8 ms·

> Theo De Raadt always complained that many of the institutions that run and use OpenBSD don't contribute back. Sounds like he needs a different license then.

by jkyle 11y ago

deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
joshuapants 11y ago
I don't think that would make them likely to contribute back, they'd just use something else. He'd rather have selfish people using good software than choosing to use something inferior.
- jkyle 11y ago
  Maybe, maybe not. They'd all do the same sort of cost/benefit assessment and if they deemed the benefit to outweigh the cost of contributing back they would do it. There'd be some who would change their options and some that would become contributors. Hard to say how it would pan out. But, when you select a license like BSD (which I've done myself) you shouldn't complain when users don't contribute back. You selected a license that formally declares your intent and expectations; the user has formally agreed to them.
  - clarry 11y ago
    Actually one's expectation can very well be that people be nice to you even if you're not using legalese to require that of them.
  - s73v3r 11y ago
    I wonder how much of an actual analysis is done in these cases, and how much it's just a boss saying that he doesn't want people "wasting their time" working on something that isn't directly related to their stuff.
- zanny 11y ago
  Somehow Google, Samsung, and Intel are sticking the Linux kernel in everything despite it being GPL'd and them having to release their modifications. Might have something to do with how reengineering the Linux kernel would cost on the order of billions of dollars in engineer time.
  - mschuster91 11y ago
    Just look at how many Android vendors actually honor the GPL. Even the major vendors tend to mess up their source code dumps, and lots of the Chinese (hi Mediatek) vendors don't even react on emails. Google should require in the vendor license terms for the Android brand and the Play Store that the sources be released on Github.
tbrownaw 11y ago
I don't think any of the free/open licenses require users to contribute to the parent project. I don't think any even require that people distributing modified versions, send those modifications back upstream.
- SixSigma 11y ago
  In fact there was a shitstorm when some licences had "all modifications must be sent upstream" clauses e.g. Plan9's original license had that clause. And then the "tick this box if you don't make nuclear weapons" clause was lambasted in Theo's colourful style [1]. There was a time when OpenBSD were considering moving to the plan9 tool chain - which is now available under both GPL and MIT licensing. That sad part was, most everyone in the plan9 community agreed with him but had their hands tied by Alacatel/Lucent legal and US law. [1] https://groups.google.com/forum/?_escaped_fragment_=topic/comp.os.plan9/0j5Xa_Bu_fs#!topic/comp.os.plan9/0j5Xa_Bu_fs https://groups.google.com/forum/?_escaped_fragment_=topic/co...
- Someone1234 11y ago
  The GPL kinda-sorta does. I guess it depends on your definition of "contribute back." People that derive from GPL source have to release those changes to the public, which could just be a zip archive on their web-site rather than a git pull request. I guess what I mean is, the company can try to be as unhelpful as possible (e.g. strip comments, place all code into a giant .cpp file, etc) but it does technically have to publish source code regardless.
  - debacle 11y ago
    > People that derive from GPL source have to release those changes to the public This is entirely not true. If I take a GPLed application, download it, modify it, and never distribute it, then I am under no obligation to release the source.
  - cwyers 11y ago
    The GPL requires you to distribute source code in addition to binaries. If you don't distribute binaries (i.e. if you're running the code on your server farm only), then you don't have to distribute anything.
weland 11y ago
More often than not, he wasn't referring to contributions in the FSF sense (i.e. people modifying code that they don't send back to the original authors). He simply meant that many of the institutions that run and use OpenBSD, which is available entirely for free, don't give anything in return - be it in the form of code, money, documentation or promotion. Another free license solves only a small proportion of this problem.
- jkyle 11y ago
  Another free license solves only a small proportion of this problem. True, but with BSD I'm not sure you can view it as a problem to begin with since the license is explicitly designed to legally absolve the user of all obligation to do just that. If you desire monetary contributions be made, some kind of commercial license is the solution. If you desire modifications be contributed back, there are other licenses that cover that expectation. And there's nothing stopping you from creating your own license. If you don't require or expect any contributions back or monetary contributions under any scenarios, then BSD is a great license for that. I'm sure when confronted with a lack of contribution (monetary, labor, code modifications), most companies would reply "Well, yes. That's why we chose software with a BSD license."
  - edejong 11y ago
    There is definitely business value in contributing to these projects. First of all, by contributing, you show a mutual interest in the increased quality of the solution. This in turn will motivate the maintainers to better understand the business concerns of the new contributor. By contributing, the contributor will gain insights in the workings of the solution, thus increasing the quality of the product itself. (As an analogy: by taking apart an amplifier, you increase your understanding of the way the product satisfies your needs). Last but not least, contributing generates good-will, subsequently increasing the probability of adequate answers to support questions.
    - cwyers 11y ago
      There's also a lot of business value in freeriding when the software license explicitly allows you to do so.
giovannibajo1 11y ago
TBH a single organization adopting and customizing a GPL software for internal usage isn't forced to contribute back, as GPL affects redistribution not adoption.
istvan__ 11y ago
Easy like that?
pyre 11y ago
As we've seen with GPL'd code, many companies are happy to skirt the license restrictions if they feel that they can get away with it. How much money and effort would then need to be expended to enforcement of said new license for OpenBSD? How many companies would do a cost/benefit analysis of the likelihood of OpenBSD lawyers suing them, and even then ignore the license if they thought that it would be less expensive to risk a lawsuit? "Change the license" isn't a silver bullet. Companies aren't machines that are fed licenses that they then obey like punch cards into an old IBM machine.
zkhalique 11y ago
Actually what he said was: GPL fans said the great problem we would face is that companies would take our BSD code, modify it, and not give back. Nope—the great problem we face is that people would wrap the GPL around our code, and lock us out in the same way that these supposed companies would lock us out. Just like the Linux community, we have many companies giving us code back, all the time. But once the code is GPL'd, we cannot get it back.
hobarrera 11y ago
The only licence that will fix this is one that requires payment from users, and that's never going to happen. Things like GPL don't force users to send back contributions unless you redistribute a derivate product (which is not usually the case). Theo is talking about giving something back (an acknowledgement, or even better, money).

> Theo De Raadt always complained that many of the institutions that run and use OpenBSD don't contribute back. Sounds like he needs a different license then.

by jkyle 11y ago

> Theo De Raadt always complained that many of the institutions that run and use OpenBSD don't contribute back. Sounds like he needs a different license then.

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]

joshuapants 11y ago

I don't think that would make them likely to contribute back, they'd just use something else. He'd rather have selfish people using good software than choosing to use something inferior.

jkyle 11y ago
Maybe, maybe not. They'd all do the same sort of cost/benefit assessment and if they deemed the benefit to outweigh the cost of contributing back they would do it. There'd be some who would change their options and some that would become contributors. Hard to say how it would pan out. But, when you select a license like BSD (which I've done myself) you shouldn't complain when users don't contribute back. You selected a license that formally declares your intent and expectations; the user has formally agreed to them.
- clarry 11y ago
  Actually one's expectation can very well be that people be nice to you even if you're not using legalese to require that of them.
- s73v3r 11y ago
  I wonder how much of an actual analysis is done in these cases, and how much it's just a boss saying that he doesn't want people "wasting their time" working on something that isn't directly related to their stuff.
zanny 11y ago
Somehow Google, Samsung, and Intel are sticking the Linux kernel in everything despite it being GPL'd and them having to release their modifications. Might have something to do with how reengineering the Linux kernel would cost on the order of billions of dollars in engineer time.
- mschuster91 11y ago
  Just look at how many Android vendors actually honor the GPL. Even the major vendors tend to mess up their source code dumps, and lots of the Chinese (hi Mediatek) vendors don't even react on emails. Google should require in the vendor license terms for the Android brand and the Play Store that the sources be released on Github.

tbrownaw 11y ago

I don't think any of the free/open licenses require users to contribute to the parent project. I don't think any even require that people distributing modified versions, send those modifications back upstream.

SixSigma 11y ago
In fact there was a shitstorm when some licences had "all modifications must be sent upstream" clauses e.g. Plan9's original license had that clause. And then the "tick this box if you don't make nuclear weapons" clause was lambasted in Theo's colourful style [1]. There was a time when OpenBSD were considering moving to the plan9 tool chain - which is now available under both GPL and MIT licensing. That sad part was, most everyone in the plan9 community agreed with him but had their hands tied by Alacatel/Lucent legal and US law. [1] https://groups.google.com/forum/?_escaped_fragment_=topic/comp.os.plan9/0j5Xa_Bu_fs#!topic/comp.os.plan9/0j5Xa_Bu_fs https://groups.google.com/forum/?_escaped_fragment_=topic/co...
Someone1234 11y ago
The GPL kinda-sorta does. I guess it depends on your definition of "contribute back." People that derive from GPL source have to release those changes to the public, which could just be a zip archive on their web-site rather than a git pull request. I guess what I mean is, the company can try to be as unhelpful as possible (e.g. strip comments, place all code into a giant .cpp file, etc) but it does technically have to publish source code regardless.
- debacle 11y ago
  > People that derive from GPL source have to release those changes to the public This is entirely not true. If I take a GPLed application, download it, modify it, and never distribute it, then I am under no obligation to release the source.
- cwyers 11y ago
  The GPL requires you to distribute source code in addition to binaries. If you don't distribute binaries (i.e. if you're running the code on your server farm only), then you don't have to distribute anything.

weland 11y ago

More often than not, he wasn't referring to contributions in the FSF sense (i.e. people modifying code that they don't send back to the original authors). He simply meant that many of the institutions that run and use OpenBSD, which is available entirely for free, don't give anything in return - be it in the form of code, money, documentation or promotion. Another free license solves only a small proportion of this problem.

jkyle 11y ago
Another free license solves only a small proportion of this problem. True, but with BSD I'm not sure you can view it as a problem to begin with since the license is explicitly designed to legally absolve the user of all obligation to do just that. If you desire monetary contributions be made, some kind of commercial license is the solution. If you desire modifications be contributed back, there are other licenses that cover that expectation. And there's nothing stopping you from creating your own license. If you don't require or expect any contributions back or monetary contributions under any scenarios, then BSD is a great license for that. I'm sure when confronted with a lack of contribution (monetary, labor, code modifications), most companies would reply "Well, yes. That's why we chose software with a BSD license."
- edejong 11y ago
  There is definitely business value in contributing to these projects. First of all, by contributing, you show a mutual interest in the increased quality of the solution. This in turn will motivate the maintainers to better understand the business concerns of the new contributor. By contributing, the contributor will gain insights in the workings of the solution, thus increasing the quality of the product itself. (As an analogy: by taking apart an amplifier, you increase your understanding of the way the product satisfies your needs). Last but not least, contributing generates good-will, subsequently increasing the probability of adequate answers to support questions.
  - cwyers 11y ago
    There's also a lot of business value in freeriding when the software license explicitly allows you to do so.

giovannibajo1 11y ago

TBH a single organization adopting and customizing a GPL software for internal usage isn't forced to contribute back, as GPL affects redistribution not adoption.

istvan__ 11y ago

Easy like that?

pyre 11y ago

As we've seen with GPL'd code, many companies are happy to skirt the license restrictions if they feel that they can get away with it. How much money and effort would then need to be expended to enforcement of said new license for OpenBSD? How many companies would do a cost/benefit analysis of the likelihood of OpenBSD lawyers suing them, and even then ignore the license if they thought that it would be less expensive to risk a lawsuit? "Change the license" isn't a silver bullet. Companies aren't machines that are fed licenses that they then obey like punch cards into an old IBM machine.

zkhalique 11y ago

Actually what he said was: GPL fans said the great problem we would face is that companies would take our BSD code, modify it, and not give back. Nope—the great problem we face is that people would wrap the GPL around our code, and lock us out in the same way that these supposed companies would lock us out. Just like the Linux community, we have many companies giving us code back, all the time. But once the code is GPL'd, we cannot get it back.

hobarrera 11y ago

The only licence that will fix this is one that requires payment from users, and that's never going to happen. Things like GPL don't force users to send back contributions unless you redistribute a derivate product (which is not usually the case). Theo is talking about giving something back (an acknowledgement, or even better, money).