6 ms·

I also have rarely seen much contributed back in my limited experience, especially outside of the "tech industry" proper. I've noticed the lack especially in "b

I also have rarely seen much contributed back in my limited experience, especially outside of the "tech industry" proper. I've noticed the lack especially in "big engineering" (oil & gas, CAD, aeronautics, etc.), and recently also in "data toolkit" type markets like proprietary bioinformatics toolkits, data-mining toolkits, GIS packages, etc. I don't work there myself fwiw, but for various reasons have spent some time observing development practices. BSD-licensed code is included in tons of profitable proprietary products in those areas that have never contributed back a line to the original project. Much of the time they drag their feet on even giving any acknowledgment to the project they took the code from. Really they would prefer to pretend they invented it all themselves, 100% Custom Proprietary Solution, with no acknowledgement whatsoever. They do typically grudgingly make the legally required copyright acknowledgment, but in the "New BSD" variant of the BSD license that removed the traditional requirement for acknowledgment to be prominent, that's pretty easy to bury in fine print in the most obscure place you can concoct (a random .txt file on the install medium, or somewhere in the fine print at the end of a manual, are two popular options). A plausible counterargument is that these types of companies wouldn't contribute back anyway: they just aren't interested. In that case the practical choice is between letting them free-ride off your code (BSD) or not letting them use it at all (GPL), because they aren't going to make a choice that involves contributing back, regardless of your license. In that case I can see people leaning towards BSD. But I'd personally lean towards GPL, because I think that, at least often, shutting these companies out of the ability to use open-source code would probably be a net win for society. But it's hard to prove that. And this probably depends significantly on your goals and the kind of software you write.

pnathan 12y ago
I observe that BSD/MIT et al are just ways to give away profits to large corporations without returning value to the original developer. I release all my personal code under some flavor of GPL - LLGPL, LGPL, or AGPL3 - because I personally refuse to let my work be exploited like that.
- akerl_ 12y ago
  Do you have some sort of evidence for that observation?
  - pnathan 12y ago
    Roughly, look at any mobile software you use and look at the open source licenses. Note how much of that code gets pushed back into the rest of the world. For even more excitement, look at major non-tech companies and see how much they contribute back. In my idle memories, I think Walmart might be the only one I've personally seen... The GPL (or its stronger and younger sibling, the AGPL), contractually require release of source to the user.
- emidln 12y ago
  That doesn't do anything. Large corporations don't have to distribute your software for internal usage. It can reach hundreds of thousands of employees and still be internal.
- axman6 12y ago
  Like how Apple, Google, Intel, Nvidia etc. are exploiting the LLVM project? IMO, the need for GPL style restrictive licences isn't backed up by facts; more open licences encourage commercial use and open development.
  - lmm 12y ago
    There's a game I own that I'm only able to play on my computer because its developer accidentally used a GPLed audio library, and found their best course was to GPL the game engine. Internet volunteers then ported that engine to other platforms. So as an end user the GPL really has made things better for me than a BSD-style license would.
- annnnd 12y ago
  In my experience companies just use other code or develop their own, so the original developer doesn't benefit directly anyway. So it doesn't matter which license he chooses. One could argue that making a successful open source project makes the original developer "wanted" in terms of employment, paid support requests, paid consulting... And choosing leeching-friendly license helps in achieving that.
imanaccount247 12y ago
>because I think that, at least often, shutting these companies out of the ability to use open-source code would probably be a net win for society Why?
- _delirium 12y ago
  As I noted it's hard to prove, and sensitive to a lot of assumptions (not least, what kind of software we're talking about). I also don't know the entire range of businesses using BSD software without contributing back. It's possible some of them are friendly cuddly ones. :-) Two guesses, though. 1. To a significant extent it's just reducing the cost structure of BigCorp IT spending, which [note: unproven] in most cases I suspect mainly benefits profit margins and capital investors, though it may to some extent benefit others as well. 2. A significant proportion of these products are backed by corporations who are aggressive users of the copyright and patent systems. The flipside of the developer freedom of the BSD license is that it leaves the developer full freedom to restrict the freedom of users by suing users who dare modify, reverse-engineer, or produce software similar to the software the company produces. The GPL, particularly GPLv3 with its patent clause, complicates the ability of a company to incorporate my software into code they plan wield as a weapon in IP lawsuits, whereas they can roll BSD-licensed code into their legal weapons mostly unhindered.
  - imanaccount247 12y ago
    I'm not asking about proof, I am asking about your personal subjective opinion. Your post doesn't appear to address the question at all, it appears to be justifications for why you want to "punish" corporate software companies. I want to know how do you think preventing people from using free software benefits society at large? Also, your post contains a very common myth: "the BSD license is that it leaves the developer full freedom to restrict the freedom of users". It does no such thing. The only thing the BSD license restricts is your ability to use the code without including the license like it says.
    - _delirium 12y ago
      I thought that was what I was answering. Imo it's harmful for society at large because: 1. all else equal, helping to shift the proportion of returns that go to capital vs. labor is negative for society; and 2. assisting companies in building products that they will use as a basis for IP lawsuits is negative for society. Also: you've simply restated my "myth" to say something that to me seems equivalent. The BSD license allows companies to take my code, and build it into software packages which they subsequently use as a basis for patent and copyright lawsuits. That is, one "freedom" the BSD license does not restrict is a developer's "freedom" to file copyright and patent lawsuits against users of the software. I do not believe that is a valuable freedom, and do not want to assist with that behavior. I am fine with people using my code to build other products, as long as they agree not to sue downstream users for violating their patents, violating the DMCA, and similar things. The GPL is an imperfect hack to try to meet that criteria, but imo it's often better than nothing. It is possible they could do all that without my assistance anyway, of course. They could build things entirely from scratch and then sue users of the software. But I don't want to help make it easier.
cowsandmilk 12y ago
When working for these companies, have you ever asked if you could contribute back? In the field of pharma, a lot of contributors to RDKit discovered that no one had ever asked before. It now has a lot of contributions from people who work in industry. And don't fool yourself that GPL means companies cannot use it or include it in their products. Many do, even following the letter and spirit license agreement. As a quick example, OpenEye released openbabel under GPL; now their biggest competitor, Schrodinger, uses openbabel in products with the modifications released as a fork on github where the product is developed[1]. [1] https://github.com/schrodinger/openbabel https://github.com/schrodinger/openbabel
- lmm 12y ago
  I've asked a couple of different employers whether I can release something as GPL. The answer has usually been "yeah, sure, just let me check with legal first". Months go by, I ask again, and I'm told "yeah, we'll get right on that". Never an outright no, just stalling until I gave up. (Current employer has been better, and I've submitted a few improvements to libraries I use)

pnathan 12y ago

I observe that BSD/MIT et al are just ways to give away profits to large corporations without returning value to the original developer. I release all my personal code under some flavor of GPL - LLGPL, LGPL, or AGPL3 - because I personally refuse to let my work be exploited like that.

akerl_ 12y ago
Do you have some sort of evidence for that observation?
- pnathan 12y ago
  Roughly, look at any mobile software you use and look at the open source licenses. Note how much of that code gets pushed back into the rest of the world. For even more excitement, look at major non-tech companies and see how much they contribute back. In my idle memories, I think Walmart might be the only one I've personally seen... The GPL (or its stronger and younger sibling, the AGPL), contractually require release of source to the user.
emidln 12y ago
That doesn't do anything. Large corporations don't have to distribute your software for internal usage. It can reach hundreds of thousands of employees and still be internal.
axman6 12y ago
Like how Apple, Google, Intel, Nvidia etc. are exploiting the LLVM project? IMO, the need for GPL style restrictive licences isn't backed up by facts; more open licences encourage commercial use and open development.
- lmm 12y ago
  There's a game I own that I'm only able to play on my computer because its developer accidentally used a GPLed audio library, and found their best course was to GPL the game engine. Internet volunteers then ported that engine to other platforms. So as an end user the GPL really has made things better for me than a BSD-style license would.
annnnd 12y ago
In my experience companies just use other code or develop their own, so the original developer doesn't benefit directly anyway. So it doesn't matter which license he chooses. One could argue that making a successful open source project makes the original developer "wanted" in terms of employment, paid support requests, paid consulting... And choosing leeching-friendly license helps in achieving that.

imanaccount247 12y ago

>because I think that, at least often, shutting these companies out of the ability to use open-source code would probably be a net win for society Why?

_delirium 12y ago
As I noted it's hard to prove, and sensitive to a lot of assumptions (not least, what kind of software we're talking about). I also don't know the entire range of businesses using BSD software without contributing back. It's possible some of them are friendly cuddly ones. :-) Two guesses, though. 1. To a significant extent it's just reducing the cost structure of BigCorp IT spending, which [note: unproven] in most cases I suspect mainly benefits profit margins and capital investors, though it may to some extent benefit others as well. 2. A significant proportion of these products are backed by corporations who are aggressive users of the copyright and patent systems. The flipside of the developer freedom of the BSD license is that it leaves the developer full freedom to restrict the freedom of users by suing users who dare modify, reverse-engineer, or produce software similar to the software the company produces. The GPL, particularly GPLv3 with its patent clause, complicates the ability of a company to incorporate my software into code they plan wield as a weapon in IP lawsuits, whereas they can roll BSD-licensed code into their legal weapons mostly unhindered.
- imanaccount247 12y ago
  I'm not asking about proof, I am asking about your personal subjective opinion. Your post doesn't appear to address the question at all, it appears to be justifications for why you want to "punish" corporate software companies. I want to know how do you think preventing people from using free software benefits society at large? Also, your post contains a very common myth: "the BSD license is that it leaves the developer full freedom to restrict the freedom of users". It does no such thing. The only thing the BSD license restricts is your ability to use the code without including the license like it says.
  - _delirium 12y ago
    I thought that was what I was answering. Imo it's harmful for society at large because: 1. all else equal, helping to shift the proportion of returns that go to capital vs. labor is negative for society; and 2. assisting companies in building products that they will use as a basis for IP lawsuits is negative for society. Also: you've simply restated my "myth" to say something that to me seems equivalent. The BSD license allows companies to take my code, and build it into software packages which they subsequently use as a basis for patent and copyright lawsuits. That is, one "freedom" the BSD license does not restrict is a developer's "freedom" to file copyright and patent lawsuits against users of the software. I do not believe that is a valuable freedom, and do not want to assist with that behavior. I am fine with people using my code to build other products, as long as they agree not to sue downstream users for violating their patents, violating the DMCA, and similar things. The GPL is an imperfect hack to try to meet that criteria, but imo it's often better than nothing. It is possible they could do all that without my assistance anyway, of course. They could build things entirely from scratch and then sue users of the software. But I don't want to help make it easier.

cowsandmilk 12y ago

When working for these companies, have you ever asked if you could contribute back? In the field of pharma, a lot of contributors to RDKit discovered that no one had ever asked before. It now has a lot of contributions from people who work in industry. And don't fool yourself that GPL means companies cannot use it or include it in their products. Many do, even following the letter and spirit license agreement. As a quick example, OpenEye released openbabel under GPL; now their biggest competitor, Schrodinger, uses openbabel in products with the modifications released as a fork on github where the product is developed[1]. [1] https://github.com/schrodinger/openbabel https://github.com/schrodinger/openbabel

lmm 12y ago
I've asked a couple of different employers whether I can release something as GPL. The answer has usually been "yeah, sure, just let me check with legal first". Months go by, I ask again, and I'm told "yeah, we'll get right on that". Never an outright no, just stalling until I gave up. (Current employer has been better, and I've submitted a few improvements to libraries I use)