3 ms·

Then don't choose a super permissive license like BSD/MIT. I was reading The Wealth Of Nations by Adam Smith recently (1776), and one passage stuck to me: that

by sph 2y ago

Then don't choose a super permissive license like BSD/MIT. I was reading The Wealth Of Nations by Adam Smith recently (1776), and one passage stuck to me: that the regular market works because it is driven by the inherent self-interest and egoism of humans, while only beggars expect to earn a living out of the goodwill of the people. I love free software, but it makes no sense as a business model. If you want to make money out of free software while avoiding leeches, use a serious license. AGPL3, MPL2.0 or EUPL. The entire ecosystem of permissive licenses is pushed, hard, by companies themselves, and perpetuated by their naive employees. Hence the creation of the corporate-friendly Open Source Initiative (OSI) that has completely eaten the lunch of the FSF.

Sharlin 2y ago
So, how exactly would Adam Smith explain the open source ecosystem? OSS devs clearly aren't beggars because they create value.
- schneems 2y ago
  I do a ton of open source but I don’t beg. I negotiate with my employer to find a common goal that advances the business and the community. Companies don’t donate out of (pure) goodwill. Lots of talks about risk mitigation. Even if they don’t donate money, the devs who rely on dependencies can still donate time as they choose (within limits).
schneems 2y ago
> Then don't choose a super permissive license like BSD/MIT. One big problem is that you cannot encode all possible wants and wishes into a legal document. Laurence Lessig, founding member of Creative Commons, wrote in Code 2.0 (1999) about four elements that regulate behavior online: Laws, norms, markets, and technology - *Code/architecture* – the physical or technical constraints on activities (e.g. locks on doors or firewalls on the Internet) - *Market* – economic forces - *Law* – explicit mandates that can be enforced by the government - *Norms* – social conventions that one often feels compelled to follow It also doesn’t help that OSI and FSF operate as though they are each other’s biggest enemies instead of all the other threats out there. I feel like the definitions of “Free” and “Open” are too binary and lack nuance. I wish for something more, an open “score”, for example. Sure the Hipocratic license isn’t permissive but the only limitation it imposes is predicated on committing human atrocities as defined in legal code by the Geneva convention. So maybe it’s “closer” to MIT then say the “business source license” which is actively restricting commercialization. Or to put it another way: If we want software devs to choose licenses that are closer to their actual goals (like CC-BY-NC) then we need to find ways as a community to distinguish these projects as better than pure closed source, proprietary software. Because right now FSF and OSI classify both the same.
alexvitkov 2y ago
Those licenses are all a joke. If I need a library like libcurl for a commercial application, then GPL, AGPL, EUPL and even LGPL are non-starter. MPL-style licenses are fine, but it doesn't really make you any money, it just forces me to publish my patchset for the library (except not really [1]) The solution really is to use a serious license. Add a "if you make more than $X you owe us $Y" clause. Or use a Qt-style dual-license, where your users can buy their way out of the GPL, this way you can keep the moral high ground of using a "FSF-approved license". But putting yourself in a position where your work can be easily exploited and then complaining when it is is ridiculous. [1] MPL works on a per-file basis. Technically I can extend it the library with a new file that contains no MPL code and won't have to release it. The LGPL has protections against this, is worse in other ways.
- sph 2y ago
  MPL and EUPL don't make you money but they are in the spirit of free software while not being viral and forcing everybody to buy into the socialistic ideals of free software. A company can keep closed source their own extension to your project, but any modification to the project itself gets shared with the community, no exception. In ways it's more libre than GPLv2, without forcing big money to bend to your idealistic will (because they won't, and will just avoid using your software). Of course you can write your license, but either you do it seriously and pay $x,000 a lawyer to do it for you, or you write legal nonsense. In both cases the result is any company will just skip using your software because they have better things to do than review your custom license. There is a real people choose pre-made licenses for open source.
- piva00 2y ago
  > But putting yourself in a position where your work can be easily exploited and then complaining when it is is ridiculous. Ridiculous is a strong adjective to use in this case, naïve would work much better without adding a harsh judgment to people who don't share your worldview. I could say the same: your position is ridiculous by only believing that humans are incapable of cooperation without having something to gain from it, such position only exist due to a system we are beholden to, not due to absolute human nature.

by sph 2y ago

Sharlin 2y ago

So, how exactly would Adam Smith explain the open source ecosystem? OSS devs clearly aren't beggars because they create value.

schneems 2y ago
I do a ton of open source but I don’t beg. I negotiate with my employer to find a common goal that advances the business and the community. Companies don’t donate out of (pure) goodwill. Lots of talks about risk mitigation. Even if they don’t donate money, the devs who rely on dependencies can still donate time as they choose (within limits).

schneems 2y ago

> Then don't choose a super permissive license like BSD/MIT. One big problem is that you cannot encode all possible wants and wishes into a legal document. Laurence Lessig, founding member of Creative Commons, wrote in Code 2.0 (1999) about four elements that regulate behavior online: Laws, norms, markets, and technology - *Code/architecture* – the physical or technical constraints on activities (e.g. locks on doors or firewalls on the Internet) - *Market* – economic forces - *Law* – explicit mandates that can be enforced by the government - *Norms* – social conventions that one often feels compelled to follow It also doesn’t help that OSI and FSF operate as though they are each other’s biggest enemies instead of all the other threats out there. I feel like the definitions of “Free” and “Open” are too binary and lack nuance. I wish for something more, an open “score”, for example. Sure the Hipocratic license isn’t permissive but the only limitation it imposes is predicated on committing human atrocities as defined in legal code by the Geneva convention. So maybe it’s “closer” to MIT then say the “business source license” which is actively restricting commercialization. Or to put it another way: If we want software devs to choose licenses that are closer to their actual goals (like CC-BY-NC) then we need to find ways as a community to distinguish these projects as better than pure closed source, proprietary software. Because right now FSF and OSI classify both the same.

alexvitkov 2y ago

Those licenses are all a joke. If I need a library like libcurl for a commercial application, then GPL, AGPL, EUPL and even LGPL are non-starter. MPL-style licenses are fine, but it doesn't really make you any money, it just forces me to publish my patchset for the library (except not really [1]) The solution really is to use a serious license. Add a "if you make more than $X you owe us $Y" clause. Or use a Qt-style dual-license, where your users can buy their way out of the GPL, this way you can keep the moral high ground of using a "FSF-approved license". But putting yourself in a position where your work can be easily exploited and then complaining when it is is ridiculous. [1] MPL works on a per-file basis. Technically I can extend it the library with a new file that contains no MPL code and won't have to release it. The LGPL has protections against this, is worse in other ways.

sph 2y ago
MPL and EUPL don't make you money but they are in the spirit of free software while not being viral and forcing everybody to buy into the socialistic ideals of free software. A company can keep closed source their own extension to your project, but any modification to the project itself gets shared with the community, no exception. In ways it's more libre than GPLv2, without forcing big money to bend to your idealistic will (because they won't, and will just avoid using your software). Of course you can write your license, but either you do it seriously and pay $x,000 a lawyer to do it for you, or you write legal nonsense. In both cases the result is any company will just skip using your software because they have better things to do than review your custom license. There is a real people choose pre-made licenses for open source.
piva00 2y ago
> But putting yourself in a position where your work can be easily exploited and then complaining when it is is ridiculous. Ridiculous is a strong adjective to use in this case, naïve would work much better without adding a harsh judgment to people who don't share your worldview. I could say the same: your position is ridiculous by only believing that humans are incapable of cooperation without having something to gain from it, such position only exist due to a system we are beholden to, not due to absolute human nature.