6 ms·

Warning: using a permissive license like BSD or MIT will make certain people hate you. I was a bit shocked to discover this.

akama 13y ago
Who gets mad for this reason?
- sillysaurus2 13y ago
  I apologize that my original comment was lightweight and lacking sources. If I make such a claim, I should back it up with sources. I'm about to fall asleep though, and I don't remember where precisely I saw it. Within the last couple months, there was a pretty big discussion featuring BSD licensers vs GPL licensers. If I remember correctly, the GPLers were saying that by using BSD, one enables software freedoms to be taken away, and therefore BSD and MIT licenses should be strongly opposed.
  - deleted 13y ago
    [deleted]
  - nknighthb 13y ago
    These "discussions" happen all the time, so I have no idea which one you're referring to, but the only reason anyone on the GPL side "gets mad" is because those on the BSD side whine childishly whenever someone puts something under the GPL.
    - stephenr 13y ago
      As opposed to GPL & Toejam afficianados alike, who basically claim any license except GPL3 is the work of the devil, because I, a developer, dare to give someone other downstream developer, the choice to distribute derivative works how they see fit. GPL perponents always claim its about "freedom". But it's one specific type of freedom, to the exclusion of all others.
      - nknighthb 13y ago
        Actually, at the moment, it's about the freedom of the developer of software to choose the license their code is offered under. GPL advocates make arguments for use of GPL. BSD advocates, as you've just demonstrated, prefer ad hominem attacks on RMS when they don't get what they selfishly feel entitled to.
        stephenr 13y ago
        > it's about the freedom of the developer of software to choose the license their code is offered under except, according to RMS and his fans, any choice but GPL is "wrong".
        nknighthb 13y ago
        So what? Lots of people think lots of things are wrong that lots of other people disagree with. That has nothing to do with anything I've said. You may want to make this thread about opinion and morality, since you can't "win" any other way, but that's not at all what it's about. The subjective merits of licenses are not at issue in any way, shape, or form.
        stephenr 13y ago
        > You may want to make this thread about opinion and morality, since you can't "win" any other way Sorry my name isn't RMS. I don't have to "win".
        belorn 13y ago
        That is false, and now you are representing someone else opinion incorrecly. Would you like having other saying "according to stephenr and people like him, he thinks ..." "Releasing your code under one of the BSD licenses, or some other permissive non-copyleft license, is not doing wrong*" - last sentence at https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/why-copyleft.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/why-copyleft.html "Is not doing wrong", the Exact word for word opposite to your claim. Now please tell that you are sorry for misrepresenting someone else opinion and promise never to do it again. It is a shameful act.
  - tmikaeld 13y ago
    I think it is the fact that some companies create crippleware open source project where parts of the core are open source and additional key parts are licensed under a sub-license that requires payment. Also, MIT and BSD doesn't enforce you to share added changes, fixes or additions to a project because of this - thus, hurting the open source community by the project not gaining (possibly) important or significant changes. From a company standpoint, this makes sense if the parts are large and costed a lot to develop. Some companies eventually make these parts available eventually, some don't though - possible because open sourcing something that you initially charge for, could piss some customers off when they realize that they could have gotten it free.
rbanffy 13y ago
The author is the one most likely to be upset when slightly rebranded versions of the program hit the app store.
spdegabrielle 13y ago
Warning, if you use a viral licence like GPL some (different) people will hate you.

akama 13y ago

Who gets mad for this reason?

sillysaurus2 13y ago
I apologize that my original comment was lightweight and lacking sources. If I make such a claim, I should back it up with sources. I'm about to fall asleep though, and I don't remember where precisely I saw it. Within the last couple months, there was a pretty big discussion featuring BSD licensers vs GPL licensers. If I remember correctly, the GPLers were saying that by using BSD, one enables software freedoms to be taken away, and therefore BSD and MIT licenses should be strongly opposed.
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
- nknighthb 13y ago
  These "discussions" happen all the time, so I have no idea which one you're referring to, but the only reason anyone on the GPL side "gets mad" is because those on the BSD side whine childishly whenever someone puts something under the GPL.
  - stephenr 13y ago
    As opposed to GPL & Toejam afficianados alike, who basically claim any license except GPL3 is the work of the devil, because I, a developer, dare to give someone other downstream developer, the choice to distribute derivative works how they see fit. GPL perponents always claim its about "freedom". But it's one specific type of freedom, to the exclusion of all others.
    - nknighthb 13y ago
      Actually, at the moment, it's about the freedom of the developer of software to choose the license their code is offered under. GPL advocates make arguments for use of GPL. BSD advocates, as you've just demonstrated, prefer ad hominem attacks on RMS when they don't get what they selfishly feel entitled to.
      - stephenr 13y ago
        > it's about the freedom of the developer of software to choose the license their code is offered under except, according to RMS and his fans, any choice but GPL is "wrong".
        nknighthb 13y ago
        So what? Lots of people think lots of things are wrong that lots of other people disagree with. That has nothing to do with anything I've said. You may want to make this thread about opinion and morality, since you can't "win" any other way, but that's not at all what it's about. The subjective merits of licenses are not at issue in any way, shape, or form.
        stephenr 13y ago
        > You may want to make this thread about opinion and morality, since you can't "win" any other way Sorry my name isn't RMS. I don't have to "win".
        belorn 13y ago
        That is false, and now you are representing someone else opinion incorrecly. Would you like having other saying "according to stephenr and people like him, he thinks ..." "Releasing your code under one of the BSD licenses, or some other permissive non-copyleft license, is not doing wrong*" - last sentence at https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/why-copyleft.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/why-copyleft.html "Is not doing wrong", the Exact word for word opposite to your claim. Now please tell that you are sorry for misrepresenting someone else opinion and promise never to do it again. It is a shameful act.
- tmikaeld 13y ago
  I think it is the fact that some companies create crippleware open source project where parts of the core are open source and additional key parts are licensed under a sub-license that requires payment. Also, MIT and BSD doesn't enforce you to share added changes, fixes or additions to a project because of this - thus, hurting the open source community by the project not gaining (possibly) important or significant changes. From a company standpoint, this makes sense if the parts are large and costed a lot to develop. Some companies eventually make these parts available eventually, some don't though - possible because open sourcing something that you initially charge for, could piss some customers off when they realize that they could have gotten it free.

rbanffy 13y ago

The author is the one most likely to be upset when slightly rebranded versions of the program hit the app store.

spdegabrielle 13y ago

Warning, if you use a viral licence like GPL some (different) people will hate you.