4 ms·

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 lon

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.
- busterarm 3y ago
  Most of my open source contributions were because I was a user and had a problem to solve. Usually in the course of doing my paid job, but not always.
  - matheusmoreira 3y ago
    Then you do have expectations. Of continued maintenance. I hope whoever was maintaining the software had their expectations fulfilled too. We've all seen what can happen when they aren't.
CRConrad 3y ago
> Expectations-based giving should honestly always be frowned upon. Once you give something up it's no longer in your control. Licensing something as Free Software (i.e. under a copyleft license) isn't "giving it up", so there's no contradiction with retaining (some) control. > If somebody has a problem with that, it's actually them that's the problem. Or the problem is with the people who want to take control because they thought the original creator "gave it up". > I think a lot of folks don't think through the licenses they choose before they use them. Yup, better make sure to go with a copyleft license.

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.

busterarm 3y ago
Most of my open source contributions were because I was a user and had a problem to solve. Usually in the course of doing my paid job, but not always.
- matheusmoreira 3y ago
  Then you do have expectations. Of continued maintenance. I hope whoever was maintaining the software had their expectations fulfilled too. We've all seen what can happen when they aren't.

CRConrad 3y ago

> Expectations-based giving should honestly always be frowned upon. Once you give something up it's no longer in your control. Licensing something as Free Software (i.e. under a copyleft license) isn't "giving it up", so there's no contradiction with retaining (some) control. > If somebody has a problem with that, it's actually them that's the problem. Or the problem is with the people who want to take control because they thought the original creator "gave it up". > I think a lot of folks don't think through the licenses they choose before they use them. Yup, better make sure to go with a copyleft license.