3 ms·

You know, if I make something open-source, it's because I want people to use it. I refuse to use copyleft licenses because all they manage to do in practice is

You know, if I make something open-source, it's because I want people to use it. I refuse to use copyleft licenses because all they manage to do in practice is ensure no commercial venture will ever use your code. If I didn't want a commercial entity using my code, I wouldn't make it open-source. The GPL was created to help free software, which is more about freedom of speech, not open-source. It should be used only when your code is intended as a contribution to the free software movement, not when it is intended to simply be open-source.

TazeTSchnitzel 14y ago
Indeed. Part of this for me is vanity in a sense, I'd love it if Microsoft used my code. (Although they never will, but hey, I can dream.) But also, I like permissive licenses because it means I worry less and anyone who uses my code can worry less about it.
qb45 14y ago
> You know, if I make something open-source, it's because I want people to use it. I refuse to use copyleft licenses because all they manage to do in practice is ensure no commercial venture will ever use your code. Because no commercial venture uses Linux or BusyBox. > The GPL was created to help free software, which is more about freedom of speech, not open-source. FSF is actually more about making sure that as much software as possible is "open source" than about freedom of speech. Maybe you confused them with EFF.
- GhotiFish 14y ago
  ... I've got to be honest. It wasn't until you pointed it out that I noticed the difference. I thought they were two heads of the same hydra.
bitdiddle 14y ago
right, like for example Git. No one has built any commercial ventures around Git that I know of.
- skyebook 14y ago
  I can't tell if my sarcastometer is out of calibration but... GitHub?
  - bitdiddle 14y ago
    yes I was being very sarcastic
    - general_failure 14y ago
      They don't use git. They have a custom ruby based git implementation.
      - cookrn 14y ago
        Are you referencing Grit? https://github.com/mojombo/grit https://github.com/mojombo/grit
- profquail 14y ago
  Are those commercial ventures linking their code with the Git binary? Or are they just building tools which wrap the command-line Git tool? I'm inclined to think that most (if not all) commercial offerings are going to use the second option, because there won't be much difference to the end-user and it means the company won't have to open-source their code. If Git was permissively-licensed, perhaps those companies would choose to link with the binary (or incorporate the code directly into their products) and contribute patches and bug-fixes back to the project.
  - bitdiddle 14y ago
    perhaps, I think it's some what of a myth that one can't make money from free software. Sure one can't erect flimsy toll booths and extract rents but as I look around I see lots of companies, .eg. IBM profiting quite nicely from free software.

TazeTSchnitzel 14y ago

Indeed. Part of this for me is vanity in a sense, I'd love it if Microsoft used my code. (Although they never will, but hey, I can dream.) But also, I like permissive licenses because it means I worry less and anyone who uses my code can worry less about it.

qb45 14y ago

> You know, if I make something open-source, it's because I want people to use it. I refuse to use copyleft licenses because all they manage to do in practice is ensure no commercial venture will ever use your code. Because no commercial venture uses Linux or BusyBox. > The GPL was created to help free software, which is more about freedom of speech, not open-source. FSF is actually more about making sure that as much software as possible is "open source" than about freedom of speech. Maybe you confused them with EFF.

GhotiFish 14y ago
... I've got to be honest. It wasn't until you pointed it out that I noticed the difference. I thought they were two heads of the same hydra.

bitdiddle 14y ago

right, like for example Git. No one has built any commercial ventures around Git that I know of.

skyebook 14y ago
I can't tell if my sarcastometer is out of calibration but... GitHub?
- bitdiddle 14y ago
  yes I was being very sarcastic
  - general_failure 14y ago
    They don't use git. They have a custom ruby based git implementation.
    - cookrn 14y ago
      Are you referencing Grit? https://github.com/mojombo/grit https://github.com/mojombo/grit
profquail 14y ago
Are those commercial ventures linking their code with the Git binary? Or are they just building tools which wrap the command-line Git tool? I'm inclined to think that most (if not all) commercial offerings are going to use the second option, because there won't be much difference to the end-user and it means the company won't have to open-source their code. If Git was permissively-licensed, perhaps those companies would choose to link with the binary (or incorporate the code directly into their products) and contribute patches and bug-fixes back to the project.
- bitdiddle 14y ago
  perhaps, I think it's some what of a myth that one can't make money from free software. Sure one can't erect flimsy toll booths and extract rents but as I look around I see lots of companies, .eg. IBM profiting quite nicely from free software.