7 ms·

Maybe I like writing software that I don't bother to monetize but allows anyone who wants to come along and use it to eat to do so. Don't give things away if y

Maybe I like writing software that I don't bother to monetize but allows anyone who wants to come along and use it to eat to do so. Don't give things away if you care about what happens to them afterwards. So many people completely misunderstand what open source is about.

matheusmoreira 3y ago
> Don't give things away That's exactly the point I was making. My whole point was: DO NOT just give things away. That's just irrational. It brings you no profit and doesn't actually create long lasting wealth and freedom in the form of copyleft software. All it does is enable your exploitation. All it does is enrich billionaire corporations who are free to take the work of others, use it to make a killing and then laugh all the way to the bank at the suckers who made it all possible for free. Don't just give your code away for free. Either make it proprietary all rights reserved, or make it AGPLv3. Those are the two choices. Maximum profit or maximum freedom. Either they pay you lots of money, or they adhere to the full set of conditions spelled out by the AGPLv3. Don't just give your stuff away. Attach lots of strings to it. Strings that force others to benefit you in return for your generosity. Either by paying you lots of money or by being equally generous to you in return. Don't just give software away. That was the point. There is exactly one scenario where "permissive" licensing makes sense: a world without copyright. In other words, a world without licensing at all. They can copy your software and you can copy theirs. Until such a day comes that copyright is abolished though, "permissive" licensing is just nonsense, it just gives away all your leverage.
- layer8 3y ago
  You cut off “if you care about what happens to them afterwards”. It’s perfectly fine for somebody to just give software away as long they’re fine that someone else will make money off it. You don’t seem to be fine with it, but others are.
  - matheusmoreira 3y ago
    I've seen quite a few of these people become very bitter over the years. Taken for fools and exploited. They were supposedly "fine" with it at first. At some point it must have hit them. I don't blame them. Their reaction is understandable. I blame whoever came up with this "permissive licensing" psyop.
    - busterarm 3y ago
      That's not correct though. Charity is a valid thing. Expectations-based giving should honestly always be frowned upon. Once you give something up it's no longer in your control. If somebody has a problem with that, it's actually them that's the problem. I think a lot of folks don't think through the licenses they choose before they use them. They never really thought about if they'd be mad if somebody else commercialized their code. You give up that right when you chose that license but that's okay. Licensing is a choice. You're also free to use AGPL if you want or even go proprietary -- but don't blame open source licenses if you chose them by mistake.
      - matheusmoreira 3y ago
        Who's doing this out of charity though? I'm willing to bet almost everyone who does free and open source software is secretly hoping it will come back to them somehow. Usually as an actual job, maybe as a consultant for the software they created, maybe custom feature work. These days it's often a patreon or github sponsorships which are ethical ways to make money. Maybe it's the prestige of having one's full name attached to some major project that drives them. Maybe it's the enthusiasm for computing freedom and the copyleft ideals: sharing your work and benefiting from the work of others in return, knowing that you're adding to a commons and that your freedom is ensured. Expectations can be as low as basic respect and acknowledgement. But they do exist. You're absolutely right that most people don't seem to think through the licenses that they choose. That's my point though. That's why I came here. To tell everyone that it makes no sense to choose anything but AGPLv3 or proprietary. If you agree with me, then upvote the comment so that more people will see it and hopefully avoid falling into the permissive licensing trap.

matheusmoreira 3y ago

> Don't give things away That's exactly the point I was making. My whole point was: DO NOT just give things away. That's just irrational. It brings you no profit and doesn't actually create long lasting wealth and freedom in the form of copyleft software. All it does is enable your exploitation. All it does is enrich billionaire corporations who are free to take the work of others, use it to make a killing and then laugh all the way to the bank at the suckers who made it all possible for free. Don't just give your code away for free. Either make it proprietary all rights reserved, or make it AGPLv3. Those are the two choices. Maximum profit or maximum freedom. Either they pay you lots of money, or they adhere to the full set of conditions spelled out by the AGPLv3. Don't just give your stuff away. Attach lots of strings to it. Strings that force others to benefit you in return for your generosity. Either by paying you lots of money or by being equally generous to you in return. Don't just give software away. That was the point. There is exactly one scenario where "permissive" licensing makes sense: a world without copyright. In other words, a world without licensing at all. They can copy your software and you can copy theirs. Until such a day comes that copyright is abolished though, "permissive" licensing is just nonsense, it just gives away all your leverage.

layer8 3y ago
You cut off “if you care about what happens to them afterwards”. It’s perfectly fine for somebody to just give software away as long they’re fine that someone else will make money off it. You don’t seem to be fine with it, but others are.
- matheusmoreira 3y ago
  I've seen quite a few of these people become very bitter over the years. Taken for fools and exploited. They were supposedly "fine" with it at first. At some point it must have hit them. I don't blame them. Their reaction is understandable. I blame whoever came up with this "permissive licensing" psyop.
  - busterarm 3y ago
    That's not correct though. Charity is a valid thing. Expectations-based giving should honestly always be frowned upon. Once you give something up it's no longer in your control. If somebody has a problem with that, it's actually them that's the problem. I think a lot of folks don't think through the licenses they choose before they use them. They never really thought about if they'd be mad if somebody else commercialized their code. You give up that right when you chose that license but that's okay. Licensing is a choice. You're also free to use AGPL if you want or even go proprietary -- but don't blame open source licenses if you chose them by mistake.
    - matheusmoreira 3y ago
      Who's doing this out of charity though? I'm willing to bet almost everyone who does free and open source software is secretly hoping it will come back to them somehow. Usually as an actual job, maybe as a consultant for the software they created, maybe custom feature work. These days it's often a patreon or github sponsorships which are ethical ways to make money. Maybe it's the prestige of having one's full name attached to some major project that drives them. Maybe it's the enthusiasm for computing freedom and the copyleft ideals: sharing your work and benefiting from the work of others in return, knowing that you're adding to a commons and that your freedom is ensured. Expectations can be as low as basic respect and acknowledgement. But they do exist. You're absolutely right that most people don't seem to think through the licenses that they choose. That's my point though. That's why I came here. To tell everyone that it makes no sense to choose anything but AGPLv3 or proprietary. If you agree with me, then upvote the comment so that more people will see it and hopefully avoid falling into the permissive licensing trap.