5 ms·

It is a very sad story. Our company committed to open sourcing all of our code (it's in the web3/blockchain space), and we had, and continue to have, spirited

It is a very sad story. Our company committed to open sourcing all of our code (it's in the web3/blockchain space), and we had, and continue to have, spirited discussions about which parts we should maybe license differently, as they contain novel IP. But my main question is: if your code is open-sourced, and the community contributed: fixes, features, actual new products - what gives you the right to close it? Are you going to go back and compensate every contributor? How can you justify revenue made on the backs of contributors. Side note: if what Prusa is alleging about Chinese patents given for open-source code produced in the west, and then having international priority, is true, I think the UN (or whoever handles international patents) should look into that. We can't control what goes on in China, but we can damn well make sure no Chines company makes money outside of China, with co-opted IP.

traverseda 3y ago
>if your code is open-sourced, and the community contributed: fixes, features, actual new products - what gives you the right to close it? Typically you're not able to close source existing code, once it's open it's open. What you can do is make the changes going forward proprietary. Depending on if you got a contributor-license-agreement you may not be able to close source the community contributions, but if the code was licensed under something non-viral like MIT or BSD you have as much right to close source it as literally anyone else does. I guess I really don't understand the question. You have the rights as outlined in the license, people who contribute agree to those license terms.
- yjftsjthsd-h 3y ago
  There's a legal vs moral distinction there. Legally, you can generally relicense (or add licenses, at least) on permissively-licensed code, or you can force the issue by requiring a CLA that just makes you the owner of everything. However, a person could reasonably argue that you still are morally in the wrong for taking something given to you for free and charging for it.
  - traverseda 3y ago
    Personally that's why if I'm going to contribute to open source I'm probably going to contribute to GPL/AGPL projects. I don't begrudge people who want to license their OSS code under something like the MIT or BSD licenses though. I think that software developers are probably the kind of people who can know what deal their actually getting if anyone can.
    - reaperman 3y ago
      Getting GPLv2 Compliance From A Chinese Company- In Person! [0] 0: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vj04MKykmnQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vj04MKykmnQ Edit: NSFW (but still compliant with YouTube obscenity standards)
      - traverseda 3y ago
        The above is NSFW
        loup-vaillant 3y ago
        On what grounds? The crop top? The denim shorts? The enhanced boobs? Man, this discrimination is just disgusting.
      - HeyLaughingBoy 3y ago
        I'm at work. Let me guess, this is on Naomi's channel :-)
        reaperman 3y ago
        Of course! Didn’t realize it would prove so controversial here on HN. Figured most everyone would already be familiar with her shtick, especially in context of discussion on open source hardware. But I should remind myself these wouldn’t be eternally relevant controversies if it were possible to reach a consensus.

traverseda 3y ago

>if your code is open-sourced, and the community contributed: fixes, features, actual new products - what gives you the right to close it? Typically you're not able to close source existing code, once it's open it's open. What you can do is make the changes going forward proprietary. Depending on if you got a contributor-license-agreement you may not be able to close source the community contributions, but if the code was licensed under something non-viral like MIT or BSD you have as much right to close source it as literally anyone else does. I guess I really don't understand the question. You have the rights as outlined in the license, people who contribute agree to those license terms.

yjftsjthsd-h 3y ago
There's a legal vs moral distinction there. Legally, you can generally relicense (or add licenses, at least) on permissively-licensed code, or you can force the issue by requiring a CLA that just makes you the owner of everything. However, a person could reasonably argue that you still are morally in the wrong for taking something given to you for free and charging for it.
- traverseda 3y ago
  Personally that's why if I'm going to contribute to open source I'm probably going to contribute to GPL/AGPL projects. I don't begrudge people who want to license their OSS code under something like the MIT or BSD licenses though. I think that software developers are probably the kind of people who can know what deal their actually getting if anyone can.
  - reaperman 3y ago
    Getting GPLv2 Compliance From A Chinese Company- In Person! [0] 0: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vj04MKykmnQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vj04MKykmnQ Edit: NSFW (but still compliant with YouTube obscenity standards)
    - traverseda 3y ago
      The above is NSFW
      - loup-vaillant 3y ago
        On what grounds? The crop top? The denim shorts? The enhanced boobs? Man, this discrimination is just disgusting.
    - HeyLaughingBoy 3y ago
      I'm at work. Let me guess, this is on Naomi's channel :-)
      - reaperman 3y ago
        Of course! Didn’t realize it would prove so controversial here on HN. Figured most everyone would already be familiar with her shtick, especially in context of discussion on open source hardware. But I should remind myself these wouldn’t be eternally relevant controversies if it were possible to reach a consensus.