4 ms·

Source available is a no man's land. People who want source code also want MIT (or similarly permissible license). People who don't care about source, don't car

Source available is a no man's land. People who want source code also want MIT (or similarly permissible license). People who don't care about source, don't care if it's available.

n42 2y ago
I have contributed plenty of bug fixes for tools we use at work. I have never had any concern about the license or philosophies of the maintainers, because at the end of the day, all I cared about was unblocking my work. The fact that they own my code is inconsequential to that goal. A rising tide lifts all boats, and so on.
- Aeolun 2y ago
  > The fact that they own my code is inconsequential to that goal. To some extend. Projects that are “open-source” but not MIT piss me off because they make my life harder. I know that’s not strictly fair, but nonetheless true.
  - ChadNauseam 2y ago
    How do they make your life harder compared to projects where the source is not available?
    - holowoodman 2y ago
      Maybe he works for a proprietary-software company that wants to just take the code and never give back. Or maybe he is dissatisfied with lots of OSS licenses being mutually incompatible. But it is weird that just MIT seems to be acceptable to him, I would think some BSD licenses variant would be OK as well. But maybe even an acknowledgement of the hard work of others is too much to ask for...
    - Aeolun 2y ago
      When the source is not available, I don’t have to think about whether or not I can use it. When the source is available, I need to carefully consider what the license is, and if it’s anything other than MIT I’ll have to go through a whole approval process to use the thing. Any experience with corporate means you know the thing cannot be used if you value your sanity. I just fundamentally believe that making the source available should be the same as making it free/unencumbered. If you need the legal system to enforce your license for you something is going wrong.
preinheimer 2y ago
I dunno, we're using a recurring billing provider. There's a lot of times reading the source would have been more productive than talking to support.
khana 2y ago
[dead]
kube-system 2y ago
>People who don't care about source, don't care if it's available. Presuming the customer is a single person. Plenty of business software is sold as proprietary with some source available pieces -- where the business doesn't care about the license, but IT wants to maintain/adjust/integrate the customizable parts.

Source available is a no man's land. People who want source code also want MIT (or similarly permissible license). People who don't care about source, don't care if it's available.

n42 2y ago

I have contributed plenty of bug fixes for tools we use at work. I have never had any concern about the license or philosophies of the maintainers, because at the end of the day, all I cared about was unblocking my work. The fact that they own my code is inconsequential to that goal. A rising tide lifts all boats, and so on.

Aeolun 2y ago
> The fact that they own my code is inconsequential to that goal. To some extend. Projects that are “open-source” but not MIT piss me off because they make my life harder. I know that’s not strictly fair, but nonetheless true.
- ChadNauseam 2y ago
  How do they make your life harder compared to projects where the source is not available?
  - holowoodman 2y ago
    Maybe he works for a proprietary-software company that wants to just take the code and never give back. Or maybe he is dissatisfied with lots of OSS licenses being mutually incompatible. But it is weird that just MIT seems to be acceptable to him, I would think some BSD licenses variant would be OK as well. But maybe even an acknowledgement of the hard work of others is too much to ask for...
  - Aeolun 2y ago
    When the source is not available, I don’t have to think about whether or not I can use it. When the source is available, I need to carefully consider what the license is, and if it’s anything other than MIT I’ll have to go through a whole approval process to use the thing. Any experience with corporate means you know the thing cannot be used if you value your sanity. I just fundamentally believe that making the source available should be the same as making it free/unencumbered. If you need the legal system to enforce your license for you something is going wrong.

preinheimer 2y ago

I dunno, we're using a recurring billing provider. There's a lot of times reading the source would have been more productive than talking to support.

khana 2y ago

[dead]

kube-system 2y ago

>People who don't care about source, don't care if it's available. Presuming the customer is a single person. Plenty of business software is sold as proprietary with some source available pieces -- where the business doesn't care about the license, but IT wants to maintain/adjust/integrate the customizable parts.