|
|
|
|
|
by anon1385
4732 days ago
|
|
>The original post was (in so many words) trying to claim that all of the web companies using FOSS software and claiming to 'love Open Source' are being two-faced because none of their own software is release under a GPL license. This isn't about BSD/MIT style licences vs GPL style. The sources to most web apps are not available under any kind of licence. A few toy projects on github that nobody uses don't counterbalance spending all day working on non-free software. I do think a lot of these toy projects are motivated by a sense of guilt. You go in to work and spend all day working against free software, but you can tell yourself you are on the right side and 'contributing' if you share that script that downloads cat pictures. Your criticism is the same one that has been made against the GPL countless times. History has proven it wrong: Linux is a huge success, thanks to the GPL. The GNU GPL is not Mr. Nice Guy. It says "no" to some of the things that people sometimes want to do. There are users who say that this is a bad thing--that the GPL "excludes" some proprietary software developers who "need to be brought into the free software community." But we are not excluding them from our community; they are choosing not to enter. Their decision to make software proprietary is a decision to stay out of our community. Being in our community means joining in cooperation with us; we cannot "bring them into our community" if they don't want to join. What we can do is offer them an inducement to join. The GNU GPL is designed to make an inducement from our existing software: "If you will make your software free, you can use this code." Of course, it won't win 'em all, but it wins some of the time. -- RMS |
|
Even your example, Linux, has a leader that is more pragmatic about software licenses than some FOSS hard-liner.
You're missing the point here:1) Many people working for companies that don't open source their product contribute significantly to open source projects. E.g.:
- GvR worked for Google which is 'closed source' but I don't think that anyone considers Python a 'toy project on Github.'
- Kenneth Reitz created the awesome Python Requests library and works at Heroku, which doesn't release it's code as open source.
2) Not everyone can create some significant piece of open source software, even if they would like to. What is your dividing line between 'toy project' and 'serious project?'
3) Statements like these don't win people over. You're attacking people and making giant assumptions about their motivations. It pushes you so close to the troll territory that it becomes hard to distinguish if you are a troll parodying a FOSS hard-liner, or an actual FOSS hard-liner.