4 ms·

Whenever people say that MIT or GPL licenses are a good idea I point out projects like this. Only humans should have freedom zero. Corporations and robots must

by noosphr 9mo ago

Whenever people say that MIT or GPL licenses are a good idea I point out projects like this. Only humans should have freedom zero. Corporations and robots must pay.

groby_b 9mo ago
That's a nice slogan, but how does it work? Say, I clone sudo. Clearly, a human applying freedom zero. I use it in my projects. Probably still freedom zero. I use it in my CI pipeline for the stuff that makes me money... corporation or human? If it's corporation, what if I sponsor a not-for-profit that provides that piece of CI infra? The problem is that "corporation or not" has more shades than you can reasonably account for. And, worse, the cost of accounting for it is more than any volunteer wants to shoulder. Even if this were a hard and legally enforceable rule, what individual maintainer wants to sue a company with a legal department? What could work is a large collective that licenses free software with the explicit goal of extracting money from corporate users and distributing it to authors. Maybe.
- conception 9mo ago
  Not for commercial use without buying a license is a pretty standard licensing scheme. This has been worked out for decades.
  - mulmen 9mo ago
    What happens when the code is abandoned? Can I make my own changes whenever I want? The problem with commercial software is the lock in.
  - groby_b 9mo ago
    And the shades in between account for the large number of new licensing schemes sprouting, with different restrictions on what is and isn't possible. (Not to mention the large number of "just used it anyways" instances). And it struggles for smaller utilities, or packages of many different things. It's "worked out" in the sense that it still doesn't really work for a lot of maintainers.
  - atq2119 9mo ago
    The challenge is that this doesn't really work for community-developed software. Let's say somebody uses this scheme for software they wrote. Would anybody else ever contribute significantly if the original author would benefit financially but they wouldn't? Mediating the financial benefits through a non-profit might help, but (1) there's still a trust problem: who controls the non-profit? and (2) that's a lot of overhead to set up when starting out for a piece of software that may or may not become relevant.
wmf 9mo ago
You can demand payment but it doesn't mean you'll get paid. These days companies will clone your work instead of paying.
- zxcvasd 9mo ago
  [dead]
- zhengyi13 9mo ago
  As covered literally just a few days ago (IIRC), you absolutely can demand payment: https://github.com/LGUG2Z/komorebi https://github.com/LGUG2Z/komorebi actively works to detect MDM, and if found, demand payment. Not open source, but an interesting counterpoint, I think.
  - bsnnkv 9mo ago
    Relevant articles are here - https://lgug2z.com/articles/normalize-identifying-corporate-devices-in-your-software/ https://lgug2z.com/articles/normalize-identifying-corporate-... - https://lgug2z.com/articles/i-started-identifying-corporate-devices-in-my-software/ https://lgug2z.com/articles/i-started-identifying-corporate-... The post-open source space is indeed a very exciting space in 2026
    - alt187 9mo ago
      That's not post open-source. That's dual licensing, an use-case FOSS has enabled and supported forever.
      - bsnnkv 9mo ago
        > any time someone says something is post-$thing it means what they are doing is in dialogue with and in response to $thing. “we were doing that before $thing” no, you can’t be in dialogue with something that hasn’t happened yet. > this is like saying “what do you mean post-modernist architecture, architecture predates modernism”. https://lobste.rs/s/kaftkn/i_started_identifying_corporate_devices#c_6fvpmj https://lobste.rs/s/kaftkn/i_started_identifying_corporate_d...
saubeidl 9mo ago
The GPL is a good idea. It's our socieconomic system that isn't.
- noosphr 9mo ago
  Everything is a good idea if you assume a world in which it works.
  - fragmede 9mo ago
    Communism has entered the chat.
    - saubeidl 9mo ago
      That, for example, would be a better system. One the GPL would work beautifully in.
      - david-gpu 9mo ago
        If you can't explain why it did not work in the past, and can't explain how & why things will be different this time, you don't have a plan. History is a harsh mistress.
        mediumsmart 9mo ago
        It works, but you need real human staff. And we learn from history that we don’t learn which can be harsh.
        jibal 9mo ago
        Communism worked in China, for some definition of "worked". Stalinism eventually failed in the USSR and elsewhere. An extensive literature explains these things, as well as explaining different forms and varieties of "communism", and things that people call "communism" but aren't.
        9mo ago
omoikane 9mo ago
I am not sure sudo is licensed under MIT or GPL, looks it's like a mix of licenses[1]. The end of the first license says it's sponsored in part by DARPA. From 2010 to February 2024, it was sponsored by Quest Software according to the history page[2]. [1] https://github.com/sudo-project/sudo/blob/main/LICENSE.md https://github.com/sudo-project/sudo/blob/main/LICENSE.md [2] https://www.sudo.ws/about/history/ https://www.sudo.ws/about/history/
sixtyj 9mo ago
The behavior of corporations is shameful. After all, people in these companies don't work for free and are able to spend a lot of money for other services.
- 6LLvveMx2koXfwn 9mo ago
  Haven't you just hit the nail on the head? Corporations do not feel shame even if people within them do; hence actions . . .
throw0101c 9mo ago
> Corporations and robots must pay. Greenpeace is a (non-profit) corporation. Unions are corporations. Municipalities. Colleges and universities. * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_person https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_person Should they have to pay?
- noosphr 9mo ago
  Yes.
- llbbdd 9mo ago
  Yes. Non-profits are more than capable of abusing the commons, the purpose of even small monetary requirements is to put a bound on that.
  - deleted 9mo ago
    [deleted]
- isatty 9mo ago
  Yes. Not for profit does not mean they don’t have money. With that logic why should non profits have to pay for anything at all?
  - Muromec 9mo ago
    For the same logic they are tax-exempt. There is a general consensus that their goal is the greater good (like developing sudo and such) and not the usual capitalistic good of generating more money. Then again, you usual Friday outing of FANG engineers may have more money than some nonprofits too.
- degamad 9mo ago
  I used to volunteer for a local non-profit a few years ago. From time to time, I would reflect on the fact that Microsoft and other commercial suppliers were getting paid for providing services to us, but I was expected to work for free.
- LunaSea 9mo ago

by noosphr 9mo ago

Whenever people say that MIT or GPL licenses are a good idea I point out projects like this. Only humans should have freedom zero. Corporations and robots must pay.

groby_b 9mo ago

That's a nice slogan, but how does it work? Say, I clone sudo. Clearly, a human applying freedom zero. I use it in my projects. Probably still freedom zero. I use it in my CI pipeline for the stuff that makes me money... corporation or human? If it's corporation, what if I sponsor a not-for-profit that provides that piece of CI infra? The problem is that "corporation or not" has more shades than you can reasonably account for. And, worse, the cost of accounting for it is more than any volunteer wants to shoulder. Even if this were a hard and legally enforceable rule, what individual maintainer wants to sue a company with a legal department? What could work is a large collective that licenses free software with the explicit goal of extracting money from corporate users and distributing it to authors. Maybe.

conception 9mo ago
Not for commercial use without buying a license is a pretty standard licensing scheme. This has been worked out for decades.
- mulmen 9mo ago
  What happens when the code is abandoned? Can I make my own changes whenever I want? The problem with commercial software is the lock in.
- groby_b 9mo ago
  And the shades in between account for the large number of new licensing schemes sprouting, with different restrictions on what is and isn't possible. (Not to mention the large number of "just used it anyways" instances). And it struggles for smaller utilities, or packages of many different things. It's "worked out" in the sense that it still doesn't really work for a lot of maintainers.
- atq2119 9mo ago
  The challenge is that this doesn't really work for community-developed software. Let's say somebody uses this scheme for software they wrote. Would anybody else ever contribute significantly if the original author would benefit financially but they wouldn't? Mediating the financial benefits through a non-profit might help, but (1) there's still a trust problem: who controls the non-profit? and (2) that's a lot of overhead to set up when starting out for a piece of software that may or may not become relevant.

wmf 9mo ago

You can demand payment but it doesn't mean you'll get paid. These days companies will clone your work instead of paying.

zxcvasd 9mo ago
[dead]
zhengyi13 9mo ago
As covered literally just a few days ago (IIRC), you absolutely can demand payment: https://github.com/LGUG2Z/komorebi https://github.com/LGUG2Z/komorebi actively works to detect MDM, and if found, demand payment. Not open source, but an interesting counterpoint, I think.
- bsnnkv 9mo ago
  Relevant articles are here - https://lgug2z.com/articles/normalize-identifying-corporate-devices-in-your-software/ https://lgug2z.com/articles/normalize-identifying-corporate-... - https://lgug2z.com/articles/i-started-identifying-corporate-devices-in-my-software/ https://lgug2z.com/articles/i-started-identifying-corporate-... The post-open source space is indeed a very exciting space in 2026
  - alt187 9mo ago
    That's not post open-source. That's dual licensing, an use-case FOSS has enabled and supported forever.
    - bsnnkv 9mo ago
      > any time someone says something is post-$thing it means what they are doing is in dialogue with and in response to $thing. “we were doing that before $thing” no, you can’t be in dialogue with something that hasn’t happened yet. > this is like saying “what do you mean post-modernist architecture, architecture predates modernism”. https://lobste.rs/s/kaftkn/i_started_identifying_corporate_devices#c_6fvpmj https://lobste.rs/s/kaftkn/i_started_identifying_corporate_d...

saubeidl 9mo ago

The GPL is a good idea. It's our socieconomic system that isn't.

noosphr 9mo ago
Everything is a good idea if you assume a world in which it works.
- fragmede 9mo ago
  Communism has entered the chat.
  - saubeidl 9mo ago
    That, for example, would be a better system. One the GPL would work beautifully in.
    - david-gpu 9mo ago
      If you can't explain why it did not work in the past, and can't explain how & why things will be different this time, you don't have a plan. History is a harsh mistress.
      - mediumsmart 9mo ago
        It works, but you need real human staff. And we learn from history that we don’t learn which can be harsh.
      - jibal 9mo ago
        Communism worked in China, for some definition of "worked". Stalinism eventually failed in the USSR and elsewhere. An extensive literature explains these things, as well as explaining different forms and varieties of "communism", and things that people call "communism" but aren't.
        9mo ago

omoikane 9mo ago

I am not sure sudo is licensed under MIT or GPL, looks it's like a mix of licenses[1]. The end of the first license says it's sponsored in part by DARPA. From 2010 to February 2024, it was sponsored by Quest Software according to the history page[2]. [1] https://github.com/sudo-project/sudo/blob/main/LICENSE.md https://github.com/sudo-project/sudo/blob/main/LICENSE.md [2] https://www.sudo.ws/about/history/ https://www.sudo.ws/about/history/

sixtyj 9mo ago

The behavior of corporations is shameful. After all, people in these companies don't work for free and are able to spend a lot of money for other services.

6LLvveMx2koXfwn 9mo ago
Haven't you just hit the nail on the head? Corporations do not feel shame even if people within them do; hence actions . . .

throw0101c 9mo ago

> Corporations and robots must pay. Greenpeace is a (non-profit) corporation. Unions are corporations. Municipalities. Colleges and universities. * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_person https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_person Should they have to pay?

noosphr 9mo ago
Yes.
llbbdd 9mo ago
Yes. Non-profits are more than capable of abusing the commons, the purpose of even small monetary requirements is to put a bound on that.
- deleted 9mo ago
  [deleted]
isatty 9mo ago
Yes. Not for profit does not mean they don’t have money. With that logic why should non profits have to pay for anything at all?
- Muromec 9mo ago
  For the same logic they are tax-exempt. There is a general consensus that their goal is the greater good (like developing sudo and such) and not the usual capitalistic good of generating more money. Then again, you usual Friday outing of FANG engineers may have more money than some nonprofits too.
degamad 9mo ago
I used to volunteer for a local non-profit a few years ago. From time to time, I would reflect on the fact that Microsoft and other commercial suppliers were getting paid for providing services to us, but I was expected to work for free.
LunaSea 9mo ago