5 ms·

"it forces someone to contribute back and thus enforce more "contributions"". Not sure if trying to coerce someones behaviour is a "contribution". It is trying

"it forces someone to contribute back and thus enforce more "contributions"". Not sure if trying to coerce someones behaviour is a "contribution". It is trying to change the world and peoples behaviour, which is a different kind of thing mixed in, a sort of moral contribution perhaps, a gift with strings attached not a straight gift.

buster 14y ago
The term "viral license" is a really descriptive term ;) My point is that i think that antirez has too much faith in humanity when it comes to business. A company selling software doesn't necessarily care about forks being inconvenient. A typical closed-source company only thinks in terms of money and thus potentially contributing to open-source also contributes to your competition.
- justincormack 14y ago
  I think more people are realising that "Open source was seen as more of a tool to manipulate the market and create favourable circumstances, rather than a goal in itself." http://www.computerweekly.com/opinion/Open-source-is-just-a-weapon http://www.computerweekly.com/opinion/Open-source-is-just-a-... - Hence Android in order to fight Apple etc. It can help destroy your competitions market rather than helping them.
  - pi18n 14y ago
    What a good observation! Commoditize the complements by dropping a free competitive software that any entity can use and modify. And they've also restricted modifications from other companies with the trademark, so they have control over that as well. It's quite brilliant.
vy8vWJlco 14y ago
I consider the GPL a declaration of user rights (the right to source code, for all users, in perpetuity). I like freedom. I would actually prefer the BSD license if my experiences hadn't convinced me of a different human nature. It's an unbalanced equation. I would happily go with the BSD license if everyone else did (or at least "mostly everyone" else did), for the same reason that I would support gun control if it applied to everyone, including police. I don't consider either practical for users/netizens. Thus, the GPL guarantees certain "rights." :)
- justincormack 14y ago
  But as open source wins is that not happening? I see that as the reason for the shift to BSD licenses as time goes on.
  - vy8vWJlco 14y ago
    Fair. As I said, I would rather it weren't necessary to codify the quid pro quo "rights and responsabilities." At the same time, I can't imagine not wanting the right (freedom) to view the code for software I use. (Hey, that's why I choose open over closed in the first place). The spirit of the GPL IMHO is just "pay it forward," or at least a "don't use it to peck me to death or blame be when you drop it on your foot." I agree, it puts a damper on gift-giving, but I just can't see another way. In the same way, I wish it weren't necessary to spell out human rights, but even for something as important as that, not everyone always plays nice. (I mean, people burned witches, to pick just one random morbid absurdity.) I wish the "NO WARRANTY" warnings weren't necessary either but, as the expression goes: "no good deed goes unpunished." :\
deleted 14y ago
[deleted]

buster 14y ago

The term "viral license" is a really descriptive term ;) My point is that i think that antirez has too much faith in humanity when it comes to business. A company selling software doesn't necessarily care about forks being inconvenient. A typical closed-source company only thinks in terms of money and thus potentially contributing to open-source also contributes to your competition.

justincormack 14y ago
I think more people are realising that "Open source was seen as more of a tool to manipulate the market and create favourable circumstances, rather than a goal in itself." http://www.computerweekly.com/opinion/Open-source-is-just-a-weapon http://www.computerweekly.com/opinion/Open-source-is-just-a-... - Hence Android in order to fight Apple etc. It can help destroy your competitions market rather than helping them.
- pi18n 14y ago
  What a good observation! Commoditize the complements by dropping a free competitive software that any entity can use and modify. And they've also restricted modifications from other companies with the trademark, so they have control over that as well. It's quite brilliant.

vy8vWJlco 14y ago

I consider the GPL a declaration of user rights (the right to source code, for all users, in perpetuity). I like freedom. I would actually prefer the BSD license if my experiences hadn't convinced me of a different human nature. It's an unbalanced equation. I would happily go with the BSD license if everyone else did (or at least "mostly everyone" else did), for the same reason that I would support gun control if it applied to everyone, including police. I don't consider either practical for users/netizens. Thus, the GPL guarantees certain "rights." :)

justincormack 14y ago
But as open source wins is that not happening? I see that as the reason for the shift to BSD licenses as time goes on.
- vy8vWJlco 14y ago
  Fair. As I said, I would rather it weren't necessary to codify the quid pro quo "rights and responsabilities." At the same time, I can't imagine not wanting the right (freedom) to view the code for software I use. (Hey, that's why I choose open over closed in the first place). The spirit of the GPL IMHO is just "pay it forward," or at least a "don't use it to peck me to death or blame be when you drop it on your foot." I agree, it puts a damper on gift-giving, but I just can't see another way. In the same way, I wish it weren't necessary to spell out human rights, but even for something as important as that, not everyone always plays nice. (I mean, people burned witches, to pick just one random morbid absurdity.) I wish the "NO WARRANTY" warnings weren't necessary either but, as the expression goes: "no good deed goes unpunished." :\

deleted 14y ago

[deleted]