5 ms·

An agenda such as putting food on the table.

by gress 11y ago

theseatoms 11y ago
A reason that can be used for literally any profit-seeking endeavor.
indlebe 11y ago
How does permissive licensing put food on the table for those who created the code? If anything wouldn't it have the opposite effect?
- err4nt 11y ago
  I put a simple, self-contained HTML/JS/CSS scratchpad (think JsFiddle, Codepen) on Github without a licence. I was contacted because somebody saw the project and wanted to use it to help teach a classroom HTML, but only if the licence was good. I quickly put it under MIT, which means though I never saw changes back - something I did helped somebody else teach a class of people HTML. That's doesn't put food on my table, but the same effort from me under a bad licence would have meant that good likely would not have come from my efforts. If you can have passive income projects that sit there and generate revenue over time without further input, why can't you have passive charitable giving, where you put in effort once and others are able to get value from it over and over again as time goes on. Permissive licences pay it forward in a way that viral licences don't.
  - indlebe 11y ago
    That doesn't at all address or relate to the question I asked, but instead provides a completely different talking point supporting permissive licenses as a charitable act.
    - err4nt 11y ago
      > That doesn't put food on my table, but the same effort from me under a bad licence would have meant that good likely would not have come from my efforts. Who is more likely to be hired for paying work: the guy whose code you have benefitted from or the guy whose code you haven't seen? I believe there is such thing as 'corporate stewardship' and companies ought to give back to the communities that host them. With remote work, and independent workers I believe that responsibility to give back falls on the individual. I've surely benefitted in my life from open-source software. My income depends on my use of it, so I feel not just a desire but a duty to release work for others in the same way. It's not direct, but the more code I put out there the more my industry thrives. The more my industry thrives the more work there is in it. The more work there is in my industry the easier it will be for me to find work. It's a roundabout way of doing it, but I like to think of it as watering the garden I get my food from, instead of harvesting it.
      - indlebe 11y ago
        Did you mean to reply to my comment? I can't tell. Regardless, all the reasons you're giving for why you prefer permissive open-source licenses also apply to the GPL.
        err4nt 11y ago
        The viral nature of the GPL leaves a bad taste in my mouth like a ideological chain-letter! I like public domain, I like MIT, I like libPNG, but I don't like forcing ideology or licenses on people and THEIR code. Take it, learn from it, modify it, USE it. If I didn't want it to be taken and used I wouldbt bother to post it! The GPL gets in the way of that.
        indlebe 11y ago
        For the example you gave in response to my first reply the GPL license would have permitted them to do as they please. No-one forces a license on you, you choose what license your original code is under. If I would like to prevent my code from being taken and profited from that's also my right. The fact that you can choose what license your code is under is freedom. The non-permissive vs permissive license argument is a moot point, because the very arguments supporting permissive also support the right to use a license such as GPL.
        err4nt 11y ago
        The GPL has a viral clause that says that whatever code touches GPLed code must be GPLed as well. This is a deal-breaker for many people who may be working with code under different licenses without similar viral clauses already in their codebase. They don't necessarily have the right to GPL other people's code, so they have to forgo using the GPLed code. It's not just the GPL, this criticism applies to any licence with a viral clause. I understand that as an author I have copyright and ultimate freedom to licence my code under whatever I choose, but I choose to release my code under non-viral terms. It's not about posting changes back, I don't care if they fork it and run I just want people to use it. I see viral terms a huge roadblock to this type of creativity. So there's a solid argument for permissive licenses that excludes viral licenses like the GPL!
  - jeena 11y ago
    Wait, why would it be a bad thing if they needed to publish the fixes for bugs they found? Wouldn't this be better for even more people in the future?
    - err4nt 11y ago
      Nowhere did I say it was bad if they had to post their changes, but in reality it just means they won't touch it, won't have changes to post, and they will keep looking for more permissive code to use. If a viral licence is an impediment to people using my work, then releasing it seems like a waste.
      - jeena 11y ago
        > If a viral licence is an impediment to people using my work, then releasing it seems like a waste. I don't agree, there are still enough people who will gain from it. Everyone who wants to learn, everyone who wants to give back, etc. that is not a waste at all, quite the opposite.
davexunit 11y ago
The argument that proprietary software is necessary otherwise programmers will starve is a very weak one.
- gress 11y ago
  The statement that someone else's argument is weak, is not an argument at all, let alone a weak one.
smhenderson 11y ago
I'm not talking about individual developers. I agree with the article's author when he says there is a place for both types of licenses and if a freelance or small team of developers choose a permissive license as a strategy to make money I respect that. I'm referring to mid to large size companies that simply want to take permissively licensed software and repackage and lock it up so they can increase share holder value. I'm talking about executives who have never developed a piece of software but are smart enough to monetize it on the backs of hobbyists and freelancers. I don't see how that puts food on anyone's table other than those who already have plenty. But, hey I come to HN for the debate so thanks for your comment, I respect your opinion.
konstruktor 11y ago
This is a perfectly valid agenda, but it doesn't entitle one to doing so using the results of somebody else's labour.
- jcranmer 11y ago
  Why are you releasing source if you don't want others to use the results of your labor?
  - EdSharkey 11y ago
    Copyright holders do all kinds of wacky things. Who are you to judge?
- krapp 11y ago
  It does to the degree that the software license permits.
quadrangle 11y ago
http://mimiandeunice.com/2010/08/25/for-the-children/ http://mimiandeunice.com/2010/08/25/for-the-children/
- gress 11y ago
  That's a perfect reference - it illustrates how ludicrous it is that GPL advocates elevate the choice of license to the level of harming children.
  - quadrangle 11y ago
    You obviously have no clue how to understand reductio ad absurdem. Also, if I were in a better mood right now, I would more carefully avoid being condescending. I don't mean to attack you personally. I just want to clarify: when someone makes a claim, and another person uses an extreme example that has identical logic to the claim but is obviously ludicrous, it proves that the claim is based on faulty logic. In this case, if you say something that implies that you can't criticize someone for trying to make a living, this comic proves you wrong by bringing up an example worth criticizing. Your idea of "oh, this extreme example? it applies to those I disagree with" amounts to "I'm rubber, you're glue" sort of childish nonsense.
    - gress 11y ago
      Sorry, you have no idea how reductio-ad-absurdism works. Reductio ad absurdum requires that the absurd conclusion is a consequence of the argument that you are trying to disprove when taken to extremes. You haven't done that. You've just posted a comic that is a flawed analogy to the point in question. If I was claiming that any behavior, however immoral, was justified by the need to make money, your argument would hold. But I don't claim that. I claim that the rational behavior of not selecting the GPL is supported by the argument that it might be against one's financial interest and the interests of a prosperous society to do so. Your reductio only works if you assert that the GPL is morally superior and not just pragmatically so. My comment about the comic stands - you are raising the choice of the GPL to the level of a moral choice. Why not just admit that?

An agenda such as putting food on the table.

by gress 11y ago

An agenda such as putting food on the table.

theseatoms 11y ago

A reason that can be used for literally any profit-seeking endeavor.

indlebe 11y ago

How does permissive licensing put food on the table for those who created the code? If anything wouldn't it have the opposite effect?

err4nt 11y ago
I put a simple, self-contained HTML/JS/CSS scratchpad (think JsFiddle, Codepen) on Github without a licence. I was contacted because somebody saw the project and wanted to use it to help teach a classroom HTML, but only if the licence was good. I quickly put it under MIT, which means though I never saw changes back - something I did helped somebody else teach a class of people HTML. That's doesn't put food on my table, but the same effort from me under a bad licence would have meant that good likely would not have come from my efforts. If you can have passive income projects that sit there and generate revenue over time without further input, why can't you have passive charitable giving, where you put in effort once and others are able to get value from it over and over again as time goes on. Permissive licences pay it forward in a way that viral licences don't.
- indlebe 11y ago
  That doesn't at all address or relate to the question I asked, but instead provides a completely different talking point supporting permissive licenses as a charitable act.
  - err4nt 11y ago
    > That doesn't put food on my table, but the same effort from me under a bad licence would have meant that good likely would not have come from my efforts. Who is more likely to be hired for paying work: the guy whose code you have benefitted from or the guy whose code you haven't seen? I believe there is such thing as 'corporate stewardship' and companies ought to give back to the communities that host them. With remote work, and independent workers I believe that responsibility to give back falls on the individual. I've surely benefitted in my life from open-source software. My income depends on my use of it, so I feel not just a desire but a duty to release work for others in the same way. It's not direct, but the more code I put out there the more my industry thrives. The more my industry thrives the more work there is in it. The more work there is in my industry the easier it will be for me to find work. It's a roundabout way of doing it, but I like to think of it as watering the garden I get my food from, instead of harvesting it.
    - indlebe 11y ago
      Did you mean to reply to my comment? I can't tell. Regardless, all the reasons you're giving for why you prefer permissive open-source licenses also apply to the GPL.
      - err4nt 11y ago
        The viral nature of the GPL leaves a bad taste in my mouth like a ideological chain-letter! I like public domain, I like MIT, I like libPNG, but I don't like forcing ideology or licenses on people and THEIR code. Take it, learn from it, modify it, USE it. If I didn't want it to be taken and used I wouldbt bother to post it! The GPL gets in the way of that.
        indlebe 11y ago
        For the example you gave in response to my first reply the GPL license would have permitted them to do as they please. No-one forces a license on you, you choose what license your original code is under. If I would like to prevent my code from being taken and profited from that's also my right. The fact that you can choose what license your code is under is freedom. The non-permissive vs permissive license argument is a moot point, because the very arguments supporting permissive also support the right to use a license such as GPL.
        err4nt 11y ago
        The GPL has a viral clause that says that whatever code touches GPLed code must be GPLed as well. This is a deal-breaker for many people who may be working with code under different licenses without similar viral clauses already in their codebase. They don't necessarily have the right to GPL other people's code, so they have to forgo using the GPLed code. It's not just the GPL, this criticism applies to any licence with a viral clause. I understand that as an author I have copyright and ultimate freedom to licence my code under whatever I choose, but I choose to release my code under non-viral terms. It's not about posting changes back, I don't care if they fork it and run I just want people to use it. I see viral terms a huge roadblock to this type of creativity. So there's a solid argument for permissive licenses that excludes viral licenses like the GPL!
- jeena 11y ago
  Wait, why would it be a bad thing if they needed to publish the fixes for bugs they found? Wouldn't this be better for even more people in the future?
  - err4nt 11y ago
    Nowhere did I say it was bad if they had to post their changes, but in reality it just means they won't touch it, won't have changes to post, and they will keep looking for more permissive code to use. If a viral licence is an impediment to people using my work, then releasing it seems like a waste.
    - jeena 11y ago
      > If a viral licence is an impediment to people using my work, then releasing it seems like a waste. I don't agree, there are still enough people who will gain from it. Everyone who wants to learn, everyone who wants to give back, etc. that is not a waste at all, quite the opposite.

davexunit 11y ago

The argument that proprietary software is necessary otherwise programmers will starve is a very weak one.

gress 11y ago
The statement that someone else's argument is weak, is not an argument at all, let alone a weak one.

smhenderson 11y ago

I'm not talking about individual developers. I agree with the article's author when he says there is a place for both types of licenses and if a freelance or small team of developers choose a permissive license as a strategy to make money I respect that. I'm referring to mid to large size companies that simply want to take permissively licensed software and repackage and lock it up so they can increase share holder value. I'm talking about executives who have never developed a piece of software but are smart enough to monetize it on the backs of hobbyists and freelancers. I don't see how that puts food on anyone's table other than those who already have plenty. But, hey I come to HN for the debate so thanks for your comment, I respect your opinion.

konstruktor 11y ago

This is a perfectly valid agenda, but it doesn't entitle one to doing so using the results of somebody else's labour.

jcranmer 11y ago
Why are you releasing source if you don't want others to use the results of your labor?
- EdSharkey 11y ago
  Copyright holders do all kinds of wacky things. Who are you to judge?
krapp 11y ago
It does to the degree that the software license permits.

quadrangle 11y ago

http://mimiandeunice.com/2010/08/25/for-the-children/ http://mimiandeunice.com/2010/08/25/for-the-children/

gress 11y ago
That's a perfect reference - it illustrates how ludicrous it is that GPL advocates elevate the choice of license to the level of harming children.
- quadrangle 11y ago
  You obviously have no clue how to understand reductio ad absurdem. Also, if I were in a better mood right now, I would more carefully avoid being condescending. I don't mean to attack you personally. I just want to clarify: when someone makes a claim, and another person uses an extreme example that has identical logic to the claim but is obviously ludicrous, it proves that the claim is based on faulty logic. In this case, if you say something that implies that you can't criticize someone for trying to make a living, this comic proves you wrong by bringing up an example worth criticizing. Your idea of "oh, this extreme example? it applies to those I disagree with" amounts to "I'm rubber, you're glue" sort of childish nonsense.
  - gress 11y ago
    Sorry, you have no idea how reductio-ad-absurdism works. Reductio ad absurdum requires that the absurd conclusion is a consequence of the argument that you are trying to disprove when taken to extremes. You haven't done that. You've just posted a comic that is a flawed analogy to the point in question. If I was claiming that any behavior, however immoral, was justified by the need to make money, your argument would hold. But I don't claim that. I claim that the rational behavior of not selecting the GPL is supported by the argument that it might be against one's financial interest and the interests of a prosperous society to do so. Your reductio only works if you assert that the GPL is morally superior and not just pragmatically so. My comment about the comic stands - you are raising the choice of the GPL to the level of a moral choice. Why not just admit that?