Most corporations are simply unable to contribute back. But within the IT industry I would disagree that most corporations simply leach.
Netflix, LinkedIn, Twitter, Facebook, Apple for example have been outstanding contributors to "open source".
Netflix, LinkedIn, Twitter, Facebook, Apple for example have been outstanding contributors to "open source".
Yes, there are Netflix, LinkedIn, Twitter, Facebook, Apple and a few others.
And how many corporations are there in the world?
A plausible counterargument is that these types of companies wouldn't contribute back anyway: they just aren't interested. In that case the practical choice is between letting them free-ride off your code (BSD) or not letting them use it at all (GPL), because they aren't going to make a choice that involves contributing back, regardless of your license. In that case I can see people leaning towards BSD. But I'd personally lean towards GPL, because I think that, at least often, shutting these companies out of the ability to use open-source code would probably be a net win for society. But it's hard to prove that. And this probably depends significantly on your goals and the kind of software you write.
I release all my personal code under some flavor of GPL - LLGPL, LGPL, or AGPL3 - because I personally refuse to let my work be exploited like that.
One could argue that making a successful open source project makes the original developer "wanted" in terms of employment, paid support requests, paid consulting... And choosing leeching-friendly license helps in achieving that.
Why?
Two guesses, though. 1. To a significant extent it's just reducing the cost structure of BigCorp IT spending, which [note: unproven] in most cases I suspect mainly benefits profit margins and capital investors, though it may to some extent benefit others as well. 2. A significant proportion of these products are backed by corporations who are aggressive users of the copyright and patent systems. The flipside of the developer freedom of the BSD license is that it leaves the developer full freedom to restrict the freedom of users by suing users who dare modify, reverse-engineer, or produce software similar to the software the company produces. The GPL, particularly GPLv3 with its patent clause, complicates the ability of a company to incorporate my software into code they plan wield as a weapon in IP lawsuits, whereas they can roll BSD-licensed code into their legal weapons mostly unhindered.
Also, your post contains a very common myth: "the BSD license is that it leaves the developer full freedom to restrict the freedom of users". It does no such thing. The only thing the BSD license restricts is your ability to use the code without including the license like it says.
Also: you've simply restated my "myth" to say something that to me seems equivalent. The BSD license allows companies to take my code, and build it into software packages which they subsequently use as a basis for patent and copyright lawsuits. That is, one "freedom" the BSD license does not restrict is a developer's "freedom" to file copyright and patent lawsuits against users of the software. I do not believe that is a valuable freedom, and do not want to assist with that behavior. I am fine with people using my code to build other products, as long as they agree not to sue downstream users for violating their patents, violating the DMCA, and similar things. The GPL is an imperfect hack to try to meet that criteria, but imo it's often better than nothing.
It is possible they could do all that without my assistance anyway, of course. They could build things entirely from scratch and then sue users of the software. But I don't want to help make it easier.
But your very first words clearly state otherwise: "As I noted it's hard to prove".
>Imo it's harmful for society at large because: 1. all else equal, helping to shift the proportion of returns that go to capital vs. labor is negative for society; and 2. assisting companies in building products that they will use as a basis for IP lawsuits is negative for society.
This does not answer the question, it simply makes more. Why do you think those things are negative for society. And why do you think they are related to the question at hand, much less a direct result of the use of free software?
>you've simply restated my "myth" to say something that to me seems equivalent
No. You restated it. I did nothing of the sort.
>The BSD license allows companies to take my code, and build it into software packages which they subsequently use as a basis for patent and copyright lawsuits
So does the GPL. You are very mistaken if you believe that free software can remove people's right to sue others. Both in the sense that you can not remove people's right to sue and in the sense that if you could, that would not be free in any sense of the word.
>That is, one "freedom" the BSD license does not restrict is a developer's "freedom" to file copyright and patent lawsuits against users of the software.
There is no "developer" vs "user". They are the same thing. That is one of the fundamental facts the GPL was conceived on. You are creating a non-existent category of people who you feel should not have freedoms. Neither the BSD license or its cousins (MIT, ISC, etc) nor the GPL in any version makes any such arbitrary distinction between "developers" and "users".
>The GPL is an imperfect hack to try to meet that criteria
No it is not. You are both grossly misrepresenting the GPL, and attacking free software. This behavior is expected from people who oppose free software, it is appalling from people who purport to support it.
>They could build things entirely from scratch and then sue users of the software. But I don't want to help make it easier.
This only explains why you choose to not write free software. That is not what I asked about. I would like to know why you think free software is a negative for society. How did society lose out by apple using free software in its operating system? How did society lose out by the billions of devices out there running openssh?
I suggest reading the FSF's explanation of why the GPL exists. One of the reasons is: because free software means that downstream users have the right to use and modify software. That is a freedom. The right to keep other people from using and modifying software is, by contrast, not a legitimate freedom. Invoking copyright and patent law are two common ways people attempt to use the legal system to restrict other people's use of their own computers.
The GPL attempts to disarm such attack routes by requiring you to pass on, to all subsequent downstream users, the same right to use and modify the software that you yourself received. The BSD license by contrast, allows you to sue downstream users who modify the software for copyright infringement, because you didn't grant them a license. For example, OSX is built on FreeBSD, which is free software. But because it's BSD-licensed, Apple can prohibit me from distributing modified versions of OSX, and can invoke the DMCA to prevent me from reverse-engineering it in certain ways. That's a "freedom" the BSD license allows Apple to retain, to use the power of the state to restrict my freedom.
My post is very direct and clear, and contains absolutely no hyperbole. Rather than make up nonsense to try to dismiss what I said, if you feel you can not respond without further embarrassing yourself then simply opt not to. The fact that you have yet to answer my very simple direct question, and instead want to try to weasel more FUD against free software in is quite telling. But now I have a new question. Since BSD licensed code is so bad for society, I assume you don't use openssh, or X Windows, or apache, or nginx, or any of the other massively important BSD licensed software millions of people benefit from?
>I suggest reading the FSF's explanation of why the GPL exists.
I suggest you try to be less condescending when trying to convince people to buy into your lies.
>The right to keep other people from using and modifying software is, by contrast, not a legitimate freedom.
Words have meaning. They still have the meaning even if you do not like it. Freedom means freedom. Not "only freedoms I approve of". Your statement is every bit as absurd as people claiming the freedom to prevent others from entering your home is not a "legitimate freedom".
>The GPL attempts to disarm such attack routes by requiring you to pass on, to all subsequent downstream users, the same right to use and modify the software that you yourself received
No, it passes down an obligation, not a right. Not a freedom.
>The BSD license by contrast, allows you to sue downstream users who modify the software for copyright infringement
No, the BSD license does not prevent you from suing people who modify your code. You have no ability to sue people for modifying the BSD licensed code. You are resorting to the oldest and most obviously incorrect FUD technique, one which even RMS has requested GPL fanatics refrain from repeating. My code that uses BSD licensed code is not the BSD licensed code I used. Nothing done to my code has any effect on the BSD licensed code. It can not be "made closed" or any such nonsense.
>But because it's BSD-licensed, Apple can prohibit me from distributing modified versions of OSX, and can invoke the DMCA to prevent me from reverse-engineering it in certain ways.
That would still be true if they did not use BSD licensed code. That's the point. Nothing is lost here. The only thing that changed is instead of apple writing code, they used existing code which due to age and examination is almost certainly of higher quality than anything apple could have produced in such a short time span. So users of apple software got better software, and nobody lost out on anything. Hardly seems a negative to society.
>That's a "freedom" the BSD license allows Apple to retain, to use the power of the state to restrict my freedom.
Apple is not restricting your freedom. The government is, via copyright law. You feel so entitled to other people's work that you conflate "someone did not grant me additional rights above and beyond those I already have" with "someone is restricting my freedom".
When a person or company makes use of a legal process to restrict someone's freedom, I think it's fair to blame both the law and the person using it. You don't get a free pass on unethical actions just because they are currently legal in a particular jurisdiction.
> You feel so entitled to other people's work
I feel entitled only to freedom to use my own personal property without restriction. If I purchase a computer, I own it and can do whatever I want with it. If I buy a MacBook Pro, I can legitimately open it up, modify it, replace components, modify the installed operating system or software, etc., etc. I can also share photographs, schematics, disassemblies, and anything else I want to document this process. It's my computer. If you, Apple, or anyone else tries to get the government to stop me from doing so, you are in the wrong, even if you try to dress up your intrusion on my personal property with made-up terms like "intellectual property", EULAs, and whatever other bullshit they come up with.
I do think it would be preferable to simply repeal "intellectual property" laws rather than have to try to use things like the GPL to work around them. In that world, the BSD license would be fully free, too. But licensing software as GPL is something I can do easily as an individual, while getting stupid laws repealed is considerably more difficult, so it's the pragmatic workaround for now.
They are not. You are still pretending things are backwards. They are not doing anything to you, they are simply not giving you privileges.
>You don't get a free pass on unethical actions
You have not made an argument to support the notion that "selling software" is an unethical action.
>If I purchase a computer, I own it and can do whatever I want with it. If I buy a MacBook Pro, I can legitimately open it up, modify it, replace components, modify the installed operating system or software, etc., etc. I can also share photographs, schematics, disassemblies, and anything else I want to document this process. It's my computer.
None of that is even remotely relevant. You are free to do those things. They have nothing to do with BSD licensed software. It is hard to see your red herrings get further and further from any sense of relevancy and still believe you are not being deliberately dishonest.
>I do think it would be preferable to simply repeal "intellectual property" laws rather than have to try to use things like the GPL to work around them
The GPL does not work around them. The GPL requires copyright law to achieve its impositions. Without copyright law, people would simply not give you the source and there would be nothing you could do about it.
And don't fool yourself that GPL means companies cannot use it or include it in their products. Many do, even following the letter and spirit license agreement. As a quick example, OpenEye released openbabel under GPL; now their biggest competitor, Schrodinger, uses openbabel in products with the modifications released as a fork on github where the product is developed[1].
(Current employer has been better, and I've submitted a few improvements to libraries I use)
"Android" can have conflicting definitions, but AOSP is certainly OSS.