but the license (public domain) allows it to be used for more evil than the Open Source license would have permitted.

knowtheory 15y ago
Er, how does what you've asserted comport with code released via MIT/BSD? The only strictures that they impose is retaining copyright and license notice. No restriction on usage or brand confusion. That seems a rather immaterial difference along a hypothetical alignment spectrum.
pgroves 15y ago
Just don't try rebranding Linux b/c you'll end up trying to sell something called Penux.

ubernostrum 15y ago

The complaint is going to be the same tired old saw that "OMG if you release under anything that isn't the GPL with assignment to FSF, um, I mean, anything that isn't strong-copyleft, then some EVIL COMPANY might take the software and build it into a commercial project!" GPL folks are willing to accept fewer rights in exchange for a guarantee that at least that subset of rights will be passed on to all parties. Permissive (BSD/MIT/etc.) folks are OK with the idea that someone might build proprietary software someday, and prefer the license that lets you do the most stuff right now.