3 ms·

Nothing wrong to use someone else's work to make money for yourself. Plenty wrong to use someone else's work to make money for others. Oversimplification I kno

Nothing wrong to use someone else's work to make money for yourself. Plenty wrong to use someone else's work to make money for others. Oversimplification I know.. but.. right? The Ferenghi would be proud of Unity!

bitmasher9 1y ago
GPL/LGPL is more about treating users fairly than not making money. It’s just that most software companies exploit their users to various degrees.
matheusmoreira 1y ago
Open source is just the transfer of property and capital from well meaning developers straight into the pockets of corporations and billionaires. Developers are well advised to always apply the AGPLv3 to everything they make. It's either AGPLv3 or all rights reserved, everything in between makes no sense. https://zedshaw.com/blog/2022-02-05-the-beggar-barons/ https://zedshaw.com/blog/2022-02-05-the-beggar-barons/ > To the Beggar Baron, open source's value is its free donation. > You would never stand on the street and offer to buy the wallets off people who are about to donate a few dollars to you. > That'd be stupid. They're giving you their money for free. Take it and run.
- kragen 1y ago
  Your comment makes no sense: first it attacks “open source” with derogatory language, then it strongly recommends using a certain open-source license, and then it returns to attacking “open source” with derogatory language pasted from a clueless blog post by a plonker renowned for his clueless rants.
  - Dylan16807 1y ago
    It makes sense when you add the fact that 99% of open source is not AGPL. Criticizing "open source" is slight hyperbole.
    - kragen 1y ago
      If there's something wrong with open source software as a class, that thing would almost certainly have to be wrong with the AGPL as well, since it's a central example of the class of open source licenses, and, contrary to your comment, one of the most popular ones. If it's an exception to the generalization, you need to explain why. So it isn't "slight hyperbole". It's utter incoherence.
      - Dylan16807 1y ago
        If everyone in a classroom but one makes the same mistake, it's not incoherent to say the class screwed up. And they half explained why AGPL is different, with the other half not being hard to infer. It's the only one that isn't donating code to huge companies, because they can't use it on their servers without sharing back. Give a tiny bit of benefit of the doubt that they were saying something coherent. Please. (Their other later comment says they considers AGPL to be in a different category from "open source", and even if that's wrong it actually makes the argument more coherent. They're explicitly criticizing open source licenses other than AGPL.) Also 1% was just a rough guess but this survey says I was exactly right: https://github.blog/open-source/open-source-license-usage-on-github-com/ https://github.blog/open-source/open-source-license-usage-on... If the number has changed in the last few years I'm open to updates.
  - matheusmoreira 1y ago
    Free software and open source software are not the same. AGPLv3 is not an open source license, it is the strongest copyleft free software license available at this point in time. https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.... https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/words-to-avoid.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/words-to-avoid.html And it's hard to disagree with the clueless guy when what he says is happening keeps happening. https://twitter.com/FFmpeg/status/1775178803129602500 https://twitter.com/FFmpeg/status/1775178803129602500 https://twitter.com/FFmpeg/status/1775178805704888726 https://twitter.com/FFmpeg/status/1775178805704888726 https://trac.ffmpeg.org/ticket/10341#comment:4 https://trac.ffmpeg.org/ticket/10341#comment:4
    - kragen 1y ago
      The AGPL v3 has been certified as an official open source license by the OSI for 16 years: https://opensource.org/license/agpl-v3 https://opensource.org/license/agpl-v3 It's not that no begging ever happens. It's just that you're saying that "open source is just the transfer of property and capital" and it isn't.
      - matheusmoreira 1y ago
        > certified as an official open source license by the OSI That just means open source sees itself as a superset of free software. The reality is they have completely different and incompatible values. They are not the same. > you're saying that "open source is just the transfer of property and capital" and it isn't Open source licenses are essentially payment in exposure. Well meaning developers are literally giving away their intellectual property in exchange for a copyright notice with their name on it being included in a billion dollar corporation's product. To me that makes no sense whatsoever. The results are predictable and I've seen plenty of people get disillusioned when the reality of it sinks in. Free software licenses at least attempt to maximize the public good of the software being given away. This actually generates some leverage for the developer.
        kragen 1y ago
- pabs3 1y ago
  The AGPLv3 is pretty easy for the corporations to comply with, they just have to either use the unmodified code, or give their users access to the modified code. The money will still go to them even with AGPLv3. You have to go to non-FOSS licenses if you want to change where the money goes, but even that won't help, because if you get popular enough they will just use their giant amount of devs to re-implement your stuff and then beat you at marketing.
  - matheusmoreira 1y ago
    > The AGPLv3 is pretty easy for the corporations to comply with > they just have to either use the unmodified code, or give their users access to the modified code If it's so easy, then why don't they? Why do they treat it as legal kryptonite? > You have to go to non-FOSS licenses if you want to change where the money goes I agree with you. That's why I said "AGPLv3 or all rights reserved". I don't necessarily want to change where the money goes though. It's about having the power to do whatever you want as the user of the software and especially as the owner of the computer that's running it. AGPLv3 is simply the license that allows us to give away software while retaining the most possible leverage. Open source licenses just give it all away for literally nothing. > but even that won't help, because if you get popular enough they will just use their giant amount of devs to re-implement your stuff and then beat you at marketing That's okay. Spending one's own time and money on something is not exploitative in any way. They could also negotiate exceptions to the GPL with the copyright holders. https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/selling-exceptions.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/selling-exceptions.html
    - pabs3 1y ago
      Probably cautious lawyers, maybe cargo-culting, hard to tell. Some more discussion of why they don't in this LWN thread: https://lwn.net/Articles/1019686/ https://lwn.net/Articles/1019686/ FTR, AGPLv3 is considered an Open Source license, perhaps you meant permissive/pushover licenses when you said "Open source licenses just give it all away for literally nothing". Also, permissive licenses have conditions too, although they are easy to comply with, violations of them are still quite common, as they are for GPL-family licenses. Deliberately going out of your way to put a smaller company out of business seems like shitty behavior to me. I also wonder about the anti-trust angle; Big Tech using their oligopoly in the developer labour market to kill startups that could become competitors. I never really bought the idea that selling exceptions is ethical, probably better to downgrade to LGPL instead.

bitmasher9 1y ago

GPL/LGPL is more about treating users fairly than not making money. It’s just that most software companies exploit their users to various degrees.

matheusmoreira 1y ago

Open source is just the transfer of property and capital from well meaning developers straight into the pockets of corporations and billionaires. Developers are well advised to always apply the AGPLv3 to everything they make. It's either AGPLv3 or all rights reserved, everything in between makes no sense. https://zedshaw.com/blog/2022-02-05-the-beggar-barons/ https://zedshaw.com/blog/2022-02-05-the-beggar-barons/ > To the Beggar Baron, open source's value is its free donation. > You would never stand on the street and offer to buy the wallets off people who are about to donate a few dollars to you. > That'd be stupid. They're giving you their money for free. Take it and run.

kragen 1y ago
Your comment makes no sense: first it attacks “open source” with derogatory language, then it strongly recommends using a certain open-source license, and then it returns to attacking “open source” with derogatory language pasted from a clueless blog post by a plonker renowned for his clueless rants.
- Dylan16807 1y ago
  It makes sense when you add the fact that 99% of open source is not AGPL. Criticizing "open source" is slight hyperbole.
  - kragen 1y ago
    If there's something wrong with open source software as a class, that thing would almost certainly have to be wrong with the AGPL as well, since it's a central example of the class of open source licenses, and, contrary to your comment, one of the most popular ones. If it's an exception to the generalization, you need to explain why. So it isn't "slight hyperbole". It's utter incoherence.
    - Dylan16807 1y ago
      If everyone in a classroom but one makes the same mistake, it's not incoherent to say the class screwed up. And they half explained why AGPL is different, with the other half not being hard to infer. It's the only one that isn't donating code to huge companies, because they can't use it on their servers without sharing back. Give a tiny bit of benefit of the doubt that they were saying something coherent. Please. (Their other later comment says they considers AGPL to be in a different category from "open source", and even if that's wrong it actually makes the argument more coherent. They're explicitly criticizing open source licenses other than AGPL.) Also 1% was just a rough guess but this survey says I was exactly right: https://github.blog/open-source/open-source-license-usage-on-github-com/ https://github.blog/open-source/open-source-license-usage-on... If the number has changed in the last few years I'm open to updates.
- matheusmoreira 1y ago
  Free software and open source software are not the same. AGPLv3 is not an open source license, it is the strongest copyleft free software license available at this point in time. https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.... https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/words-to-avoid.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/words-to-avoid.html And it's hard to disagree with the clueless guy when what he says is happening keeps happening. https://twitter.com/FFmpeg/status/1775178803129602500 https://twitter.com/FFmpeg/status/1775178803129602500 https://twitter.com/FFmpeg/status/1775178805704888726 https://twitter.com/FFmpeg/status/1775178805704888726 https://trac.ffmpeg.org/ticket/10341#comment:4 https://trac.ffmpeg.org/ticket/10341#comment:4
  - kragen 1y ago
    The AGPL v3 has been certified as an official open source license by the OSI for 16 years: https://opensource.org/license/agpl-v3 https://opensource.org/license/agpl-v3 It's not that no begging ever happens. It's just that you're saying that "open source is just the transfer of property and capital" and it isn't.
    - matheusmoreira 1y ago
      > certified as an official open source license by the OSI That just means open source sees itself as a superset of free software. The reality is they have completely different and incompatible values. They are not the same. > you're saying that "open source is just the transfer of property and capital" and it isn't Open source licenses are essentially payment in exposure. Well meaning developers are literally giving away their intellectual property in exchange for a copyright notice with their name on it being included in a billion dollar corporation's product. To me that makes no sense whatsoever. The results are predictable and I've seen plenty of people get disillusioned when the reality of it sinks in. Free software licenses at least attempt to maximize the public good of the software being given away. This actually generates some leverage for the developer.
      - kragen 1y ago
pabs3 1y ago
The AGPLv3 is pretty easy for the corporations to comply with, they just have to either use the unmodified code, or give their users access to the modified code. The money will still go to them even with AGPLv3. You have to go to non-FOSS licenses if you want to change where the money goes, but even that won't help, because if you get popular enough they will just use their giant amount of devs to re-implement your stuff and then beat you at marketing.
- matheusmoreira 1y ago
  > The AGPLv3 is pretty easy for the corporations to comply with > they just have to either use the unmodified code, or give their users access to the modified code If it's so easy, then why don't they? Why do they treat it as legal kryptonite? > You have to go to non-FOSS licenses if you want to change where the money goes I agree with you. That's why I said "AGPLv3 or all rights reserved". I don't necessarily want to change where the money goes though. It's about having the power to do whatever you want as the user of the software and especially as the owner of the computer that's running it. AGPLv3 is simply the license that allows us to give away software while retaining the most possible leverage. Open source licenses just give it all away for literally nothing. > but even that won't help, because if you get popular enough they will just use their giant amount of devs to re-implement your stuff and then beat you at marketing That's okay. Spending one's own time and money on something is not exploitative in any way. They could also negotiate exceptions to the GPL with the copyright holders. https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/selling-exceptions.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/selling-exceptions.html
  - pabs3 1y ago
    Probably cautious lawyers, maybe cargo-culting, hard to tell. Some more discussion of why they don't in this LWN thread: https://lwn.net/Articles/1019686/ https://lwn.net/Articles/1019686/ FTR, AGPLv3 is considered an Open Source license, perhaps you meant permissive/pushover licenses when you said "Open source licenses just give it all away for literally nothing". Also, permissive licenses have conditions too, although they are easy to comply with, violations of them are still quite common, as they are for GPL-family licenses. Deliberately going out of your way to put a smaller company out of business seems like shitty behavior to me. I also wonder about the anti-trust angle; Big Tech using their oligopoly in the developer labour market to kill startups that could become competitors. I never really bought the idea that selling exceptions is ethical, probably better to downgrade to LGPL instead.