| ▲ | Joel_Mckay 2 days ago |
| For FOSS I personally prefer Apache 2.0 license, as 10 years from now I have no idea what people will need for their projects. Personally, it makes me happy if people can make a business using a bit of my work. Just don't redirect commercial support tickets onto community projects, or get neglected customers to contact authors. The way I see it... is symbiotic commercial relationships are important, as people can get their time sponsored to work on FOSS code. Also, having community projects form reliable long term infrastructure opens additional opportunity for people to work with FOSS options. Telling people how they should have fun is always lame... whether it is Sony/Microsoft... or just some disillusioned dude convinced their work won't be obfuscated by an LLM in 30 seconds. =3 |
|
| ▲ | broodbucket 2 days ago | parent | next [-] |
| >Personally, it makes me happy if people can make a business using a bit of my work Copyleft doesn't say that they can't, it says they have to make their changes available |
| |
| ▲ | Joel_Mckay 2 days ago | parent | next [-] | | I am mostly just an anti-contaminating license proponent. Porting to multiple platforms gets complicated if you include a 3rd party commercial library with a project that on linking demands it also become publicly accessible. For example, if someone wants to do something creative... they shouldn't have to cite 400 different peoples licenses. That isn't sustainable or fun. I will stick with Apache 2.0, but understand different folks have other use-cases =3 | | |
| ▲ | pocksuppet a day ago | parent [-] | | That is why the FSF invented just one GPL, and said everyone should use this one or later. Then when they invented another one, it was automatically compatible. This way, the license is compatible, and you don't have to give up any freedoms. | | |
| ▲ | Joel_Mckay a day ago | parent [-] | | GPL and LGPL works for a lot of people, but becomes a persistent issue when porting to other OS. They both still become a contaminating license if you have to static link something, embed 3rd party blobs, or even use icons for a consistent user interface experience. Having a less restrictive FOSS compatible license that doesn't obligate people to modify the general purpose libraries for their edge case has proven important. GPL only truly makes sense if targeting an OS supporting shared-object library paradigms. This is part of the reason why 95% of commercial Applications are running in an emulated/wrapper on the nix platforms. The year of the Linux Desktop is still a ways off, and the foundational library structures are under constant upgrade or permutation. Snap/Flatpak/AppImage and Docker/RancherVM were all designed to try and mitigate the compatibility chaos of perpetual nix Beta release cultures. It has some advantages, but also a lot of disadvantages similar to the Butterfly Effect bugs when something with the same name slightly changes behavior. =3 | | |
| ▲ | pocksuppet 5 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | The GPL excludes system libraries from contamination issues. | | |
| ▲ | Joel_Mckay 5 hours ago | parent [-] | | LGPL does not allow static linking without disclosure. It is why the wxWidgets has a license that allows creating monolithic commercial blob dependent binaries for Windows, Linux Gtk/X11, and MacOS. https://wxwidgets.org/about/licence/ People should not static link GPL/LGPL code to closed source blobs, and expect copyright/copyleft trolls to leave their project violating licenses. =3 |
| |
| ▲ | cindyllm a day ago | parent | prev [-] | | [dead] |
|
|
| |
| ▲ | knorker 2 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | Which could make the business untenable. I'm not GP commenter, but I do want to be useful to these too. And as others have said the deceptive term of "plugging the SaaS loophole" ignores that it means most software cannot be combined with it. Most. By far most. Sure, some people will say "well fuck that software". And that's a stance. But it ain't freedom. | | |
| ▲ | ghaff 2 days ago | parent [-] | | One problem is that people (mostly--we'll ignore the various edge cases) know what traditional *nix-style distribution looks like. No one knows what network interactions resolve to if someone with deep pockets and/or a grudge wants to file a lawsuit. So better to just run away. Use an AGPL license if you like but--and I'm not even a lawyer--but I'll probably just walk away. Your software is probably not that interesting to compensate for any risk. | | |
| ▲ | knorker a day ago | parent [-] | | Yup. As I said in another comment "I treat AGPL as a rabies infected animal. I may have uses for it, but I'll keep it EXTREMELY segregated from everything else". | | |
| ▲ | Joel_Mckay a day ago | parent [-] | | Indeed, keeping track of every shader/asset/texture under CC BY-SA 4.0 was a nonstarter. For media, 3D files, game FX, and icons it is only CC0 Public Domain projects we recommend to folks having fun. Keeping track of every Copyright and Copyleft trolls content demands is just too much work for small hobbies. =3 We also financially support people clearing barriers for future artists and creatives (clean Blender resources.) https://polyhaven.com/ And procedural textures with bake export (actually made Blender usable for mere mortals): https://sanctus.gumroad.com/l/SLibrary One of the problems we found was people reselling other peoples pirated works, or plug-ins for features already in Blender for free. Cons will always con regardless of community intentions. Make something fun and beautiful instead =3 | | |
| ▲ | ghaff a day ago | parent [-] | | There can be issues with public domain in Europe (moral rights you can't disclaim yada-yada in some non-common law countries). And, as I distantly recall, there were some issues with CC0 related to patents. MIT-0 would probably be my choice absent deep legal research into the topic (though I have discussed public domain as related to software with IP lawyers as related to a book I wrote). | | |
| ▲ | Joel_Mckay a day ago | parent [-] | | Trademarks are still a possible liability, which is why film sets use gaffers tape or stickers to cover equipment logos and branding. The photo can be CC0, but the coca-cola logo is still owned by a company. Patent claim sections are the only legal part at the end of the document, and may only cover functional or process facets of an innovation. Software patents are also only valid in certain jurisdictions. Generally speaking, if something has been time-stamped in the public domain you can challenge a patent for $2k. Since a global patent is around $240k to $600k each, most people would not want to take that bet with archive.org active. The Patent first-to-file changes under the US system may have altered the 17 organizations disclosure limit rules, but as far back as I can recall any patented technology older than 19 years is almost certainly public domain. =3 | | |
| ▲ | ghaff 17 hours ago | parent [-] | | Yes, especially in an actual commercial context (e.g. an ad on a billboard) companies are or should be very careful. I've had panicked last minute emails from organizations where some CC photo of mine was being slated to be used. I've said yes of course as they were usually some form of worthwhile charitable organization. I did even get a check once from a magazine but it was Canadian so that was very cute. (Sorry to any Canadians in the audience.) But there are a lot of, often unclear, rules related to publicity and model rights that are by no means clear across geographies. Even leaving aside Eiffel Tower light displays, I'm sure a lot of the photos I've taken in Europe and put up on Flickr or Facebook could be an issue if someone really wanted to pursue it. Organizations do often have disclaimers as part of event registrations as well but they're pretty pro-forma and a lawyer could probably argue that there was no meeting of the minds in any contract. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| ▲ | ricardobeat 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| This, for some reason, has become a controversial idea — as evidenced by your comment being downvoted. I don’t understand what angle people are coming from, when they disregard the community effects of open-source software entirely. If your main goal is to make money, there is absolutely nothing wrong with building a business instead. |
| |
| ▲ | Joel_Mckay 2 days ago | parent [-] | | If people have a rational self-interest in helping build great works, than the projects simply manifest out of necessity. There is zero benefit in assuming everything is a zero-sum game. With billions of people online someone is always having the best or worst day of their lives. I rather people be honest about what they think, and trust respectful disagreement is welcome. Have a great day =3 |
|
|
| ▲ | zelphirkalt 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| I think people getting time sponsored working on FOSS is quite rare. Would like to do that myself, but instead I just develop in my free time. |
| |
| ▲ | Joel_Mckay 2 days ago | parent [-] | | You mean you have never written or used FOSS applications at work? I find that very surprising, but I have seen some shops practice clean room coding policies. =3 | | |
| ▲ | zelphirkalt 2 days ago | parent | next [-] | | Yes, that's what I mean. I have used open source software before, and deployed it and so on, but no one has ever offered me to work 1 day a week or something like that during my job hours on an open source project, contributing something. Maybe at a future job. | |
| ▲ | cindyllm 2 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | [dead] |
|
|
|
| ▲ | xorcist 2 days ago | parent | prev [-] |
| > it makes me happy if people can make a business using a bit of my work It's an idea as old as any: The freedom to restrict the freedom of others, is it really a freedom? It is a tiresome debate. People can argue about it until the sun sets without reaching an agreement. Better to be clear about which kind of freedom you mean, and respect the choice of others. Plenty of businesses have been started around free software without necessarily restricting the freedoms of others. It is often argued that this constitutes a better approximation of a truly free market than the entry barriers intellectual property law can put up. |
| |
| ▲ | Joel_Mckay 2 days ago | parent [-] | | Philosophically, I see it as forced charity is no longer a true charity paradox. Or, a copyright troll is functionally indifferent from a copyleft troll. It is important to keep the path clear for kids to build their own success stories. =3 | | |
| ▲ | Brian_K_White 2 days ago | parent [-] | | Philosophically I see it as forced don't-murder is no longer true don't-murder. Why does it have to be forced? Why can't murder just be legal and if you want to murder that's fine and if you don't, that's fine too... It was not forced charity from the original author. They were free to choose any license. The original author is the only one in the position to choose to be charitable or not. No one else's opinion on charity matters. Rather being thoughtful and principled enough to choose a copyleft license is the truest charity of all and the most valuable for all other consumers forever after. It's forced on everyone else after that, but I see no problem with that because remind me again just what exactly is the terrible burden being forced again? If I get something from you and the only terms are not money but simply attribute and share-alike, that is not some burden. That's like saying the only terms are you can have this for free and you can use it for any purpose you want, but just promise not to punch me in the face. "What? Outrageous! It's totally unreasonable to make it a condition enforced by law that I can't punch you in the face and still take your stuff." | | |
| ▲ | Joel_Mckay 2 days ago | parent [-] | | >Philosophically I see it as forced don't-murder is no longer true don't-murder. I would suggest reading "A Clockwork Orange", as it highlights why compulsory ethics is no longer just without free will. Spoiler, even if people lobotomize a murderer to have their behavior meet an arbitrary definition of societal good it is just as unethical. >It's forced on everyone else after that, but I see no problem with that because remind me again just what exactly is the terrible burden being forced again? Adding what is effectively an end user copyright DRM submarine under the flag of FOSS is tantamount to sabotage. I do not see the distinction between copyright and copyleft trolls. They both demand end users give up freedoms to meet a selfish ideal. If someone wants to control how people use their stuff, than just stop calling it a FOSS work. Some seem very passionate about the subject, but I don't think anyone has ever been murdered over shitty code. =3 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T4Upf_B9RLQ | | |
| ▲ | Brian_K_White 2 days ago | parent [-] | | Quelle horreur! Ok buddy whatever you say. These arguments are so ridiculously invalid I'll trade you a Clockwork Orange for a "not even wrong" suggested google. Talk about "passionate about the subject" indeed. | | |
|
|
|
|
