[mful]

> Are you willing to release your code, both in the sense of putting it out into the world and emancipating it from your ownership? Do you accept that your code could be renamed, rebranded, repackaged, rented, traded or sold? Would you be happy if your code made someone else rich, famous or successful while you saw no benefit at all?

I suspect it's a lot easier to say "yes" to these questions when you're just starting out (and thus picking a license) than when you see a bunch of other co's profiting signficantly more than you are.

This seems to be an attempt to fix that mistake (I wonder if the Redis creators would call their license choice a mistake?). Like a train gone off the rails, there are probably only messy solutions that no one is super happy about at this point.

[jaredklewis]

I think you are probably right. When starting the project, creators value their work very little, but value any attention given to their project very highly, thus a permissive license makes sense. Only after success hits do they regret it.

Even so, if someone was seeking fame and fortune through OSS (a somewhat foolish mission, but whatever), I would still probably recommend they release their software with a permissive license as companies are far more willing to get on board with MIT/Apache licensed software. I mean just look at the incredible amount of hate Facebook got for having the gall to offer a free patent grant with gasp a condition that you not sue them.

The best way to personally profit from OSS is very oblique. Assuming you make a kind of software useful to businesses like Redis (not end user software), it can look very good on a resume, can help you land some speaking gigs, maybe a book deal, and so on. If you build up your reputation like that, it should be possible to land a cushy, high paying job at a tech company somewhere or high paying support consulting.

[jondubois]

This is true. Most people who start an open source project don't do it for financial reasons. Usually they want to learn, to build a reputation or to create a good product just for the sake of it.

Later, after many years, the developer sees other companies making a lot of money using their OSS project but they themselves are basically broke; they're forced to work for other companies during the day and they still need to spend nights and weekends to maintain their OSS project on the side.

I'm in this situation right now but actually I'm very happy that companies are making money on top of my OSS project; I'm 100% certain that these companies would not have used my project if it wasn't MIT open source licensed.

Most companies who used my project had alternatives in the form of other OSS projects or third party services so they put a lot of trust in me and my project at the beginning. People underestimate how hard it is to compete at the beginning... Even if you're giving away product for free; it's really hard.

Just try to launch an OSS project on GitHub and try to get it to 1000 stars; I see lots of people try all the time but almost none of them make it.

[zeveb]

> I'm 100% certain that these companies would not have used my project if it wasn't MIT open source licensed.

Nope, instead they'd have hired you or a programmer like you — or figured out a way to make money from GPLed code.

The trouble with the MIT & BSD licenses is that they encourage corporations to freeload. That's why Google, Facebook, Amazon & Apple love them so much.

The great thing about the GPL is that it levels the playing field. We all get to share in a software commons.

[jondubois]

In spite of the MIT license and my project having thousands of GitHub stars, it took several years before any big reputable company started actually using it.

The problem is that if tou want to make an impact in your industry, you need big companies to be using your project; to achieve this, you need to distribut your project under a license that they like.

[Retra]

>they still need to spend nights and weekends to maintain their OSS project on the side.

They don't, though. They can simply stop working on it and say "pay me if you want updates from me."

[filmor]

Facebook got hate for making the patent grant skewed, i.e. you have no right to sue them for /any/ patent of yours that they use in return for not being sued for the /specific/ patents that cover React etc.

[jaredklewis]

Nope. Nothing in the patent clause made any restrictions on your right to sue Facebook.

It simply made the patent grant conditional on not suing them for patent infringement. i.e. if you want Facebook to pay royalties on your patent, you would have to pay royalties on their patents. If that’s not reciprocal, what the hell is?

[filmor]

Let's try again:

- If you, as the licensee, sue Facebook on /any/ of their patents (not just on the ones that are subject to the patent grant), the license terminates immediately. - On the other hand, if Facebook, as the licensor, is only promising not to sue based on the /specific/ granted patents.

The "any" vs "specific" part is what people where annoyed about.

[colejohnson66]

Are those clauses even enforceable?

[falcolas]

When the only way to find out is to incur legal fees sufficient to put most small companies out of business, does it matter if it's enforceable?

[icc97]

This seems similar to how young singers and musicians end up stuck in bad contracts.

[thijsvandien]

And yet, being demanding from the beginning is a good way to never get that first contract.

[Boulth]

Note that if you required CLAs that allowed license change you can change it later (e.g. OpenText did that). If you just accepted contributions you can't change the license without agreement from all contributors.

[Xylakant]

Depends on the license. You can just fork a MIT project and incorporate it in a project with a different license. The MIT licensed part would still be MIT licensed, but any newly written code not. Makes little to l no practical difference.