3 ms·

If this didn't happen in the 90s, it's never going to happen. Just to throw something out there: most of the things in the web ecosystem use MIT license, and w

by pquki4 2y ago

If this didn't happen in the 90s, it's never going to happen. Just to throw something out there: most of the things in the web ecosystem use MIT license, and we have seen both open source communities and commercial companies benefitting from and contributing to this ecosystem. It is a very vibrant community. Separately, projects like Go, Rust all use permissive licenses compared to GPL licensed gcc. For good reasons. The era of GPL or alike are long gone.

weinzierl 2y ago
And yet, whenever an organization exercises the rights that a permissive license gives them there is a big outcry ([1], [2] are just two examples, you can easily find a ton) that they are doing something bad[3]. I say to my developer brothers and sisters, don't throw stones living in a glass house. If you contribute to projects under MIT, that's fine, I did it myself, but don't complain if the license is used in its intended way. If not, well, the GPL is there for you since the 90s... [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18229452 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18229452 [2] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39772562 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39772562 [3] Where "something bad" is usually a wild mix of supposed moral or wrongly assumed legal obligations. EDIT: As chungy correctly pointed out below, my first example does not really support my claim. Thanks, and my bad. I think the point still stands and the second example supports it. Finding more examples is left as an excercise for the reader.
- chungy 2y ago
  > whenever an organization exercises the rights that a permissive license gives them there is s big outcry ([1], [2] are just two examples Both examples you cited are not related to exercising rights given under a permissive license: instead they are the upstream maintainers deciding to change the terms of future releases. Probably the only major notable example is how Apple used some of FreeBSD's code in Mac OS X, and even that was kind of just a minute insignificant portion of it. If you notice, FreeBSD was neither threatened nor killed by the act.
  - Macha 2y ago
    The PS3 and PS4 OS were also FreeBSD based too. I'd guess the PS5 was too, but I don't know.
  - weinzierl 2y ago
    "Both examples you cited are not related to exercising rights given under a permissive license: instead they are the upstream maintainers deciding to change the terms of future releases." But that is exactly what the permissive license made possible! It could never ever happen to, say the Linux kernal, because of the GPL (plus a wide distribution of Copright to many people, which is not important here, because it is no different't from MongoDB or Redis).
    - chungy 2y ago
      > But that is exactly what the permissive license made possible! No, it's what being the legal owner of a work makes possible. If MongoDB were GPL-licensed, the exact same scenario could have played out. Licenses for licensees do not apply to the licensor. > It could never ever happen to, say the Linux kernal, because of the GPL Linux never required a CLA; thousands of people own the code. If, instead, copyright were assigned to Linus Torvalds or The Linux Foundation, it would be entirely possible and feasible.
      - weinzierl 2y ago
        "If MongoDB were GPL-licensed, the exact same scenario could have played out. Licenses for licensees do not apply to the licensor" Actually MongoDB was AGPL before, so it was a terrible example for the point about permissive licenses and excellently illustrates your point. "Linux never required a CLA;" And so neither did Redis and it still went the same route as MongoDB. The BSD license facilitated it. "thousands of people own the code. If, instead, copyright were assigned to Linus Torvalds or The Linux Foundation, it would be entirely possible and feasible." True, but it isn't and it would not have to be to go the same route as Redis if it had a permissive license. The moral of the story is: If you value your freedoms don't contribute to permissively licensed projects and never ever assign your right, title or interest in any copyright you have.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]

by pquki4 2y ago

weinzierl 2y ago

And yet, whenever an organization exercises the rights that a permissive license gives them there is a big outcry ([1], [2] are just two examples, you can easily find a ton) that they are doing something bad[3]. I say to my developer brothers and sisters, don't throw stones living in a glass house. If you contribute to projects under MIT, that's fine, I did it myself, but don't complain if the license is used in its intended way. If not, well, the GPL is there for you since the 90s... [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18229452 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18229452 [2] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39772562 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39772562 [3] Where "something bad" is usually a wild mix of supposed moral or wrongly assumed legal obligations. EDIT: As chungy correctly pointed out below, my first example does not really support my claim. Thanks, and my bad. I think the point still stands and the second example supports it. Finding more examples is left as an excercise for the reader.

chungy 2y ago
> whenever an organization exercises the rights that a permissive license gives them there is s big outcry ([1], [2] are just two examples Both examples you cited are not related to exercising rights given under a permissive license: instead they are the upstream maintainers deciding to change the terms of future releases. Probably the only major notable example is how Apple used some of FreeBSD's code in Mac OS X, and even that was kind of just a minute insignificant portion of it. If you notice, FreeBSD was neither threatened nor killed by the act.
- Macha 2y ago
  The PS3 and PS4 OS were also FreeBSD based too. I'd guess the PS5 was too, but I don't know.
- weinzierl 2y ago
  "Both examples you cited are not related to exercising rights given under a permissive license: instead they are the upstream maintainers deciding to change the terms of future releases." But that is exactly what the permissive license made possible! It could never ever happen to, say the Linux kernal, because of the GPL (plus a wide distribution of Copright to many people, which is not important here, because it is no different't from MongoDB or Redis).
  - chungy 2y ago
    > But that is exactly what the permissive license made possible! No, it's what being the legal owner of a work makes possible. If MongoDB were GPL-licensed, the exact same scenario could have played out. Licenses for licensees do not apply to the licensor. > It could never ever happen to, say the Linux kernal, because of the GPL Linux never required a CLA; thousands of people own the code. If, instead, copyright were assigned to Linus Torvalds or The Linux Foundation, it would be entirely possible and feasible.
    - weinzierl 2y ago
      "If MongoDB were GPL-licensed, the exact same scenario could have played out. Licenses for licensees do not apply to the licensor" Actually MongoDB was AGPL before, so it was a terrible example for the point about permissive licenses and excellently illustrates your point. "Linux never required a CLA;" And so neither did Redis and it still went the same route as MongoDB. The BSD license facilitated it. "thousands of people own the code. If, instead, copyright were assigned to Linus Torvalds or The Linux Foundation, it would be entirely possible and feasible." True, but it isn't and it would not have to be to go the same route as Redis if it had a permissive license. The moral of the story is: If you value your freedoms don't contribute to permissively licensed projects and never ever assign your right, title or interest in any copyright you have.

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]