5 ms·

using BSD/MIT licences is like betting against black swan event sure, "contributing is cheaper than maintaining a fork" is true most of the time - but the mome

using BSD/MIT licences is like betting against black swan event sure, "contributing is cheaper than maintaining a fork" is true most of the time - but the moment new Microsoft comes in with "embrace, extend, extinguish" (or just copy and change), you're doomed and heck, we had that exact thing happen last autumn, iirc - making big news on this website

elsjaako 1y ago
Can you clarify what happened last autumn? I'm not sure I recall.
- Qem 1y ago
  Probably this: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43587420 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43587420
  - phkahler 1y ago
    That would be one example. What about Redis pulling a license change, and the whole WordPress battle for control? If it ain't GPL and it IS popular, I think those kinds of things are more likely to happen than not.
    - Qem 1y ago
      Stallman is a real visionary warning us about those risks since de 80s.
      - Expurple 1y ago
        That's true. But at the same time, the risk is kinda overblown. You can still use the last open version of Redis. There's even an open, community-maintained fork that you don't have to maintain yourself. Even GPL can't force a company to maintain and keep developing an open version when the company doesn't want to. Even if Redis was GPL (no CLA), they could still abandon it and write a compatible clone from scratch. AI makes it even easier to do
    - Expurple 1y ago
      Redis has an open fork. Seems "free" enough to me. Companies are not obligated to keep developing the open version forever, anyway. If Redis was GPL, they could've just abandon it and write a compatible clone from scratch. Nowadays, with AI, that even easier to do
- konstantinua00 1y ago
  iirc, some kubernetes library under BSD microsoft spent a lot of time asking questions to the author - and then rolled out Azure copy of the lib author went public "how dare they use me like that" - but he did make it BSD himself, it's his problem
Expurple 1y ago
> you're doomed You're making a big stretch here. Sure, you can be left in the dust behind their proprietary fork, that's true: https://hypercritical.co/2013/04/12/code-hard-or-go-home https://hypercritical.co/2013/04/12/code-hard-or-go-home But your habitual workflow isn't "doomed". You can always fork and keep using the same open version of the project that you've always used. If the project is popular enough, there's usually a community that keeps maintaining that fork. That's the deal that you get. Free software was never about "free upgrades forever". It's about the freedom to fork.
- phkahler 1y ago
  >> Free software was never about "free upgrades forever". It's about the freedom to fork. I never noticed the word "fork" in the GPL. You may want to reread it, as I think you missed the point.
  - Expurple 1y ago
    Are you seriously trying to imply that the GPL isn't largely about granting you the freedom to fork? Sure, it's also about forcing the copyleft responsibility on you. But come on... That's not even relevant if you don't fork or otherwise depend on the project in the first place

elsjaako 1y ago

Can you clarify what happened last autumn? I'm not sure I recall.

Qem 1y ago
Probably this: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43587420 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43587420
- phkahler 1y ago
  That would be one example. What about Redis pulling a license change, and the whole WordPress battle for control? If it ain't GPL and it IS popular, I think those kinds of things are more likely to happen than not.
  - Qem 1y ago
    Stallman is a real visionary warning us about those risks since de 80s.
    - Expurple 1y ago
      That's true. But at the same time, the risk is kinda overblown. You can still use the last open version of Redis. There's even an open, community-maintained fork that you don't have to maintain yourself. Even GPL can't force a company to maintain and keep developing an open version when the company doesn't want to. Even if Redis was GPL (no CLA), they could still abandon it and write a compatible clone from scratch. AI makes it even easier to do
  - Expurple 1y ago
    Redis has an open fork. Seems "free" enough to me. Companies are not obligated to keep developing the open version forever, anyway. If Redis was GPL, they could've just abandon it and write a compatible clone from scratch. Nowadays, with AI, that even easier to do
konstantinua00 1y ago
iirc, some kubernetes library under BSD microsoft spent a lot of time asking questions to the author - and then rolled out Azure copy of the lib author went public "how dare they use me like that" - but he did make it BSD himself, it's his problem

Expurple 1y ago

> you're doomed You're making a big stretch here. Sure, you can be left in the dust behind their proprietary fork, that's true: https://hypercritical.co/2013/04/12/code-hard-or-go-home https://hypercritical.co/2013/04/12/code-hard-or-go-home But your habitual workflow isn't "doomed". You can always fork and keep using the same open version of the project that you've always used. If the project is popular enough, there's usually a community that keeps maintaining that fork. That's the deal that you get. Free software was never about "free upgrades forever". It's about the freedom to fork.

phkahler 1y ago
>> Free software was never about "free upgrades forever". It's about the freedom to fork. I never noticed the word "fork" in the GPL. You may want to reread it, as I think you missed the point.
- Expurple 1y ago
  Are you seriously trying to imply that the GPL isn't largely about granting you the freedom to fork? Sure, it's also about forcing the copyleft responsibility on you. But come on... That's not even relevant if you don't fork or otherwise depend on the project in the first place