4 ms·

They aren't. That's exactly the point I was conceding when I mentioned that they are my personal beliefs. (But it's worth mentioning that when a lot of people

by nmrm2 11y ago

They aren't. That's exactly the point I was conceding when I mentioned that they are my personal beliefs. (But it's worth mentioning that when a lot of people share the same beliefs, it does matter from a business perspective. Microsoft isn't open sourcing stuff out of the goodness of their hearts.) (And furthermore, this belief doesn't entail that I should use GPL. But the combination of this belief and the realization that people conflate ethical conduct with legality causes me to use GPL. I have a feeling lots of other people are in the same boat.)

oldmanjay 11y ago
I think you're just trying to intellectualize your preference. You want downstream derivers to contribute back. That's all you have to say. I, for instance, don't care, so I choose licenses that match my POV. People who make a proprietary fork of my code are ethically as clean as anyone who gives me a PR, and they are also as ethically clean as you, in this specific sort of scenario.
- nmrm2 11y ago
  > I think you're just trying to intellectualize your preference. I don't quite understand what you mean. Do you mean rationalize? I don't think I'm rationalizing. I think I'm just trying to explain a nice spot in the license design space that's difficult to codify and enforce legally, and that might drive someone to use GPL instead of BSD even if they don't want copyleft. > You want downstream derivers to contribute back. That's all you have to say. Well, it's more subtle than that. If their contribution is only useful in the context of their proprietary system, or if it fundamentally changes the character of the software, I don't much care. But if it's useful to the core project (e.g. bug fixes and performance improvements, tertiary but useful feature additions, etc.) then I think those contributions should make it back into the original project (or at least be open-sourced). I don't want all users to contribute back as the cost of use. I just want them to contribute back when the change isn't either massive or irrelevant to the core project. But that's so difficult to state in a legally binding way that I end up using the GPL, even though copyleft isn't exactly what I want. > People who make a proprietary fork of my code are ethically as clean as anyone who gives me a PR, and they are also as ethically clean as you, in this specific sort of scenario. Right. But I think it's reasonable to differentiate between "being a good member of the community" and "fulfilling legal obligations". I realize not everyone agrees, which is why I use GPL...

by nmrm2 11y ago

oldmanjay 11y ago

I think you're just trying to intellectualize your preference. You want downstream derivers to contribute back. That's all you have to say. I, for instance, don't care, so I choose licenses that match my POV. People who make a proprietary fork of my code are ethically as clean as anyone who gives me a PR, and they are also as ethically clean as you, in this specific sort of scenario.

nmrm2 11y ago
> I think you're just trying to intellectualize your preference. I don't quite understand what you mean. Do you mean rationalize? I don't think I'm rationalizing. I think I'm just trying to explain a nice spot in the license design space that's difficult to codify and enforce legally, and that might drive someone to use GPL instead of BSD even if they don't want copyleft. > You want downstream derivers to contribute back. That's all you have to say. Well, it's more subtle than that. If their contribution is only useful in the context of their proprietary system, or if it fundamentally changes the character of the software, I don't much care. But if it's useful to the core project (e.g. bug fixes and performance improvements, tertiary but useful feature additions, etc.) then I think those contributions should make it back into the original project (or at least be open-sourced). I don't want all users to contribute back as the cost of use. I just want them to contribute back when the change isn't either massive or irrelevant to the core project. But that's so difficult to state in a legally binding way that I end up using the GPL, even though copyleft isn't exactly what I want. > People who make a proprietary fork of my code are ethically as clean as anyone who gives me a PR, and they are also as ethically clean as you, in this specific sort of scenario. Right. But I think it's reasonable to differentiate between "being a good member of the community" and "fulfilling legal obligations". I realize not everyone agrees, which is why I use GPL...