5 ms·

>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.
    - oldmanjay 12y ago
      you're optimizing for the pathological case.
      - _delirium 12y ago
        It's the common case, unfortunately.
    - imanaccount247 12y ago
      >I thought that was what I was answering. But your very first words clearly state otherwise: "As I noted it's hard to prove". >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. This does not answer the question, it simply makes more. Why do you think those things are negative for society. And why do you think they are related to the question at hand, much less a direct result of the use of free software? >you've simply restated my "myth" to say something that to me seems equivalent No. You restated it. I did nothing of the sort. >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 So does the GPL. You are very mistaken if you believe that free software can remove people's right to sue others. Both in the sense that you can not remove people's right to sue and in the sense that if you could, that would not be free in any sense of the word. >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. There is no "developer" vs "user". They are the same thing. That is one of the fundamental facts the GPL was conceived on. You are creating a non-existent category of people who you feel should not have freedoms. Neither the BSD license or its cousins (MIT, ISC, etc) nor the GPL in any version makes any such arbitrary distinction between "developers" and "users". >The GPL is an imperfect hack to try to meet that criteria No it is not. You are both grossly misrepresenting the GPL, and attacking free software. This behavior is expected from people who oppose free software, it is appalling from people who purport to support it. >They could build things entirely from scratch and then sue users of the software. But I don't want to help make it easier. This only explains why you choose to not write free software. That is not what I asked about. I would like to know why you think free software is a negative for society. How did society lose out by apple using free software in its operating system? How did society lose out by the billions of devices out there running openssh?

_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.
  - oldmanjay 12y ago
    you're optimizing for the pathological case.
    - _delirium 12y ago
      It's the common case, unfortunately.
  - imanaccount247 12y ago
    >I thought that was what I was answering. But your very first words clearly state otherwise: "As I noted it's hard to prove". >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. This does not answer the question, it simply makes more. Why do you think those things are negative for society. And why do you think they are related to the question at hand, much less a direct result of the use of free software? >you've simply restated my "myth" to say something that to me seems equivalent No. You restated it. I did nothing of the sort. >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 So does the GPL. You are very mistaken if you believe that free software can remove people's right to sue others. Both in the sense that you can not remove people's right to sue and in the sense that if you could, that would not be free in any sense of the word. >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. There is no "developer" vs "user". They are the same thing. That is one of the fundamental facts the GPL was conceived on. You are creating a non-existent category of people who you feel should not have freedoms. Neither the BSD license or its cousins (MIT, ISC, etc) nor the GPL in any version makes any such arbitrary distinction between "developers" and "users". >The GPL is an imperfect hack to try to meet that criteria No it is not. You are both grossly misrepresenting the GPL, and attacking free software. This behavior is expected from people who oppose free software, it is appalling from people who purport to support it. >They could build things entirely from scratch and then sue users of the software. But I don't want to help make it easier. This only explains why you choose to not write free software. That is not what I asked about. I would like to know why you think free software is a negative for society. How did society lose out by apple using free software in its operating system? How did society lose out by the billions of devices out there running openssh?