4 ms·

> I wouldn't be happy with that arrangement if it were my code, so I choose a different license. If you're approaching this from an "ethics of sharing" stance,

by pbsdp 13y ago

> I wouldn't be happy with that arrangement if it were my code, so I choose a different license. If you're approaching this from an "ethics of sharing" stance, then what what you're actually restricting is somebody else's use of their own code. Your code never disappears/changes/gets relicensed, it's their code that you're staking a claim to. Now, if you're approaching this from a stance of withholding certain valuable rights to your code, such as the ability to be the only person that licenses closed source usage, then the argument is a bit more logical. > They are free to open up their code to me if they want to use mine. I do. Under the MIT license.

mike-cardwell 13y ago
"then what what you're actually restricting is somebody else's use of their own code. Your code never disappears/changes/gets relicensed, it's their code that you're staking a claim to." This is some very bizarre reasoning. They still have their code. They are still free to do whatever they want with it. If they want my contributions in their product, they made a serious error in their license choice. Maybe they should have used the GPL. But do you know what? They can use my code. They are completely free to use my code. As long as they only use it in GPL software. "I do. Under the MIT license." By saying this, you are saying to me that I am free to re-release your code under the GPL and add my own contributions. If you are not happy with this arrangement, you have made an error in your license choice. I have not made any errors in my license choice. It behaves exactly in the manner I want it to.
- pbsdp 13y ago
  > By saying this, you are saying to me that I am free to re-release your code under the GPL and add my own contributions. If you are not happy with this arrangement, you have made an error in your license choice. No, I'll remain content with my license agreement, I'll just think that you're a dick. That's OK, though -- some people behaving like dicks is simply the cost of collaborating openly.
  - mike-cardwell 13y ago
    I wasn't attacking your choice. I was explaining what your choice consists of and why I made a different one. If you don't want people to do something particular with your code, yet you choose a license that permits it, then by definition, you chose the wrong license. I'm going to chalk your childish, immature and unprofessional insults down to frustration. And to prevent further noise, I am not going to reply to any further comments made by you.
    - pbsdp 13y ago
      I'm not attacking your choice, I'm just saying that according to my ethos, taking BSD licensed code and relicensing under the GPL is: 1) Rude. 2) Simply the cost of doing business under the BSD license.
- foobarbazqux 13y ago
  It's like this. You have different ethics than I do or pbsdp does. We believe it's unethical to impose restrictions on developers, and if that means we can't guarantee the freedom of users then so be it. You don't have a problem with imposing restrictions on developers (at least restrictions that you like), but you do believe it's unethical not to guarantee the freedoms of users. There's no way to resolve the conflict. We just have incompatible values and understandings about what sharing means. Our values are more liberal (the FSF uses the word permissive), so that means that you're free to exist in our world. We'd like to be part of your world as developers, but we aren't willing to embrace your restrictions.
  - mike-cardwell 13y ago
    Absolutely. Like I said, I have no problem with other people choosing other licenses which meet their requirements. My requirements are different. The GPL is most appropriate for myself.
    - foobarbazqux 13y ago
      I don't choose a license to meet my requirements. I choose a license to meet everybody's requirements. So when you don't choose a license that meets everybody's requirements, it makes me question the value of the freedoms it provides, and I end up wishing you'd chosen something more open.
      - mike-cardwell 13y ago
        It's funny that you think your license choice meets everybodies "requirements" and mine doesn't. I think the exact opposite: I think yours meets the requirements of yourself and other developers. In comparison, I think my choice meets the requirements of humanity. Especially in the long run. You wish I'd chosen differently. I also wish you had chosen differently, as currently from my point of view, you're helping the propagation and spread of closed source software. Simply: I don't want my code to be used in closed source software, so I can't use your license. That choice is simply not open to me.

by pbsdp 13y ago

mike-cardwell 13y ago

"then what what you're actually restricting is somebody else's use of their own code. Your code never disappears/changes/gets relicensed, it's their code that you're staking a claim to." This is some very bizarre reasoning. They still have their code. They are still free to do whatever they want with it. If they want my contributions in their product, they made a serious error in their license choice. Maybe they should have used the GPL. But do you know what? They can use my code. They are completely free to use my code. As long as they only use it in GPL software. "I do. Under the MIT license." By saying this, you are saying to me that I am free to re-release your code under the GPL and add my own contributions. If you are not happy with this arrangement, you have made an error in your license choice. I have not made any errors in my license choice. It behaves exactly in the manner I want it to.

pbsdp 13y ago
> By saying this, you are saying to me that I am free to re-release your code under the GPL and add my own contributions. If you are not happy with this arrangement, you have made an error in your license choice. No, I'll remain content with my license agreement, I'll just think that you're a dick. That's OK, though -- some people behaving like dicks is simply the cost of collaborating openly.
- mike-cardwell 13y ago
  I wasn't attacking your choice. I was explaining what your choice consists of and why I made a different one. If you don't want people to do something particular with your code, yet you choose a license that permits it, then by definition, you chose the wrong license. I'm going to chalk your childish, immature and unprofessional insults down to frustration. And to prevent further noise, I am not going to reply to any further comments made by you.
  - pbsdp 13y ago
    I'm not attacking your choice, I'm just saying that according to my ethos, taking BSD licensed code and relicensing under the GPL is: 1) Rude. 2) Simply the cost of doing business under the BSD license.
foobarbazqux 13y ago
It's like this. You have different ethics than I do or pbsdp does. We believe it's unethical to impose restrictions on developers, and if that means we can't guarantee the freedom of users then so be it. You don't have a problem with imposing restrictions on developers (at least restrictions that you like), but you do believe it's unethical not to guarantee the freedoms of users. There's no way to resolve the conflict. We just have incompatible values and understandings about what sharing means. Our values are more liberal (the FSF uses the word permissive), so that means that you're free to exist in our world. We'd like to be part of your world as developers, but we aren't willing to embrace your restrictions.
- mike-cardwell 13y ago
  Absolutely. Like I said, I have no problem with other people choosing other licenses which meet their requirements. My requirements are different. The GPL is most appropriate for myself.
  - foobarbazqux 13y ago
    I don't choose a license to meet my requirements. I choose a license to meet everybody's requirements. So when you don't choose a license that meets everybody's requirements, it makes me question the value of the freedoms it provides, and I end up wishing you'd chosen something more open.
    - mike-cardwell 13y ago
      It's funny that you think your license choice meets everybodies "requirements" and mine doesn't. I think the exact opposite: I think yours meets the requirements of yourself and other developers. In comparison, I think my choice meets the requirements of humanity. Especially in the long run. You wish I'd chosen differently. I also wish you had chosen differently, as currently from my point of view, you're helping the propagation and spread of closed source software. Simply: I don't want my code to be used in closed source software, so I can't use your license. That choice is simply not open to me.