undefined | Better HN

0 pointsjandrewrogers11mo ago0 comments

The great thing about permissive licenses is that it maximizes the utility of the code. I don’t care if someone makes a mountain of money by forking my permissively licensed code, that is in some sense the objective and I lose nothing by it.

This strain of rent-seeking behavior by some that open source their code but then believe they are entitled to compensation or forced contributions if the wrong people use it per license is distasteful and a bad look. It highlights the extent to which for many people the motivations behind their “open source” are not actually, you know, open source. For many, open source is about the utility of the source code and nothing more.

Licenses like AGPLv3 aren’t just about the utility of open source, they try to litigate concepts like fairness and justice at the same time, and open source isn’t a great venue for that.

0 comments

throwaway8746411mo ago

> I don’t care if someone makes a mountain of money by forking my permissively licensed code, that is in some sense the objective and I lose nothing by it.

What if your code is used to actively make the world worse? Is that part of your goal? There's no shortage of corporations making mountains of money doing exactly that, after all.

krupan11mo ago

I'm sorry, but you are way off base. Use is not restricted by GPL licenses. People have expressed desires to restrict use of GPL code (what if terrorists or pedophiles or Republicans use this code??) and Stallman and it's defenders have not allowed any restrictions of use.

jandrewrogersOP11mo ago

GPL code does not exist in a vacuum. To be maximally useful, GPL code must coexist with source code subject to different legal, regulatory, and licensing regimes. GPL use is only “not restricted” if you completely ignore that compliance with GPL can unavoidably result in civil and criminal liability. Sure, those potential users are not required to avoid civil and criminal liability but that is not a serious argument.

Permissive licenses generally allow source code to coexist within almost any legal scenario into which source code may be placed. This is why I only use permissive licenses both for my own open source and for the open source I use.

krupan11mo ago

I don't think you understand the difference between use and distribution, between running code and copying code.

All source code is automatically copyrighted and restricted (at least in the US) and you must follow copyright laws and license agreements for all source code that you copy and distribute. GPL licensed code is not special in this regard. How you use GPL software has zero restrictions.

1 more reply

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse

0 pointsjandrewrogers11mo ago0 comments

Licenses like AGPLv3 aren’t just about the utility of open source, they try to litigate concepts like fairness and justice at the same time, and open source isn’t a great venue for that.

0 comments

throwaway8746411mo ago

> I don’t care if someone makes a mountain of money by forking my permissively licensed code, that is in some sense the objective and I lose nothing by it.

What if your code is used to actively make the world worse? Is that part of your goal? There's no shortage of corporations making mountains of money doing exactly that, after all.

krupan11mo ago

jandrewrogersOP11mo ago

krupan11mo ago

I don't think you understand the difference between use and distribution, between running code and copying code.

1 more reply

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse