6 ms·

MIT and BSD are great for takers who like to take from open source and give nothing back since they are free to take the code, modify it, and release it as comm

MIT and BSD are great for takers who like to take from open source and give nothing back since they are free to take the code, modify it, and release it as commercial closed source software (which is usually what happens). There are rare exceptions to this where people enhance and contribute back. Companies love MIT/BSD since they don't have to give back to their competitors. The GPL is great as it ensures that everyone who uses my code has to give their contributions back so I get to use and improve upon it, too. Individuals usually like this. Companies often do not. The way I look at it, I'm doing work for free. The GPL ensures I get a return on that investment in the form of additional code and work that I can use in my own projects and that everyone can benefit from. MIT/BSD lets someone else profit from my work without giving anything back to anyone.

Sanddancer 14y ago
So why is it that Apple, Google, etc are contributing a lot of code back to llvm/clang when they don't have to? Why is it that no one's created a long-lasting fork of xfree86/xorg, even though those are also under permissive licenses? Why is it that there are many commercial consulting companies for PostgreSQL that donate everything they write back to the community? Conversely, why is it that MySQL under Oracle, while GPLed, is criticized for not being open and contributing meaningful information about the project?
- GhotiFish 14y ago
  because working publicly on software is the right way to make software. Try explaining that to a middle aged balding manager who just wants to get through the next quarter without getting canned. You can make an easier case to use permissive software, and once you're using it you can make an easier case to submit public work. To me, that says we need more pressure, not less.
  - Sanddancer 14y ago
    I'd argue that history shows otherwise. GPLv3, with its increased restrictions, proved a bridge too far for a lot of projects, to the detriment of everyone. Apple, the FreeBSD project, the OpenBSD project, etc have all put in efforts to divest themselves of GPL encumbered code because it increased the costs of using the software. Because the wording of things like the patent clauses were so questionable, it became much cheaper in terms of lawyer time, etc, to either use older software that was still under GPLv2, or to use software using less-encumbered licenses, like BSD and MIT. That balding middle manager needs to make sure that that license is acceptable by his boss, by the people in the legal department, etc. For example, an innocuous throwaway line of a program that can only be used for "good, not evil," ends up needing to get the lawyers involved for clarification and special waivers ( http://dev.hasenj.org/post/3272592502/ibm-and-its-minions http://dev.hasenj.org/post/3272592502/ibm-and-its-minions ). If the internal costs of using an encumbered program are too great, then chances are, it just won't get used; the company will either write their own version, or use a commmercial variant.
    - GhotiFish 14y ago
      That's well argued. Truth be told IANAL, I know the GPL has being patched to avoid people shirking it's intention. If it became a bit of a monster because of that, I would not be aware.
  - stcredzero 14y ago
    > Try explaining that to a middle aged balding manager Argument through unattractive stereotype? > To me, that says we need more pressure, not less. Because more pressure makes us more free, I guess.
- wslh 14y ago
  In the case of a big company they receive contributions, good press, and more important they can retain the power because they are funding developers themselves. If you start your own one person project and Google thinks it is good for their business they can take over it. Yes, the project will retain a specific license but you lost in some way since you can't control the direction of the project anymore.
  - Sanddancer 14y ago
    That happens with GPL products too. Look at CUPS for example. One guy operation, Apple liked it, bought it out. Or a lot of the stuff Cygnus did after Redhat bought them out; the insight frontend for gdb has all but stagnated since Redhat took over. GPL isn't a magic bullet that stops companies from taking over projects.
- qb45 14y ago
  There is no business in commercial forks of Xorg because there are no commercial Unices anymore. And their demise coincides with growth of GNU/Linux (as in "GNU userland running on top of Linux-the-kernel"). As for LLVM, the only companies selling commercial compilers specialize in HPC, embedded or other narrow markets and they have no reason to fork LLVM because in their niches they are better. Apple and Google contribute to LLVM because they use it and it benetifts them. And BTW, LLVM wasn't the project which killed commercial general purpose C compilers. The importance of GPL lies in its ability to "open-source" whole software domains and put them in the hands of their users, at which point the choice of license becomes less important.
  - fafner 14y ago
    Exactly! GPL levelled the field. BSD has been around for much longer than Linux and is very widely used. All commercial Unices and even Windows contain code from BSD but the *BSDs are still lacking contributions and funding. People always complain about RMS' decision to make GCC a complex interconnected bundle. Sure right now it's a stupid decision and the GCC folks have to work on breaking it up. But the decision has to bee seen with the historic context. But there are simply many people here who think of themselves as hotshot entrepreneurs and take plenty of code without contributing back. I know I know ... they released their implementation of the x hundred nodejs logging library under MIT license. What a huge contribution to society! ...
    - LukeShu 14y ago
      Wait, when dig GCC come in to this? I'm not sure what GCC has to do with anything else you said.
profquail 14y ago
There may be companies which take from BSD/MIT/Apache 2.0-licensed projects without giving back, but I also see plenty of companies who do give back. Examples: - The Apache Foundation - LLVM/Clang - FreeBSD - Google Heck, even Microsoft has started releasing code under the Apache 2.0 license (e.g., https://github.com/fsharp/fsharp https://github.com/fsharp/fsharp).
- wslh 14y ago
  Google plays that game because it is an excellent press and can receive zillions of free lines code. But they don't give you any piece of their "cloud machine" just things that don't risk their business. The case of Microsoft is different because the desktop/server/mobile source code is their key asset.
  - profquail 14y ago
    So, what you're saying is: a company could open-source "zillions" of lines of code that are useful to individuals, businesses, and non-profit organizations around the world, but if that code doesn't include the implementation of the company's core business product then it's all worthless or non-beneficial to the world?
    - wslh 14y ago
      No, I am not saying that. I am saying: don't be naive.
- fafner 14y ago
  FreeBSD has to beg for funding http://bsd.slashdot.org/story/12/12/09/1726222/freebsd-project-falls-short-of-year-end-funding-target-by-nearly-50 http://bsd.slashdot.org/story/12/12/09/1726222/freebsd-proje... I think the BSD's are not a good example here in general. Most commercial Unices use bits and pieces from BSD without contributing much back. Just look at Linux where companies are forced to contribute back and thus the momentum it gained. Certainly there are big projects under BSD-style licenses which get plenty of contributions back. But I think it's far more interesting how smaller projects do. For a big project it's in many cases better to contribute back because then upstream has to maintain your changes. Small libraries and tools however are quickly copied and dumped into the code base and nobody even bothers trying to send anything upstream. YMMV
VMG 14y ago
Seems like pretty selfish approach. Not that there is anything wrong with that. I license under MIT and BSD because I don't want to force people to give back. Often they even do without being forced.
- fafner 14y ago
  Why do you think it's selfish? Is somebody who sells software selfish? I'd rather say taking somebodies code and not contributing back is selfish...
  - profquail 14y ago
    Taking somebodies code and not contributing back is selfish. Using the GPL because you want to "get a return on your investment" is also selfish.
    - fafner 14y ago
      So anything but giving things away for totally free is selfish? E.g., the person selling you bread is selfish?
      - profquail 14y ago
        Now what if I told you that even giving things away for totally free could sometimes be selfish? Instead of thinking of "selfish" as the thing you were scolded for as child (i.e., a bad thing), think of it as "self-interested". In and of itself, self-interest is neither "good" nor "bad". Using your example, the person selling you bread is selfish -- the price you pay probably covers their production costs, plus some additional profit for their take-home pay. If they just started giving the bread away for free (i.e., they're no longer self-interested), you may see that as a good thing -- but what happens when the bakery closes down because it can't pay the bills any longer? Now, you're forced to bake your own bread, at least until a new bakery opens (if ever). So, to re-iterate my earlier point with this new definition of selfish: Taking somebodies code and not contributing back is self-interested. Some manager may see this as an easy way to get ahead, without realizing that they may actually be _worse off_ by not contributing back to the project (e.g., the project stalls out and now they're stuck using stale code and trying to maintain things themselves). Using the GPL because you want to "get a return on your investment" is also self-interested. The self-interest there should be obvious, but for bonus points compare it to the definition of a cartel: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cartel https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cartel
duggan 14y ago
Companies are people too, you know. I mean that in the most genuine way possible - companies are made of people, and people make those choices. Those choices may be "good" or "bad" for the organization. MIT/BSD give people in those companies the freedom, the respect, to make their own choices, good or bad. That freedom is more free, in spirit, than any of the more restrictive licenses. There is nobody being bent to your will with GPL; someone who wants to use the code either uses it quietly against the terms of the license, or simply doesn't use it. Restrictive licenses only close doors, they don't open them.
- profquail 14y ago
  > MIT/BSD give people in those companies the freedom, the respect, to make their own choices, good or bad. That freedom is more free, in spirit, than any of the more restrictive licenses. Exactly. The MIT/BSD/Apache 2.0 licenses are about trust and cooperation, not force. > There is nobody being bent to your will with GPL; someone who wants to use the code either uses it quietly against the terms of the license, or simply doesn't use it. I've always found it strange that GPL proponents think the GPL "forces" people to do certain things. They don't discuss the option of simply not using the software. Likewise, no one seems to mention the fact that the GPL, as a license, does not (and cannot) "force" anyone to adhere to it's terms; only a court can enforce the terms, and then only if you bring a suit against a violator.
  - calinet6 14y ago
    > The MIT/BSD/Apache 2.0 licenses are about trust and cooperation, not force. This is the best description of both the purpose and the result of the license I've yet seen! To me, it really aligns well with humanity. It matches the way people naturally work with each other. If you have a friend, for example, who always demands fairness with every situation, it can be a true trust mindfuck. For example, people who exactly split the bill at a restaurant down to the penny and the tax percentage based on what you ate. Or, people who will spot you $10 for a movie, but will force you to write an IOU first. I don't enjoy dealing with these sorts of people, since they make the assumption that I am untrustworthy. This is a type of negative reinforcement for your humanity. They make you feel bad simply for doing normal things. This is the GPL in a nutshell. However, some people are the opposite: generous, giving, and the picture of unselfishness themselves. For example, picking up the entire check at a restaurant, or just splitting it evenly even though they had a smaller dish. Or spotting you $10 and saying "don't sweat it, I know it'll come back around." They make the assumption that you are trustworthy, and understand that you're human and fallible, but have good intentions. They make you feel good about yourself and about them, and you want to be friends with them; it's a positive relationship. This is what MIT/BSD/Apache feels like. The second person might get burned sometimes by their unselfish generosity, but in the end, they make a lot more friends, and those friends like them and want to give back. Overwhelmingly, they receive more than they give because of the sheer multitude of positive relationships they build. In the software world, I can absolutely feel this effect. When I see a project that's been GPL'd, I actually consciously and willingly resent them for it. I perceive they're being selfish with their work, they don't trust me to contribute back naturally, and thus they're making a bunch of pre-judgements and demands on me before they hand over the code. It's bullshit. I might use it if I have to, and I'll contribute back because I have to, but you know what? I won't enjoy it. I love open-source, but I can't shake that feeling of ill will. MIT/BSD/Apache licensed software is the model of unselfishness. It's software being nice to me. It's software that trusts me and gives me the benefit of a doubt. It's software that I want to contribute back to, and I do, all the time. It's software that I choose to use over any alternative, because it's so much lower maintenance. It's software that's fundamentally cool. And furthermore, it's software that's likely to be higher quality, since it's more likely to be used by more companies with real large-scale projects. It's overwhelmingly better in all respects, and I recognize that in no small way. If you're arguing for the GPL because you don't trust people who use your code to "give back fairly," then you don't get it.
calinet6 14y ago
> MIT and BSD are great for takers who like to take from open source and give nothing back since they are free to take the code, modify it, and release it as commercial closed source software (which is usually what happens) Is this from anecdotal evidence, or have you run some sort of valid study? Because my anecdotal evidence says the opposite. MIT licensed software gets more power from being used by companies, especially modern startups and software companies, and consultancies. I've had more attention and source contributions from medium-sized companies than from any individual. The usefulness of my library to these larger companies almost ensures its continued survival. It appears that the rare exception is when companies or individuals don't contribute back. If it's GPL, then yes, they simply wouldn't use it in the first place. And if your experience is mainly with GPL and not MIT/BSD, then you wouldn't have much experience with companies in the first place, because they rightfully won't touch it. And as an employee of a company myself, we use MIT-licensed projects only. We're thankful that most these days are. It enables us to use, modify, and always contribute back to the community. In song form: "You get what you give." The GPL doesn't ensure you get a return on an investment—it ensures that you get only a small sliver of a much larger pie of possible contributions. It's nothing but a roadblock. In short, I really think your assumptions about this are invalid, and based on an idealistic sense of fairness, rather than real-world results which might contradict it. Edit: furthermore, the original linked study also reaches this same conclusion, albeit in more professional terms. It's a changing ecosystem certainly, but the trend is toward more permissive licenses.
JohnTHaller 14y ago
MORE THOUGHTS: Perhaps I overgeneralized a bit. It does make sense to use a permissive license in certain circumstances. That would be when you need to use something as a component of a larger project. Especially where that component is not a part of your core competency. That's where you'll see lots of companies working together on code that makes sense for them all to use rather than either forking it or closing it off internally. Where it doesn't make sense is for overall applications or something within your core competency. In that case, you're enabling your competitor to take your business. Unless you're a software as a service company in which case in doesn't apply as much. Let's take an example. If you're a company that makes a word processor and sells it, it makes zero sense for you to license your work under a permissive license. But, your word processor needs to work with zip files (the open document formats) and security (encryption/decryption). For those pieces, it absolutely makes sense to use a publicly available (and tested/proven) component for zip files and security and to contribute back to said component. This is a place where permissive licenses make a lot of sense. As for Free licenses, they make sense in certain circumstances as well. Do you think Linux would be where it is today if it weren't for the GPL? Or Webkit (Safari, Chrome, Chromium, soon Opera, etc)? Where you have a whole product and you don't want someone to be able to take the whole thing, add a few minor bits, slap their name on it, and then sell it as if they built it. Or a competitor to have full access to it and be able to improve it without sharing the improvements with you. In this case, having these projects be GPLed helped all of mobile computing (and desktop and server computing as well). As others have pointed out, I am aware that companies are made of people and will contribute back to software when they don't have to. But, as a general rule, they will only do this when it benefits them, as it does in the above-mentioned scenario around specific components. They generally won't do this when it does not benefit them. As for my experience, I founded and am lead developer of one of the all-time top projects on SourceForge (millions of users around the world, etc) and we use the GPL license on our core competency stuff (platform and tools). At the same time, we use MIT/BSD/zlib licensed code from other projects for specific components and contribute back our changes under the same license the source project uses. As for dealing with companies, we have had 2 fortune 500 companies take our software and use it in violation of the GPL and our copyright (that we know of) and use it in commercial projects in an attempt to compete against us as well as dozens of smaller companies and individuals doing the same. None of them had any intention of ever giving back. As a general rule, smaller companies and companies within software that have a reputation to uphold (Apple, Google, Microsoft) are much better at bother understanding and obeying licenses as well as being good open source citizens and giving back.
stcredzero 14y ago
> MIT and BSD are great for takers who like to take from open source and give nothing back This is true in the same sense that a right to privacy and the 5th amendment is good for criminals or that freedom of speech is good for people who promulgate hateful ideologies. Just because a freedom can be abused, it does not follow that it should be abridged.

Sanddancer 14y ago

So why is it that Apple, Google, etc are contributing a lot of code back to llvm/clang when they don't have to? Why is it that no one's created a long-lasting fork of xfree86/xorg, even though those are also under permissive licenses? Why is it that there are many commercial consulting companies for PostgreSQL that donate everything they write back to the community? Conversely, why is it that MySQL under Oracle, while GPLed, is criticized for not being open and contributing meaningful information about the project?

GhotiFish 14y ago
because working publicly on software is the right way to make software. Try explaining that to a middle aged balding manager who just wants to get through the next quarter without getting canned. You can make an easier case to use permissive software, and once you're using it you can make an easier case to submit public work. To me, that says we need more pressure, not less.
- Sanddancer 14y ago
  I'd argue that history shows otherwise. GPLv3, with its increased restrictions, proved a bridge too far for a lot of projects, to the detriment of everyone. Apple, the FreeBSD project, the OpenBSD project, etc have all put in efforts to divest themselves of GPL encumbered code because it increased the costs of using the software. Because the wording of things like the patent clauses were so questionable, it became much cheaper in terms of lawyer time, etc, to either use older software that was still under GPLv2, or to use software using less-encumbered licenses, like BSD and MIT. That balding middle manager needs to make sure that that license is acceptable by his boss, by the people in the legal department, etc. For example, an innocuous throwaway line of a program that can only be used for "good, not evil," ends up needing to get the lawyers involved for clarification and special waivers ( http://dev.hasenj.org/post/3272592502/ibm-and-its-minions http://dev.hasenj.org/post/3272592502/ibm-and-its-minions ). If the internal costs of using an encumbered program are too great, then chances are, it just won't get used; the company will either write their own version, or use a commmercial variant.
  - GhotiFish 14y ago
    That's well argued. Truth be told IANAL, I know the GPL has being patched to avoid people shirking it's intention. If it became a bit of a monster because of that, I would not be aware.
- stcredzero 14y ago
  > Try explaining that to a middle aged balding manager Argument through unattractive stereotype? > To me, that says we need more pressure, not less. Because more pressure makes us more free, I guess.
wslh 14y ago
In the case of a big company they receive contributions, good press, and more important they can retain the power because they are funding developers themselves. If you start your own one person project and Google thinks it is good for their business they can take over it. Yes, the project will retain a specific license but you lost in some way since you can't control the direction of the project anymore.
- Sanddancer 14y ago
  That happens with GPL products too. Look at CUPS for example. One guy operation, Apple liked it, bought it out. Or a lot of the stuff Cygnus did after Redhat bought them out; the insight frontend for gdb has all but stagnated since Redhat took over. GPL isn't a magic bullet that stops companies from taking over projects.
qb45 14y ago
There is no business in commercial forks of Xorg because there are no commercial Unices anymore. And their demise coincides with growth of GNU/Linux (as in "GNU userland running on top of Linux-the-kernel"). As for LLVM, the only companies selling commercial compilers specialize in HPC, embedded or other narrow markets and they have no reason to fork LLVM because in their niches they are better. Apple and Google contribute to LLVM because they use it and it benetifts them. And BTW, LLVM wasn't the project which killed commercial general purpose C compilers. The importance of GPL lies in its ability to "open-source" whole software domains and put them in the hands of their users, at which point the choice of license becomes less important.
- fafner 14y ago
  Exactly! GPL levelled the field. BSD has been around for much longer than Linux and is very widely used. All commercial Unices and even Windows contain code from BSD but the *BSDs are still lacking contributions and funding. People always complain about RMS' decision to make GCC a complex interconnected bundle. Sure right now it's a stupid decision and the GCC folks have to work on breaking it up. But the decision has to bee seen with the historic context. But there are simply many people here who think of themselves as hotshot entrepreneurs and take plenty of code without contributing back. I know I know ... they released their implementation of the x hundred nodejs logging library under MIT license. What a huge contribution to society! ...
  - LukeShu 14y ago
    Wait, when dig GCC come in to this? I'm not sure what GCC has to do with anything else you said.

profquail 14y ago

There may be companies which take from BSD/MIT/Apache 2.0-licensed projects without giving back, but I also see plenty of companies who do give back. Examples: - The Apache Foundation - LLVM/Clang - FreeBSD - Google Heck, even Microsoft has started releasing code under the Apache 2.0 license (e.g., https://github.com/fsharp/fsharp https://github.com/fsharp/fsharp).

wslh 14y ago
Google plays that game because it is an excellent press and can receive zillions of free lines code. But they don't give you any piece of their "cloud machine" just things that don't risk their business. The case of Microsoft is different because the desktop/server/mobile source code is their key asset.
- profquail 14y ago
  So, what you're saying is: a company could open-source "zillions" of lines of code that are useful to individuals, businesses, and non-profit organizations around the world, but if that code doesn't include the implementation of the company's core business product then it's all worthless or non-beneficial to the world?
  - wslh 14y ago
    No, I am not saying that. I am saying: don't be naive.
fafner 14y ago
FreeBSD has to beg for funding http://bsd.slashdot.org/story/12/12/09/1726222/freebsd-project-falls-short-of-year-end-funding-target-by-nearly-50 http://bsd.slashdot.org/story/12/12/09/1726222/freebsd-proje... I think the BSD's are not a good example here in general. Most commercial Unices use bits and pieces from BSD without contributing much back. Just look at Linux where companies are forced to contribute back and thus the momentum it gained. Certainly there are big projects under BSD-style licenses which get plenty of contributions back. But I think it's far more interesting how smaller projects do. For a big project it's in many cases better to contribute back because then upstream has to maintain your changes. Small libraries and tools however are quickly copied and dumped into the code base and nobody even bothers trying to send anything upstream. YMMV

VMG 14y ago

Seems like pretty selfish approach. Not that there is anything wrong with that. I license under MIT and BSD because I don't want to force people to give back. Often they even do without being forced.

fafner 14y ago
Why do you think it's selfish? Is somebody who sells software selfish? I'd rather say taking somebodies code and not contributing back is selfish...
- profquail 14y ago
  Taking somebodies code and not contributing back is selfish. Using the GPL because you want to "get a return on your investment" is also selfish.
  - fafner 14y ago
    So anything but giving things away for totally free is selfish? E.g., the person selling you bread is selfish?
    - profquail 14y ago
      Now what if I told you that even giving things away for totally free could sometimes be selfish? Instead of thinking of "selfish" as the thing you were scolded for as child (i.e., a bad thing), think of it as "self-interested". In and of itself, self-interest is neither "good" nor "bad". Using your example, the person selling you bread is selfish -- the price you pay probably covers their production costs, plus some additional profit for their take-home pay. If they just started giving the bread away for free (i.e., they're no longer self-interested), you may see that as a good thing -- but what happens when the bakery closes down because it can't pay the bills any longer? Now, you're forced to bake your own bread, at least until a new bakery opens (if ever). So, to re-iterate my earlier point with this new definition of selfish: Taking somebodies code and not contributing back is self-interested. Some manager may see this as an easy way to get ahead, without realizing that they may actually be _worse off_ by not contributing back to the project (e.g., the project stalls out and now they're stuck using stale code and trying to maintain things themselves). Using the GPL because you want to "get a return on your investment" is also self-interested. The self-interest there should be obvious, but for bonus points compare it to the definition of a cartel: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cartel https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cartel

duggan 14y ago

Companies are people too, you know. I mean that in the most genuine way possible - companies are made of people, and people make those choices. Those choices may be "good" or "bad" for the organization. MIT/BSD give people in those companies the freedom, the respect, to make their own choices, good or bad. That freedom is more free, in spirit, than any of the more restrictive licenses. There is nobody being bent to your will with GPL; someone who wants to use the code either uses it quietly against the terms of the license, or simply doesn't use it. Restrictive licenses only close doors, they don't open them.

profquail 14y ago
> MIT/BSD give people in those companies the freedom, the respect, to make their own choices, good or bad. That freedom is more free, in spirit, than any of the more restrictive licenses. Exactly. The MIT/BSD/Apache 2.0 licenses are about trust and cooperation, not force. > There is nobody being bent to your will with GPL; someone who wants to use the code either uses it quietly against the terms of the license, or simply doesn't use it. I've always found it strange that GPL proponents think the GPL "forces" people to do certain things. They don't discuss the option of simply not using the software. Likewise, no one seems to mention the fact that the GPL, as a license, does not (and cannot) "force" anyone to adhere to it's terms; only a court can enforce the terms, and then only if you bring a suit against a violator.
- calinet6 14y ago
  > The MIT/BSD/Apache 2.0 licenses are about trust and cooperation, not force. This is the best description of both the purpose and the result of the license I've yet seen! To me, it really aligns well with humanity. It matches the way people naturally work with each other. If you have a friend, for example, who always demands fairness with every situation, it can be a true trust mindfuck. For example, people who exactly split the bill at a restaurant down to the penny and the tax percentage based on what you ate. Or, people who will spot you $10 for a movie, but will force you to write an IOU first. I don't enjoy dealing with these sorts of people, since they make the assumption that I am untrustworthy. This is a type of negative reinforcement for your humanity. They make you feel bad simply for doing normal things. This is the GPL in a nutshell. However, some people are the opposite: generous, giving, and the picture of unselfishness themselves. For example, picking up the entire check at a restaurant, or just splitting it evenly even though they had a smaller dish. Or spotting you $10 and saying "don't sweat it, I know it'll come back around." They make the assumption that you are trustworthy, and understand that you're human and fallible, but have good intentions. They make you feel good about yourself and about them, and you want to be friends with them; it's a positive relationship. This is what MIT/BSD/Apache feels like. The second person might get burned sometimes by their unselfish generosity, but in the end, they make a lot more friends, and those friends like them and want to give back. Overwhelmingly, they receive more than they give because of the sheer multitude of positive relationships they build. In the software world, I can absolutely feel this effect. When I see a project that's been GPL'd, I actually consciously and willingly resent them for it. I perceive they're being selfish with their work, they don't trust me to contribute back naturally, and thus they're making a bunch of pre-judgements and demands on me before they hand over the code. It's bullshit. I might use it if I have to, and I'll contribute back because I have to, but you know what? I won't enjoy it. I love open-source, but I can't shake that feeling of ill will. MIT/BSD/Apache licensed software is the model of unselfishness. It's software being nice to me. It's software that trusts me and gives me the benefit of a doubt. It's software that I want to contribute back to, and I do, all the time. It's software that I choose to use over any alternative, because it's so much lower maintenance. It's software that's fundamentally cool. And furthermore, it's software that's likely to be higher quality, since it's more likely to be used by more companies with real large-scale projects. It's overwhelmingly better in all respects, and I recognize that in no small way. If you're arguing for the GPL because you don't trust people who use your code to "give back fairly," then you don't get it.

calinet6 14y ago

> MIT and BSD are great for takers who like to take from open source and give nothing back since they are free to take the code, modify it, and release it as commercial closed source software (which is usually what happens) Is this from anecdotal evidence, or have you run some sort of valid study? Because my anecdotal evidence says the opposite. MIT licensed software gets more power from being used by companies, especially modern startups and software companies, and consultancies. I've had more attention and source contributions from medium-sized companies than from any individual. The usefulness of my library to these larger companies almost ensures its continued survival. It appears that the rare exception is when companies or individuals don't contribute back. If it's GPL, then yes, they simply wouldn't use it in the first place. And if your experience is mainly with GPL and not MIT/BSD, then you wouldn't have much experience with companies in the first place, because they rightfully won't touch it. And as an employee of a company myself, we use MIT-licensed projects only. We're thankful that most these days are. It enables us to use, modify, and always contribute back to the community. In song form: "You get what you give." The GPL doesn't ensure you get a return on an investment—it ensures that you get only a small sliver of a much larger pie of possible contributions. It's nothing but a roadblock. In short, I really think your assumptions about this are invalid, and based on an idealistic sense of fairness, rather than real-world results which might contradict it. Edit: furthermore, the original linked study also reaches this same conclusion, albeit in more professional terms. It's a changing ecosystem certainly, but the trend is toward more permissive licenses.

JohnTHaller 14y ago

MORE THOUGHTS: Perhaps I overgeneralized a bit. It does make sense to use a permissive license in certain circumstances. That would be when you need to use something as a component of a larger project. Especially where that component is not a part of your core competency. That's where you'll see lots of companies working together on code that makes sense for them all to use rather than either forking it or closing it off internally. Where it doesn't make sense is for overall applications or something within your core competency. In that case, you're enabling your competitor to take your business. Unless you're a software as a service company in which case in doesn't apply as much. Let's take an example. If you're a company that makes a word processor and sells it, it makes zero sense for you to license your work under a permissive license. But, your word processor needs to work with zip files (the open document formats) and security (encryption/decryption). For those pieces, it absolutely makes sense to use a publicly available (and tested/proven) component for zip files and security and to contribute back to said component. This is a place where permissive licenses make a lot of sense. As for Free licenses, they make sense in certain circumstances as well. Do you think Linux would be where it is today if it weren't for the GPL? Or Webkit (Safari, Chrome, Chromium, soon Opera, etc)? Where you have a whole product and you don't want someone to be able to take the whole thing, add a few minor bits, slap their name on it, and then sell it as if they built it. Or a competitor to have full access to it and be able to improve it without sharing the improvements with you. In this case, having these projects be GPLed helped all of mobile computing (and desktop and server computing as well). As others have pointed out, I am aware that companies are made of people and will contribute back to software when they don't have to. But, as a general rule, they will only do this when it benefits them, as it does in the above-mentioned scenario around specific components. They generally won't do this when it does not benefit them. As for my experience, I founded and am lead developer of one of the all-time top projects on SourceForge (millions of users around the world, etc) and we use the GPL license on our core competency stuff (platform and tools). At the same time, we use MIT/BSD/zlib licensed code from other projects for specific components and contribute back our changes under the same license the source project uses. As for dealing with companies, we have had 2 fortune 500 companies take our software and use it in violation of the GPL and our copyright (that we know of) and use it in commercial projects in an attempt to compete against us as well as dozens of smaller companies and individuals doing the same. None of them had any intention of ever giving back. As a general rule, smaller companies and companies within software that have a reputation to uphold (Apple, Google, Microsoft) are much better at bother understanding and obeying licenses as well as being good open source citizens and giving back.

stcredzero 14y ago

> MIT and BSD are great for takers who like to take from open source and give nothing back This is true in the same sense that a right to privacy and the 5th amendment is good for criminals or that freedom of speech is good for people who promulgate hateful ideologies. Just because a freedom can be abused, it does not follow that it should be abridged.