[MildlySerious]

There really is no prize for being technically correct on this one.

Someone built this and is letting you have it. For free. There is no legal obligation or law of the universe here, sure, but if you're in the top 1% of benefactors of this pro bono work, you have the opportunity to do some good and make sure that others, like you, get the chance to benefit from this free work in the future.

There is a pretty straightforward argument to be made that this falls under the "with great power comes great opportunity" umbrella of moral reasoning, since this work empowered CA to create the game that earned him a lot of money.

[jimnotgym]

>but if you're in the top 1% of benefactors of this pro bono work, you have the opportunity to do some good and make sure that others

Including, of course, oneself. Keeping the project you depend on running is good business.

[skibidithink]

If every gift one gives out comes with a moral obligation, it'd be pretty selfish to give gifts.

[sneak]

There is no moral obligation, either - that’s my point. They chose to give it away for free. It’s the author’s explicit decision that there is no obligation placed on recipients.

Giving a fake gift that comes with unspoken strings attached (and “keeping score” in your head) is the passive-aggressive, immoral act. If reciprocity is expected, it is definitionally not a gift.

Releasing software under a free software license is a choice to give a gift to the world. If the author wanted moral obligation strings attached, the license would say that.

[nothrabannosir]

The license only says what you MUST and MUST NOT do. The comment you’re replying to talked about what they SHOULD do. These are different concepts and they are codified differently by humans: the former in licenses, the latter socially. You’re experiencing that process right now.

[andy99]

That’s certainly not a legal principle of any kind. It’s like the 17 pieces of flair thing, if they want you to have more, they should tell you, we don’t need some weird unspoken guidelines related to licenses, it’s why we have the license.

If I get tremendous value out of MS office 365 but my agreement with MS charges me only $15/month, should I donate some extra to them because of how much it helps my business?

[nothrabannosir]

> That’s certainly not a legal principle of any kind.

Correct!

Reread the original comment that kicked off this thread in that light and the overwhelming majority of replies and votes should hopefully make a lot more sense.

Edit: for the record:

> if they want you to have more, they should tell you, we don’t need some weird unspoken guidelines related to licenses,

Again check the original comment which wasn’t written by them but by a third party commenting on the state of a community.

Those unspoken guidelines aren’t any more or less weird than any other ones we share as humans. (Actually I’d say they’re far less so than most.)

[throw10920]

> the former in licenses, the latter socially. You’re experiencing that process right now.

No, he's not, because there's no social contract on the internet. Making these analogies between real-world communities and "the Internet" is an obviously stupid thing to do if you think about it for five seconds.

And not only is there no social contract on the Internet, but because of its nature there cannot be, and attempting (futilely) to implement one is extremely harmful.

So, as a result, the license is all there is. If you publish it as open-source, users have zero obligation to contribute. If you want revenue, then use a commercial license and sell it.

It should go without saying, but the insane mental backflips that open source advocates go to in order to make wild claims like this harms their position, not helps it. Don't make absurd statements to try to ignore the fact that asking for money for your software with an actual license is the only reasonable way to get money for your software - it'll just cause normal people to take the entire movement less seriously.

[nothrabannosir]

What is going on with the total lack of decorum in HN comments lately? Is this a new phenomenon or am I just now waking up to how incredibly rude some people here act towards strangers?

Is this a meta comment to demonstrate your belief that basic human mores don’t apply on the internet? Quite frankly I find it more of a refutation.

[throw10920]

Your response that contains only ad-hominem character attacks and fails to address even the weakest of my statements conclusively proves that your points are indefensible.

Neither is my comment particularly offensive. You seem to have trouble differentiating between refuting someone's points and attacking their character.

Maybe that's why you attacked me, because you wanted to argue with my points but can't tell the difference between the two?

[nothrabannosir]

I didn't address them because I don't want to :)

You're a fascinating character. If you're ever in New York let me know because I would love to see how you are in real life. I'm actually quite sure we'll get along after a bit of alignment! Weirder things have happened.

Stay blessed, my friend.

[sneak]

Where is the lack of decorum in the comment to which you are replying?

[oblio]

"You are being counseled at this very moment" :-))

[ekianjo]

> Someone built this and is letting you have it. For free.

That's the point of a FOSS license. You give the power back to the end users. This was purposefully chosen by the Monogame project.

[account42]

Sure, and a billionaire is allowed to rely on a soup kitchen for food but it's still a dick move and rightly criticized.