4 ms·

I find it odd how we frame fairness in regards to open source software. He licensed his software as MIT. It says anyone can you use it without owing the author

by sosodev 3mo ago

I find it odd how we frame fairness in regards to open source software. He licensed his software as MIT. It says anyone can you use it without owing the author anything. So how is it unfair? To be clear, I think that open source maintainers deserve much more, but I don't understand why we rarely inspect the licenses as the source of the problem.

nananana9 3mo ago
Well there's this little pesky thing in the MIT license: The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be included in all copies or substantial portions of the Software. That's what he was asking for, a mention in the credits.
- sosodev 3mo ago
  He got his name in the credits. The question was if he is owed anything else. The contract he created says he was not. I’m simply suggesting he might need a different contract.
  - singpolyma3 3mo ago
    Only if he wants to force something different. Which it seems he does not.
  - adamhartenz 3mo ago
    I bet if you caught a homerun ball in a baseball game, you wouldn't give it to the kid next to you because "I don't owe the kid anything".
    - deleted 3mo ago
      [deleted]
    - gamblor956 3mo ago
      Depends on what the little kid intends to do with it. A lot of them collect MLB baseballs to sell them for cash.
      - MisterTea 3mo ago
        > A lot of them collect MLB baseballs to sell them for cash. You have evidence of this? Because it would be my first guess that the parent coerces their child to sell the ball.
        gamblor956 3mo ago
        At least a dozen times this season I've personally witnessed small kids talking about what they could buy with the money they would get from selling a foul ball that someone gave to them (out of guilt or public pressure) while their parents asked if they wouldn't rather keep it for the memories. However, my home team is the Dodgers, so the experience is probably different in other markets where the local team sucks and nobody cares about the players (like the Anaheim Angels, where fans are more likely to throw the ball back onto the field than keep them).
  - laszlokorte 3mo ago
    If the comment above is correct, he was only added to the credits after he had to ask for it after the fact. So the ONLY thing the license asked for is to be named and that was supposedly violated. So a multi million dollar company can just violate a generous license and then after a fact cling to this exact license while arguing to not pay a single cent more than the license asked for. Alright...
  - sharts 3mo ago
    But only after $$ was made.
  - left-struck 3mo ago
    It’s not a contract, a contract requires an exchange of value both ways.
- SiempreViernes 3mo ago
  Since he eventually got the credit, your unfairness argument better build entirely on the damage the creator suffered by the delay of his credit.
LeBit 3mo ago
If I made 500M$ using an Open Source library and didn’t send at least 1M$ to the author, I would be an objectively bad person.
- CooCooCaCha 3mo ago
  I find this whole conversation baffling. Licenses and contracts are not a replacement for being a decent person.
  - SiempreViernes 3mo ago
    Sure, but contracts is the remedy society has developed to the problem that there are lots of indecent people around (not to mention that reasonable persons can disagree without being unreasonable).
    - gafferongames 3mo ago
      You can't have a good contract with bad people.
    - singpolyma3 3mo ago
      Only if you can afford to sue
  - sillysaurusx 3mo ago
    I find it baffling in the other direction. The whole point of licensing is to ensure you’re a decent person. If you’re creating something new and you dare try to copy anything without a license, the pushback is unanimous and universal: everyone agrees you’re a bad person for even thinking of it. This is the same argument in the opposite direction. By fulfilling the terms of a license, you’re ensuring you play by the rules. In fact, licenses are the only real protection that open source maintainers have. So why diss on someone for following the license terms? This whole moralizing and tut-tutting is a weird branch of the convo.
    - tripzilch 3mo ago
CooCooCaCha 3mo ago
Because there’s a clear mismatch between the value generated from Box2d vs the value the creator receives, and that’s common for open-source in general. It would be common decency to donate even a small portion of that $500 million, even if the license technically doesn’t require it.
- SiempreViernes 3mo ago
  But if this expectation really were very common, what would be the harm of putting it in a licence?
  - CooCooCaCha 3mo ago
    MIT is simple, open, and common which is a big benefit for indie projects, small studios, and anyone with limited legal resources. It means there’s lots of info on the internet explaining how to use the license and they can be relatively certain they won’t accidentally fall into some legal trap or misinterpret the license. It also means there’s legal precedent around the license. All that to say, custom licenses are actually a big issue for small players.
mvdtnz 3mo ago
You seem to be confusing what is legally/contractually required with what is fair. Fairness, in general, isn't defined by law or contracts, although some laws try to codify it.
Yeask 3mo ago
[dead]
jasonkester 3mo ago
I don’t think this is about fairness so much as a wish that developers would look out for their own self interest just a tiny bit. We all get the full-court open source brainwashing during our early years of learning about programming, so it’s hard to ever step back and look at creating something from any other lens than “I should release this as open source”. That’s the default, and anything less might get you grumped at by “the community”, so it’s the safest option. But if your thing can be picked up by a megacorp and used as the basis for their $100M product, it might be in your best interest to carve yourself out a little clause that lets you capture some of that.
seshwanseb 3mo ago
I think box2d was zlib licensed at the point angry birds was made. Not that the sentiment changes.

by sosodev 3mo ago

nananana9 3mo ago

Well there's this little pesky thing in the MIT license: The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be included in all copies or substantial portions of the Software. That's what he was asking for, a mention in the credits.

sosodev 3mo ago
He got his name in the credits. The question was if he is owed anything else. The contract he created says he was not. I’m simply suggesting he might need a different contract.
- singpolyma3 3mo ago
  Only if he wants to force something different. Which it seems he does not.
- adamhartenz 3mo ago
  I bet if you caught a homerun ball in a baseball game, you wouldn't give it to the kid next to you because "I don't owe the kid anything".
  - deleted 3mo ago
    [deleted]
  - gamblor956 3mo ago
    Depends on what the little kid intends to do with it. A lot of them collect MLB baseballs to sell them for cash.
    - MisterTea 3mo ago
      > A lot of them collect MLB baseballs to sell them for cash. You have evidence of this? Because it would be my first guess that the parent coerces their child to sell the ball.
      - gamblor956 3mo ago
        At least a dozen times this season I've personally witnessed small kids talking about what they could buy with the money they would get from selling a foul ball that someone gave to them (out of guilt or public pressure) while their parents asked if they wouldn't rather keep it for the memories. However, my home team is the Dodgers, so the experience is probably different in other markets where the local team sucks and nobody cares about the players (like the Anaheim Angels, where fans are more likely to throw the ball back onto the field than keep them).
- laszlokorte 3mo ago
  If the comment above is correct, he was only added to the credits after he had to ask for it after the fact. So the ONLY thing the license asked for is to be named and that was supposedly violated. So a multi million dollar company can just violate a generous license and then after a fact cling to this exact license while arguing to not pay a single cent more than the license asked for. Alright...
- sharts 3mo ago
  But only after $$ was made.
- left-struck 3mo ago
  It’s not a contract, a contract requires an exchange of value both ways.
SiempreViernes 3mo ago
Since he eventually got the credit, your unfairness argument better build entirely on the damage the creator suffered by the delay of his credit.

LeBit 3mo ago

If I made 500M$ using an Open Source library and didn’t send at least 1M$ to the author, I would be an objectively bad person.

CooCooCaCha 3mo ago
I find this whole conversation baffling. Licenses and contracts are not a replacement for being a decent person.
- SiempreViernes 3mo ago
  Sure, but contracts is the remedy society has developed to the problem that there are lots of indecent people around (not to mention that reasonable persons can disagree without being unreasonable).
  - gafferongames 3mo ago
    You can't have a good contract with bad people.
  - singpolyma3 3mo ago
    Only if you can afford to sue
- sillysaurusx 3mo ago
  I find it baffling in the other direction. The whole point of licensing is to ensure you’re a decent person. If you’re creating something new and you dare try to copy anything without a license, the pushback is unanimous and universal: everyone agrees you’re a bad person for even thinking of it. This is the same argument in the opposite direction. By fulfilling the terms of a license, you’re ensuring you play by the rules. In fact, licenses are the only real protection that open source maintainers have. So why diss on someone for following the license terms? This whole moralizing and tut-tutting is a weird branch of the convo.
  - tripzilch 3mo ago

CooCooCaCha 3mo ago

Because there’s a clear mismatch between the value generated from Box2d vs the value the creator receives, and that’s common for open-source in general. It would be common decency to donate even a small portion of that $500 million, even if the license technically doesn’t require it.

SiempreViernes 3mo ago
But if this expectation really were very common, what would be the harm of putting it in a licence?
- CooCooCaCha 3mo ago
  MIT is simple, open, and common which is a big benefit for indie projects, small studios, and anyone with limited legal resources. It means there’s lots of info on the internet explaining how to use the license and they can be relatively certain they won’t accidentally fall into some legal trap or misinterpret the license. It also means there’s legal precedent around the license. All that to say, custom licenses are actually a big issue for small players.

mvdtnz 3mo ago

You seem to be confusing what is legally/contractually required with what is fair. Fairness, in general, isn't defined by law or contracts, although some laws try to codify it.

Yeask 3mo ago

[dead]

jasonkester 3mo ago

I don’t think this is about fairness so much as a wish that developers would look out for their own self interest just a tiny bit. We all get the full-court open source brainwashing during our early years of learning about programming, so it’s hard to ever step back and look at creating something from any other lens than “I should release this as open source”. That’s the default, and anything less might get you grumped at by “the community”, so it’s the safest option. But if your thing can be picked up by a megacorp and used as the basis for their $100M product, it might be in your best interest to carve yourself out a little clause that lets you capture some of that.

seshwanseb 3mo ago

I think box2d was zlib licensed at the point angry birds was made. Not that the sentiment changes.