Slashdot Mirror
6 Reasons To License Software Under the (A/L)GPL
Henry V .009 writes with a link to Zed Shaw's "newest rant," which gives a cogent description of his reasons for choosing the not-always-popular GPL for his own code: "Honestly, how many of you people who use open source tell your boss what you're using? How many of you tell investors that your entire operation is based on something one guy wrote in a few months? How many of you out there go to management and say, 'Hey, you know there's this guy Zed who wrote the software I'm using, why don't we hire him as a consultant?' You don't. None of you. You take the software, and use it like Excalibur to slay your dragon and then take the credit for it. You don't give out any credit, and in fact, I've ran into a vast majority of you who constantly try to say that I can't code as a way of covering your ass."
Zed, man, we gotta talk. Your site has changed since Slashdot last led me to it. Back then I thought it was black and had huge scrawled letters over the top of it that said "Zed's So Fucking Awesome!" So what happened to ZSFA? Also, now when I click that link you seemed to have replaced your badass rant against people with an apologetic explanation of your "parody" and you won't grant poermission to publish it? That's a shame I quoted the best part on the Slashdot story.
What happened to you, man? You used to be cool! Where's all the in your face swearing and abrasiveness? You used to be hardcore! Your 'music' is so alive with raw power but now your site is somehow more respectable.
And now in your latest rant you're complaining that by writing Mongrel you weren't given a consulting job? You weren't handed a company to destroy? Well, way to stick it to the man, my friend. You seem to enjoy bashing the hell out of developers trying to get a job done for not standing up and screaming "Zed's So Fucking Awesome" but now you are complaining that didn't win you a job.
You, are a great software developer. Much better than I in all probability. You are a complete and utter asshole in nearly every other respect (yes, even in your music) and it should come as no surprise that you cannot land a job on a team. I would not pay money for your projects since I don't use them but I will send you $20 to stay in a hole, write software and restrict yourself from communicating with the outside world. Really, the world would be a better place.
My work here is dung.
I can't code is my excuse! Don't go messing that up for me! I have a good thing going.
Just because you are wrong and I called you out on it doesn't mean I am a Troll.
Licensing as BSD, MIT or Creative Commons Attribution is as much valid as a way to get recognition for your work as licensing as GPL. The only thing the later adds is that not only your work can be freely (as in the 4 freedoms) distributed but also the improvements on your work must also be.
If recognition is all you want, by all means, just choose any attribution license. If having your work used by the most people is more important, use a BSD style one. Now, if your goal is to assure that your code will be always free, use GPL, LGPL or AGPL.
Hey - don't forget that he's a boxer and could kick your ass, too.
Zed's dead baby, Zed's dead.
IranAir Flight 655 never forget!
But the days of quick-flip corporations and ingrate programmers making money on my software are over. My new motto is:
Open source to open source, corporation to corporation.
If you do open source, youâ(TM)re my hero and I support you. If youâ(TM)re a corporation, letâ(TM)s talk business.
A very sensible position, IMHO. Dual-licensing always seemed like a no-brainer to me.
"We receive as friendly that which agrees with, we resist with dislike that which opposes us" - Faraday
I like to implement open source, show them what it would've costed, and then ask the company to donate to the project so we can continue to get updates or support. Usually larger companies have some money sitting around so it's pretty easy to get 40-100 bucks to send to an individual for a good package. FYI, The last one we contributed to was jqGrid, because it's awesome.
Cool! Amazing Toys.
Oh my god, this is THAT loser?
Zed Shaw convinced me I never wanted anything to do with open source development. That very rant you just linked helped me decide it was better to use what was available then fuck off leaving open source in the dust. I concluded if you don't have complete, absolute control over your project then the Zed Shaws of the world are going to take all of your successes and mar them with whiny drama antics.
Slashdot does itself a great disservice publishing this sort of story. I suppose we shouldn't be surprised. Sometimes, no matter how bad you think a whiner is, he has supporters who want to keep hearing him whine.
Every chance I get to tell my manager that my team has used an OSS product for one thing or another, I mention it. I'm trying to get him to stop usign the term, "freeware" or "shareware" which implies something less than ideal.
Sure, we use multi-thousand dollar products for development, but there's always some tool, some image, some utility, some code that is just better and licensed under GPL or CL.
Like I always say, "why improvise when you can plagiarize."
The Kai's Semi-Updated Website Thingy
You forgot to repeatedly mention, and link to, his new project.
Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
Have you ever stopped to think that if you have fantastic technical skills and nobody will hire you, perhaps it isn't your technical skills that need work?
"I'd rather be a lightning rod than a seismometer." -Ken Kesey
I never heard of any of this guy's software, I don't use it, and I don't care. Sounds like he has an inflated sense of his own importance.
You don't even need to change it to resell it. That's how the license works.
I guess all the guys releasing code under the BSD license are slobbering idiots who can only benefit from your mighty opinion. It's too bad they didn't think the situation out as well as you did.
I could not agree more...
The BSD, MIT licenses (even if more open) are for mugs who end up having their code "stolen" !
By this I mean that some half-witted asshat will grab the source tree, make some minor changes to it and then resell it as his own work.
FUD less. Both the MIT and BSD licenses are "Attribution required" licenses. If the guys is passing it off as his own work and not giving you credit (as opposed to money), he's breaking the license.
You mean people are dishonest and misleading? Next thing you'll tell me is that politicians lie.
Technically, it's part of the risk of writing OSS. You know going in that someone somewhere will capitalize and profit from your hard work and sweat. If you feel that is the case and it bothers you, change the license and charge for the product. And when an OSS is used, I see it more used as a starting point to tackle a unique issue that can't be solved by any existing product. When that comes into play, whatever code I needed to add/change, I submit it back to the OSS developer.
There are no loopholes. It's either legal or it's not.
Mod me a troll if you want, but the GPL has aboslutely NOTHING to do with his complaints. The GPL will not guarantee him to be hired, or his code praised. His attribution rights are the same as under an LGPL or BSD license. He is still just as liable to be called a hapless codemonkey who produces nothing but broken code, as if he had released under any other license. People will use his code to cover their asses in exactly the same fashion, whether its GPL or BSD or any other license. ALL the GPL does is make the code of the company free just as his code was free.
A GPL supporter uses it to keep software free. If your expectation of it is to somehow improve your career or reputation that you otherwise cannot support, you are not a free software enthusiast, you're just a loser.
The way the GPL has turned out is:
You use a product written by people who didn't foresee what you were going to use it for and they end up integrating changes to benefit someone whose use they didn't foresee. By keeping the code free over the long haul you get fascinating cooperation at the code level.
Oh God! I hate whining bastards! They just WHINE WHINE WHINE!
Fuck systemd. Fuck Redhat. Fuck Soylent, too. Wait, scratch the last one.
Yeah, if only those BSD and MIT licenses would somehow protect the credit of the authors. I don't know. Maybe they could have a condition saying something like: redistribution must reproduce the copyright notices. If only...
"Give me six lines of C++ code written by the most competent programmer, and I will find enough in there to hang him."
Here's some good advice for anybody who does anything creative, be it programming,art, writing a story, anything...
Do _not_ create something and then expect the masses upon which you bestow your baby to be happy.
I've seen tons of open source coders quit because their public was only complaining about features and bugs. So don't start out with such expectations. You should create something because _you_ want to make something. If anybody praises you afterward then count your lucky stars. But the only way how you can remain a creative person is by doing it for yourself in the first place.
I'm sure some of my code/programs are being used in the wild. And that makes me happy. I haven't gotten a lot of positive feedback, but that's ok. I'm happy because writing it made me happy.
Heck, the BSDL even protects you from GPL projects hijacking your code. :)
This is a new one on me, unless you mean the old 4-clause one. Do elaborate. I am interested.
"How many of you tell investors that your entire operation is based on something one guy wrote in a few months?"
Yeah, I'm sure there are so many companies like this. Maybe small companies use OSS, but do these small companies have a developer on staff? I don't think so. This sounds like a fantasy made up by some little kid who has no clue how the things really work. Show me one company that has it's "entire operation" based on software simple enough to be made by one person in a few months. I'd love to see it.
I rate this story a -5 Delusional Troll.
HR Person (to Zed): "We see on your resume that one has paid you to do rails development in the last year and a half, and that you've been writing some "mongrel" thing in your spare time. We're really looking for someone with more relevant and recent Ruby-on-Rails experience."
This is nothing more than typical programmer entitlement EGO issues.
I want credit for this, I want credit for that, I want a job at your company, because I made XXX.
But what about the OTHER people who made YYY, so YOU could do XXX?
What about all the other libraries, API's, and documentation YOU used? Did you give credit to them?
Get off the high-horse, and get rid of all this entitlement you THINK you deserve.
"There is no honor among theives," as the saying goes.
I've had the displeasure of witnessing senior management at my company throw a fit over the fact that a key piece of code that we needed was GPL'd. At the time, I was pissed too, as our schedule was at risk. "If you're going to tease us with this working and tested subsystem, it should be 'licensed' so that we can use it."
Then after the deadline passed I stepped back and thought, "My gawd, we were angry that someone published their code for all to see, but we were forced to read it, understand what it does before implementing a similar (but wholely custom) mechanism." We should've been ecstatic that we didn't have to reinvent the wheel from the ground up, but being the selfish, ungrateful users of open source that we are, we got mad that we actually have to put some effort into doing it. I'm ashamed.
Gone are the days of, "if its not invented here, we don't trust it." Now it's, "You invented that?!!!?1one!!! Why didn't you use an open source project?"
It is your choice. Be larger than life or become mediocre. Greatness is NOT easy. That is why we don't have many great people. It isn't even within everyone's reach in their lifetimes. It is perfectly fine to not be great. At least you yearned for it. But if you want to be considered larger than life, life will ask of you a sacrifice.
It is your choice...It takes a certain kind of person to, for example, write open source for either the simple pleasure of writing it or for the simple pleasure of making things better. Not all of us are that person, and that's okay.
Life is about being a Phoenix!
I didn't particularly like the rant, but those licenses (except for old 4 clause BSD) DON'T have such a thing, UNLESS you're delivering source. Pay attention -- the guy is ranting about people who DON'T deliver source.
I seldom log in to Slashdot yet I did after reading your words. I think you're right on, but then again I also have problems with pent up anger.
Haha nice, one of the best movies ever.
v3 is Stallman's attempts at controlling hardware through the copyright regime.
close. v3 is Stallman's (actually it was written by many thousand of volunteers world-wide) attempt to not let hardware control the software.
Because you'll never get recognized in a corporate environment. It doesn't matter if the GPL portion is 1 line out of a million written by paid developers, all those millions of lines have to be made available because they were so "blessed" with your greatness for a tiny portion of the project. There are no shortage of non-viraly licensed projects out there that I don't need your GPL version.
There are a ridiculous number of GPL projects that are essentially trying to copyright "hello world." And an even more absurd number of GPL projects out there that just simply don't work. You can't throw trash out there, expect everyone else to fix it for you and then demand credit for "your work."
If you license your code in away that doesn't muck with how I can license my code then I'll be happy to take a look, fix it, and if it's apparent you made a real effort to get your project to work, I'll give you credit.
Work Safe Porn
is anything like your writing capability, it's no wonder people say you can't code.
I've ran into a vast majority of you who constantly try to say that I can't code as a way of covering your ass.
Editors. When you see something so blatant, please use [sic] after it so people will know it's not you doing the mangling the English language.
We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security. -- Dwight D. Eisenhower
Dual-licensing always seemed like a no-brainer to me.
This cannot be emphasized enough.
Businesses have money. Their sole purpose is to make it and not use it. If you give them the option to not use it, they will gladly accept. But if you don't give them that option, they will gladly pay, if what you are offering is worth the price.
Nothing is personal about a business, and it seems many GPL programmers expect some transaction on some personal level, like an IOU or something. But if you take the money element out of a business transaction, there is no human element left. Unless the law requires it, they owe you nothing, and they have better things to do than console you.
If you don't dual license your OSS, then you are not interested in making money. You are making it clear, and you cannot expect anything in return. If you do dual license, then you are asking for money from those who make it. They will review your value proposition, and either accept, or go to a competitor.
Make your intentions clear with the licenses you choose, not with your mouth or your blog.
It is that cut and dry. There really isn't much to rant about.
Or just write/use a license that requires attribution... Am I a genius? Cause this guy sounds smart and he didn't think of it.
You don't. None of you. You take the software, and use it like Excalibur to slay your dragon and then take the credit for it.
No, asshole, some of us think it's important for our employer to know which third party libraries and tools we're using (whether they are open source or not), so they aren't blindsided with a lawsuit. I conjecture that you're projecting your own need to be the hero onto the rest of us.
[b.belong('us') for b in bases if b.owner() == 'you']
Well, times change. Those rants used to be against the GPL and we used to slap "use a BSD license and write code for fun" in their faces. They used to complain about the GPL not being enforceable and companies ripping them off, now they think it is and they'd rather not see their code used than someone else getting rich with a company using GPL code.
While I do see a great value in having GPL software available for everyone, the fact that it is actually for the most part used intentionally to prevent businesses from building some (non-GPL'd) products using GPL software, makes me sad because it prevents good quality code from spreading, only to be replaced by (probably) crappy closed source code or (hopefully!) good quality BSD licensed code.
Next time I buy, say, a WLAN router, do I want it to be using good quality code? Hell, yeah. Would I prefer one with GPL'd software if it has a competitive price? Of course. Will I have the choice to buy one? Nope... (right now I use Tomato, which has a slightly confusing license).
"I love my job, but I hate talking to people like you" (Freddie Mercury)
The BSD, MIT licenses (even if more open) are for mugs who end up having their code "stolen" !
You claim this but the BSDs get countless contributions back from people and corporations that use their code. This is just GPL FUD.
So if I build the next great NASCAR engine, I should credit Craftsman(TM) for making the sockets I used to assemble it? Maybe these startups should also credit the RAM, mobo, and PS manufacturers for the parts in the server.
'The tyrant will always find pretext for his tyranny.' - Aesop's Fables
If his code is really that great, and he really has such a huge chip on his shoulder about not getting any accolades for his time and effort writing it, then he shouldn't have put it under the GPL license. If his code is really worth having, he could use a more traditional software license and sell his product for the big bucks.
Let me tell you a little secret. Proprietary software developers are just as big assholes.
Sometimes even worse, because sociopathic bosses and the economy make their contribution as well.
In the closed source world you almost never have complete control of your project. What happens if the OS, language, or vital module of your project is dropped by the maker? If you work on .NET for instance, then one day it could be abandoned, to be replaced by something newer and shinier. In comparison, C and Perl are ancient and aren't going anywhere.
After reading the article I can say "me too".
Now I just have to take a look at all the open source projects I'm releasing ... :)
(almost none but not zero)
hany
I think Zed needs to read this as he seems to have lost the spirit of open source entirely:
1. Free Redistribution
The license shall not restrict any party from selling or giving away the software as a component of an aggregate software distribution containing programs from several different sources. The license shall not require a royalty or other fee for such sale.
2. Source Code
The program must include source code, and must allow distribution in source code as well as compiled form. Where some form of a product is not distributed with source code, there must be a well-publicized means of obtaining the source code for no more than a reasonable reproduction cost preferably, downloading via the Internet without charge. The source code must be the preferred form in which a programmer would modify the program. Deliberately obfuscated source code is not allowed. Intermediate forms such as the output of a preprocessor or translator are not allowed.
3. Derived Works
The license must allow modifications and derived works, and must allow them to be distributed under the same terms as the license of the original software.
4. Integrity of The Author's Source Code
The license may restrict source-code from being distributed in modified form only if the license allows the distribution of "patch files" with the source code for the purpose of modifying the program at build time. The license must explicitly permit distribution of software built from modified source code. The license may require derived works to carry a different name or version number from the original software.
5. No Discrimination Against Persons or Groups
The license must not discriminate against any person or group of persons.
6. No Discrimination Against Fields of Endeavor
The license must not restrict anyone from making use of the program in a specific field of endeavor. For example, it may not restrict the program from being used in a business, or from being used for genetic research.
7. Distribution of License
The rights attached to the program must apply to all to whom the program is redistributed without the need for execution of an additional license by those parties.
8. License Must Not Be Specific to a Product
The rights attached to the program must not depend on the program's being part of a particular software distribution. If the program is extracted from that distribution and used or distributed within the terms of the program's license, all parties to whom the program is redistributed should have the same rights as those that are granted in conjunction with the original software distribution.
9. License Must Not Restrict Other Software
The license must not place restrictions on other software that is distributed along with the licensed software. For example, the license must not insist that all other programs distributed on the same medium must be open-source software.
10. License Must Be Technology-Neutral
No provision of the license may be predicated on any individual technology or style of interface.
The Open Source Definition
He says: 'I Dont Want To Be Ignored Again'.
Well then maybe you shouldn't release your software with no marketing what-so-ever?
First of all: You wrote a HTTP library for Ruby. Big fat hairy deal. Frankly, I never knew and I couldn't care less. Second of all: The Rails crowd gained traction and scored bizar amounts of hype for one reason - and one reason *only*: They had, by standards of open source - a massive marketing campaign to push Rails into the FOSS webdev field. They have a website that, for *once* in the FOSS field, didn't look like shit (and changed the FOSS-Project-Website & Enduser Awareness Game for ever - God bless them!), they pratically invented the concept of screencasts to showcase their FOSS webkit in short understandable fashion and they abandoned all snotty-nosed elitist crap in favour of building a community for webdevs while at the same time doing huge inroads into the Java & academic community who needed Ruby to boost their ego and to seperate themselves from the PHP crowd. And who, until the rails hype, weren't aware of any FOSS webkits. Of which Rails, btw., isn't a particuarly new, good or innovative one anyway. Other kits from ages ago are still leading the field by far technology wise - with nobody careing. Due to, guess what?, no marketing.
Your conclusions are wrong, Mr. Shaw. People care squat about what you licence your software under. If you want money, you demand money. If you want attention, you demand attention. Rails did it, you didn't. Your Mongrel site isn't bad, by FOSS standards that is, but it doesn't look particuarly interesting either. Learn you lesson, licence with whatever you want - wether it's the GPL or not *nobody* of *any* importance fucking cares - and do a little marketing and reasearch before you push your next FOSS tool. That, and nothing else, will enable a business on top of it.
My 2 Euros.
We suffer more in our imagination than in reality. - Seneca
From the article:
That's my first reason I use the GPL:
Because I want to, and if you disagree with it then don't use my software. It's as simple as that.
You know Zed, that's all you have to say. The rest was at best... silly.
Pretty sure he's wrong.
Personally, I've taken to using the CDDL. It's not GPL-compatible (and I like it that way), but provides all the benefits of the LGPL with none of the annoying drawbacks.
"You can either have software quality or you can have pointer arithmetic, but you cannot have both at the same time."
Hey Zed -
I whole heartedly agree.
I think that the problem is bigger than the open source community. It has a lot to do with today's sense of entitlement that the internet has created.
Today's kids grew up watching their older siblings and parents downloading "free" software and music without understanding the implications of it.
Mod me down for my libertarian views, but not for my desire to earn my living through my own work and not through the work of others.
MJ
They told themselves by taking this GPL'd code and reading the license (that allows them to take the code) and agreeing that their code should be licensed under the GPL too.
If you take the lines wholly copyrighted by you and put then in another project, YOU CAN.
The GPL isn't telling you how to license your code. It's telling you the terms if making a derived work from others' code.
Of course! To not tell opens the company up to various potential lawsuits. That does however mean that as soon as we hear "GPL", that project gets dropped. LGPL gets consideration though.
Tech types that think they are god and this means that they shouldn't have to be nice to anyone. No, sorry, not how it works. While there are some very few jobs where you don't have to deal with other people at all, there are extremely rare. For the most part, any job involved people skills. This is particularly true in the case of tech jobs. In every tech job, you are customer support to some extent or another. It may be supporting people internally only, but it is still support and thus people skills still matter.
Now great tech skills can make up for an attitude to some extent. People are often willing to put up with some shit from someone if that someone does good work. However, at some point, it doesn't matter. If you are just a caustic asshole, it doesn't matter how good you are, they'll decide they can find someone else to do the job who isn't such a problem.
I'm not saying it is easy, I certainly am not the master of people skills, but it is something to be conscious of and work on, rather than feeling like you shouldn't have to.
Good to see that developers are starting to realize that those lasts years big companies are using open sorurce but not giving back any substantial part of his owns developments.
That's why i encourage to use the AGPL v3 license for any piece of code that could be executed on a server related to internet. Starting by the Linux kernel ASAP!
What's in a sig?
indeed coding programs or scripts does requires hardwork and dedication, but its up to you in decide to make it public or not.
Never... ever suggest they don't have to pay you. What they pay for they'll value. What they get for free they'll take for granted and then demand as a right. Hold them up for all the market will bear.
Lois McMaster Bujold
And if my software is under the BSD license, I obviously don't care that he's selling it. If the buyer cares, that's between him and the seller.
The original assertion that he can legally "resell it as his own work" is plain FUD.
Eh? Wha? ... Sorry, gotta get this COBOL code change in place...
Michael J. Ryan - tracker1.info
After all the bluster about wanting to get credit, code, and/or compensation, I looked over the site for Lamson, Zed's MTA, and didn't see anything to the effect of "if you like this code but the distribution license is incompatible with your business goals, please contact me to discuss an alternate license with reasonable terms." It's not in the README, either. Anyone who can't use the GPL is probably just going to keep looking. After all, trying to convince someone to change their license is being a "gigantic jerk," right?
Not too smart, Zed.
I read through the whole rant, and there is little to argue here.
He used GPL for a Python project? Not that big a deal; his stuff won't ever be folded into the Python base distribution, but no one will seriously get upset.
He offers commercial licenses for companies that fear GPL? Very sensible; not even RMS would object.
I enjoy his vigorous and clear writing, too. "You guys are all giant pansies, even with a project like Lamson you're still all afwaid of big bad monsta SMTP." Heh.
steveha
lf(1): it's like ls(1) but sorts filenames by extension, tersely
Well, for instance, there's lots and lots of VB6 code out there that became obsolete when MS dropped it. The .NET version is different enough that large apps can't be translated and need to be rewritten.
Actually VB6 code is still getting written even today, but it's a dangerous proposition. There's no guarantee it'll run on future Windows versions. Especially there's no guarantee that the OCX you need will work on future Windows version.
COBOL is an exception because it was used in important systems developed entirely in-house with full source available.
But VB6 isn't like that. A vast majority of programs need some OCX or another that performs a crucial task. And the VB code itself is just glue (something every VB book likes to point out). Many VB apps are completely uninteresting and say, use an OCX to interface with some specialized piece of hardware, another OCX to present data (some fancy grid control for instance), and a database. If any of that stops working, you're screwed. And chances are those companies that made that stuff are now gone or uninterested in maintaining it.
Compare for instance, Perl or C. Perl isn't that popular anymore, but it's still actively worked on. Even if development stopped, the source would still be there.
One thing that seems to always be left out of these discussions is that the GPL is incompatible with many sincere open-source licenses, including some that are approved by the Open Source Initiative (http://www.opensource.org). Consider the NASA Open Source Agreement, under which NASA contributes some pretty good open-source code such as http://ti.arc.nasa.gov/project/nasa-vision-workbench/ -- this license is incompatible with the GPL because it requires all contributions to be the contributor's original creation, but it is a solid OSI-approved license.
I understand why the FSF takes a hard line with regard to linking GPL code with code that is licensed under GPL-incompatible OSS licenses -- linking does technically create a derivative work, the LGPL is also available, and the FSF has a long-term political agenda (with which I do not entirely disagree).
What bothers me is that some OSS developers who claim to use the GPL to inhibit its use by companies (in order to sell licenses) are quite myopic in their views of those who are contributing to the OSS community and thus are deserving of free -- in both senses of the word -- usage of their code.
True story: I worked for a while on an open-source NASA project. I needed to add some new features, and the best fit for providing some of the back-end functionality was a GPL-licensed library. I contacted the author of this library about adding a linking exception to its license (so that it could be linked with NASA OSA-licensed code), assuming that he would be honored that NASA was interested in his library, and happy that another open-source project would be promoting his library by requiring it as a dependency (for some optional features). To my great surprise, the author refused unless NASA would pay. In the end, everybody lost -- my project used an inferior library because it was LGPL, and the GPL library got no new users and no free publicity from being linked from my project's webpage.
You laugh, but I'm having a hard time finding cogent resources to learn Cobol on the internet. Yes, I support Cobol -> Web Service middleware. fun fun.
Zed's point (IMO) is that by using the GPL he forces many businesses to transact with him for a different license. Many businesses don't want GPL code in their product line, and for those companies Zed will sell them a differently licensed copy of his software. That means he'll be doing business with those companies, and therefore getting the recognition and/or compensation he feels like he wasn't getting with his MIT licensed stuff.
I'm just saying that's what I think his argument is.
What happened to you, man? You used to be cool! Where's all the in your face swearing and abrasiveness? You used to be hardcore!
So, you say this now. But I read your post that you "quoted the best part" from Zed's previous rant. You concluded:
In short, you criticized him big-time for his abusive ranting. Now, he has toned the rhetoric way the frak down, and you are criticizing him for not being as entertaining?
And then you finish up with this gem:
You, are a great software developer. Much better than I in all probability. You are a complete and utter asshole in nearly every other respect (yes, even in your music) and it should come as no surprise that you cannot land a job on a team. I would not pay money for your projects since I don't use them but I will send you $20 to stay in a hole, write software and restrict yourself from communicating with the outside world. Really, the world would be a better place.
So now you are criticizing him just as much as before. So my takeaway from this is that you think he's a big jerk, only less entertaining than he used to be?
What do you know about Zed anyway? All I know of him is his rants. If I were considering hiring him, I'd talk to people he worked with previously; that's what counts. Maybe he rants on his blog, but when you work with him he's nice. I don't know either way; I'm just saying, don't be too quick to judge someone from a few rants.
steveha
lf(1): it's like ls(1) but sorts filenames by extension, tersely
Not exactly, but a trained fighter is not allowed to use their training against a normal slob as it is deemed "unreasonable force". Like bringing a gun to a knife fight. So the definition is close.
It might be a misconception. The GPL generally forbids you from adding additional terms to the license (which the BSD license does in the form of retaining copyright notices.) However the GPL explicitly allows for this kind of additional term under section 7.
I read the rant, I read the comments and I visited his homepage. Who the hell is Zed and why does he think I use his software? And maybe it's just me but I often mention the supporting software and services used to create/ maintain a project, we even donate moneys through various channels to help support the OSS we use.
I would like to see an officially-named and popular license that basically is "what people think the LGPL means". It says you can "use" the code for anything. In particular you are free to statically-link with other software and distribute the resulting binary. But modifications to the code itself must be redistributed with a matching license (you can still statically-link the result with your closed source, but you must include the changes you made to that code). There could be some minor restrictions, like the reverse-engineering-is-allowed clause, and possibly some clause to prevent the modification being to add a callback to a piece of secret code, though I really think people trying to cheat will be called out and lambasted so there is no real reason for such restrictions.
I believe this eliminates all the problems BSD proponents have with the GPL, in particular it is not "viral". It still prevents the embrace-and-extend problems the GPL tries to prevent.
The only accurate version is called "GPL with a linking exception", but this has a lenghty name, makes people think it is GPL, and there is no official wording of the "linking exception" so there are a hundred different versions.
The LGPL is not correct because of some strange effects that basically means your code must be a shared library. This is pointless for making a library that you want to be popular, as it pretty much requires it to be already installed on systems. It also locks down the ABI which is pretty bad if you are trying to improve the software. You can put a "linking exception" on the LGPL but then it is equivalent to the GPL plus linking exception and I prefer the shorter one.
Several people have suggested the MLPL (sp?) and similar ones. But all of them seem to have been written by GPL-haters and have added text to purposely make it incompatible with the GPL. I certainly do not want this, as I want my library to be popular and thus I want it to be usable by GPL code.
It does appear RMS likes the viral idea as the FSF refuses to put a short name on a license that does this.
What I really want to see is a popular 3/4-letter named license that says this, possibly endorsed by the FSF or another organization. There must be hundreds of proliferated licenses because software writers try to achieve this, where is the official one?
Zed programs
Nobody cares
Whines
If your library is GPL-licensed, you're barring people from using it; from finding bugs and contributing patches. What open source is all about imho.
Over the last two years, I've contributed to three different open source projects on my employers time. Granted, just small stuff, but improvements none the less. Had these projects been GPL-licensed, we'd never consider them. I'm sure my company is by no means unique. Would Apple be using, and contributing to, FreeBSD if it was GPL'ed, for instance..?
In the end, open is always more competetive, and BSD/MIT/Apache/LGPL/+++ are more open than GPL. It's as simple as that.
If it weren't for Mozilla's anti-patent zealotry and their wide market share, HTML 5 would have had a standardized video codec two years ago. It's not as if they can't afford licensing fees at this point.
From the article:
Is that just "anti-patent zealotry"? Indeed, is firefox the only major browser to not support H.264? Does Internet Explorer support H.264? Its market share is larger than Mozilla's.
And even if HTML 5 had a video codec two years ago, it's not as if we had HTML 5 two years ago.
Uhhhhh....I thought that the whole point of XP Mode on Win 7 was to fix problems like that? Hell I always thought the whole point of desktop virtualization was to deal with those "mission critical" PITA apps that won't keep running on a newer OS.
Of course if you just really love the BASIC language you could move over to REALBasic. While I haven't tried moving some uber complex piece of code from VB to RB (but then again you were nuts to write something gigantic in VB in the first place) but the languages seem to be pretty similar. And the nice thing about RB is it works on Linux, Mac, AND Windows.
ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
"If your library is GPL-licensed, you're barring people from using it; from finding bugs and contributing patches. What open source is all about imho"
You're kidding, right?
davecb5620@gmail.com
For the same reasons Zed does, but without all the ranting. I just looked at licenses today and was comparing the Microsoft Public License to the GPL, and the MSPL lets consumers of source code do whatever they want with it, including make tons of money on proprietary apps. I'm thinking, if someone really wanted to do that, which, in my case is doubtful, they could email me and ask, and we could talk about a separate license for them.
This is my sig.
Might try reading the license.
# Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer.
# Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in the documentation and/or other materials provided with the distribution.
"The BSD, MIT licenses (even if more open) are for mugs who end up having their code "stolen" !
By this I mean that some half-witted asshat will grab the source tree, make some minor changes to it and then resell it as his own work."
So you're saying that those who put BSD code into GPL'd projects were stealing?
"The GPL guarantees the code and all additions will remain open."
There's a timing problem with your statement. Additions don't start out as open, the GPL requires that they are open. That's OK but the suggestion that the GPL is somehow just maintaining the status quo is misleading.
Hey, you know there's this guy Zed who wrote the software I'm using, why don't we hire him as a consultant?' You don't. None of you. You take the software, and use it like Excalibur to slay your dragon and then take the credit for it. You don't give out any credit, and in fact, I've ran into a vast majority of you who constantly try to say that I can't code as a way of covering your ass."
I don't know in what kind of planet this tard lives, but c'mon. Does he actually believe very few developers tell their bosses they use FOSS? Does he actually believe there are no bosses out there that know?
Seriously, do your contribution because you like it, not because you expect some praise or some high chair. Nowhere in GPL or likewise licenses reads that someone cannot take FOSS code, built something with it, sell it and take credit for it without giving credit to the FOSS that he/she used. Why should it? These type of licenses are about giving some type of free choice in how to use things and how to preserve those choices as alterations get made to the code.
I don't need to give praise to the creators of proprietary systems such as Java, or Linus Torvald or the Apache folks for FOSS tools for creating a solution for someone's very specific problem. My solution is my own. It took skills that are mine and mine along, both technical and business-like to come with that solution. The only time I would ever give such credit is if my solution is legally bound to making a contribution back to the tools used.
Seriously, nothing screams "[(sour grapes+attention whore) * vaginal silicosis]^loser" more than a dude who makes FOSS contributions and cries momma because he isn't getting a cookie in return.
He is right about Rails developers. They're all web design fairies who think they can program. They'll dump Rails like a steaming load of shit once something new and shiny comes along.
Being ancient is a good thing now?
This actually, and sadly, just doesn't apply to software, it applies to just about everything manufactured by human labor in the United States. Venture Capital seems to follow this plan:
1. Find thing that looks like a hot prospect.
2. Offer to back thing with preciousss capital.
3. Cut costs and leave a shell of the thing, but hide this fact from investors.
4. IPO and abandon ship! (Replace IPO with "Create Derivative" to explain how mortgages went from something close to a AAA asset to "Toxic Assets.")
People aren't trying (well, mostly, and Yog-Sothoth bless the folks who are) to create going concerns, they are trying to create Potemkin Villages to fool people with more money than sense. Google is actually a bad example here. They are a stable and successful corporation that does quality work and the company is a going concern.
We could structure the laws to really, really punish the flippers and reward those who are making an actual working company. (It seems currently to be the other way around.) But we have the problem of a government composed of people who would gladly sell our children to zoos for meat, and the fact that the VC people have money and really like the current system.
"MIT betrayed all of its basic principles."
I love open source, but companies? Companies are going to have to pay from now on. That's how economics works. If it's good enough for you to use, why then it's good enough for you to pay for it.
I had a number of problems with this but I'll just use this one. A person wants to use the GPL because they want to get paid? Where does the GPL say the programmer has to be paid. I may be wrong but I don't recall anything like that in the license.
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
It's a myth that got perpetuated for a few reasons:
1. There was one case in Minnesota in 1988 where a ruling on an assault case was based on the defendant's martial arts experience.
2. Long before the US was familiar with something other than boxing, servicemen were supposed to register their martial arts training with their service. This was more about training QA.
3. A few high-profile boxing matches would have the contestants register with a sheriff as a deadly weapon - but it was a matter of publicity.
4. Some shady martial arts instructors offer to register their students, and produce a license card - all for a reasonable fee.
Fnord.
You have the software, and it's GPLed, and as long as you're a rock solid open source project who releases their code you are free to use it and do what you want with it. I love open source, but companies? Companies are going to have to pay from now on. That's how economics works. If it's good enough for you to use, why then it's good enough for you to pay for it.
I don't see how the GPL will help you with corporations dude. They'll avoid paying you cashola by providing the updates (if any) that they make to the code per the terms of the GPL.
Unless you add new terms above and beyond the GPL it won't help you dude.
So while I applaud your attempt to be "recognized" for your work by forcing the rules of the communistic GPL upon everyone it won't get the job of getting you the cashola done. If your lame email program is any good you might get a good reputation and that might get you work but that's quite indirect.
Now if you're planning on using the TOUGH rules of the GPL to be a carrot to businesses by saying that ONLY THEY will get the license where they don't have to follow the GPL but your extraspecial spicy commercial license fine, but they - as noted above - can always avoid that by using the GPL'd version and putting a Free Market License Condom around your viral GPL and then do what the heck they want with it (using it that is with minimal updates).
"Open source to open source, corporation to corporation" is a nice motto and I actually like it myself, but the GPL won't get you there dude. What would is a new license that is quite specific about your terms of doing business.
You seem pissed off, Zed, that when you put software out under permissive licenses that people used it. Well that's what is supposed to happen. It's clear that you don't have the free license spirit in you at all. It seems that you value recognition which is fine and part of your psychological makeup.
There is a movie with the title, "Born Free", where "a real-life couple who raised an orphaned lion cub to adulthood, and released her into the wilds of Kenya" and wonder if they will ever see "their" lions again, will they return?
It seems, Zed, that in your case your code isn't born free but is born out of your mind with hooks back to you, born out of your mind with loads of restrictions. All fine. As you said it's your right. I'm glad that you are finding your stand to take with your software projects and making the choices that you think will lead you towards what you want. I just think that given what you wrote the GPL isn't going to provide the answers unless you change the GPL towards your own ends twisting it's tortured soul (the GPL) towards commercially required payments to you.
So with Zed software isn't Born Free but is born out of his mind bending the tortured GPL towards goals that it's Commune Dictator didn't provide for. All that is fine. It's your choice.
I'd simply have gone for a commercial license that is free for personal use and any BSD like license can be adapted for that, after all the foundation of all these licenses (except the Public Domain non license) is Copyright which Zed has over his sole works to do with entirely as he pleases.
Good luck running a muck of the commune dude. May your success bring you fortune and fame you so desire.
BSD isn't for control freaks, it's for the Born Free crowd!
GPL IS for control freaks of the Maoist bent. Total Control of all aspects of how your software is used.
Commercial is for people who want to make a living. Enjoy Life.
Public Domain is for those that don't want any restrictions at all and for those that want to be beyond the rules of society.
I'm not here to slag on Zed. He has a point, especially about developers using open source software. Share the love, or more specifically, the credit and the cash. I'm the primary developer for a middle sized web site, and we use drupal. I've made a point of making sure that we share our experiences with anyone who asks, helping out the Drupal association when I can, and most importantly: supporting the developers who make all this happen. Most Drupal developers tend to work for small companies and I've hired several of these companies to help us with various projects. They share their time, expertise, and insight, and we share the cash and the love. In my experience so far, it has been a win-win.
because it was licensed under the BSD license.
Really? you couldn't make money using the BSD license on your own code but you could using the GPL? How so? I want to start a photography business, which may not be a good idea in this economy, and because I can't afford to buy all the software I'd need to run the business I want to use open source software and modify it so it's better for me. Now I figure that if I am going to tyme a considerable amount of tyme programming then maybe I could try to sell the software to other photographers as well. If I use the GPL I can not prevent them from sharing the software with others whereas with a BSD style license I can close the source and at least try to stop sharing. Now others have suggested that instead of selling the software I could sell services, but that would turn me into a software/services company not a photographer. I just want to write my own software because I can't afford the thousands of dollars commercial software for photographers cost and I may be able to make a little more money if after I spend tyme programming I sell the software.
Of course there is a negative to using a BSD license, unless the source code is open I wouldn't be able to add or bug fixes or incorporate modifications others add to it.
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
Like most others here who have worked in a technical capacity most of their life, I have learned that my ability to communicate with people is much more valuable than my ability to communicate with a computer.
There's been a couple of cases where someone took some GPL-compatible BSDL code and removed the BSDL from the files, until someone made a fuss about it.
Yes, the code *is* GPL compatible, but that's not the same as GPL, and removing the original license and attribution from the source is hijacking as far as I'm concerned. It's about the only thing you can do to a BSDL work that could be considered hijacking.
I don't know why people would do that: the license IS compatible, and with or without the advertising clause, the BSDL is all about attribution. It really boggles my mind that anyone would consider that acceptable.
BSD protects my investment. If I invest tyme in programming and use a BSD license I can close my source code preventing others from taking it and giving it away. I can not prevent that with the GPL.
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
he GPL protects the freedom of coders by ensuring that they are free to modify code.
If I use the GPL it denies me freedom to close my source. If I use the BSD it allows me the freedom to close my source.
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
The GPLv2 is a measure to prevent people from taking away freedoms in our modern, copyright-dominated world
And it does this by restricting the freedoms you have with the code. Ironic, isn't it?
BSD gives all the freedoms. GPL gives all the freedoms except for the freedom to take away freedom from others.
And yet, GPL'd software is more popular. Perhaps the GPL is more user-friendly and BSD is more developer friendly, and since there are more users than developers, the GPL is more popular.
It's not FUD if it's true.
My blog. Good stuff (when I remember to update it). Read it.
Not necessarily. For example, I work for a company that has made extensive use of BSD-licensed code in some products. No GPL-licensed code is used because we're prohibited from using it. I trust you can imagine why. If there were ever some GPL-licensed code that we really, really, really wanted to use in a product, the only way to make that happen would be to get approval for funds to license the code under a proprietary license, then approach the author and hope for a positive response. Not all - probably not even most - GPL-using authors would agree, I suspect.
It has also been, well, less than unusual for companies who do use GPL-licensed code to try and keep it a secret, and not release any source, or to release it in a not-terribly-useful way, while fulfilling the letter of the law.
So while you are mostly right in saying that the GPL won't help him with corporations - it probably won't, in most cases - it's more likely to do so than any other [Ff]ree license. Under BSD or PD style licenses, there's no need to give anything back, so almost no one will. If he uses the GPL, most companies will just steer clear of using his code in their products. A few may license it. That's the part of his post that you miss while at the same time stating, "Commercial is for people who want to make a lving. Enjoy Life." He's perfectly willing to give a proprietary/commercial license to anyone who wants to use his code in a commercial product and not release anything. No problem. That may sound familiar, since Trolltech dual-licensed Qt that way and it was actually pretty successful.
There's no reason why you can't grant commercial licenses and enjoy life, and still give back by releasing code under the GPL. That's a formula that won't work with a BSD-style license because if your code is available under a BSD license, no one has any reason to get a proprietary license from you.
unfortunately the BSD license does not preserve the right to tinker.
Fortunately the BSD preserves me the right to do what I want with my code. If I want to prevent others from selling my code I can, except as part of the First-sale doctrine.
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
Yes, we know the original code is still there. When we talk about lost freedom we're referring to versus a GPLed solution.
You're throwing up the straw-man. With GPL code I am not free to do what I want with my code however I am free to do so with my BSD code. If I distribute GPLed software I have to release all of the code. With BSDed code I have the freedom to close my own code. With the GPL the code is free whereas with the BSD the programmer is free. It's a trade-off, do you want to prevent others from selling your code? Or do you want the benefit of others contributing bug fixes and enhancements?
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
No you don't, you only need to meet the license conditions if you distribute code yourself. The GPL "is a distribution license, not a use license." From the same link "Acceptance of the GPL is NOT required to download and use Asterisk". From GNU: "If I only make copies of a GPL-covered program and run them, without distributing or conveying them to others, what does the license require of me?" "Nothing. The GPL does not place any conditions on this activity." "The GPL only requires that you make the source available to the same people that you distribute the software to. It only requires public "release" under the GPL if you're distributing the software to the general public."
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
Actually VB6 code is still getting written even today, but it's a dangerous proposition. There's no guarantee it'll run on future Windows versions. Especially there's no guarantee that the OCX you need will work on future Windows version.
That's okay, VB6 works under WINE, and the number of supported OCX controls increases every version...
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
It sounds like your company is highly conservative and being VERY VERY careful with any GPL'd code. Very wise given the fanaticism and legal capabilities of the GPL commune leadership.
You CAN USE GPL programs all you want in a company!!! They do it all the time!
It's when it comes to making changes that are "distributed" that the issues with the GPL come up. That's when it's important to be wise and to clench yourself tight to avoid being probed by the GNU Commune leadership.
Of course one can put a condom around the GPL code, meaning that if it's running in it's own process space and you only make minor changes to it that you don't care if the competition has then do so and share the changes made. If it's a library under GPL code a wrapper so it's a CLI program and use it that way, sharing the CLI program of course under the GPL (and BSD if you like). That's what a condom wrapper does, it protects you from the GPL Viral Infection.
Of course you'll see in my earlier posting that I did say that a company can get a direct license from the authors of a program that is under the GPL assuming that all the authors can agree. In Zed Shaw's case it's likely that he is the only author of his email program so getting a commercial non-GPL license isn't a problem for a company as he wants to do that.
The point is that as a strategy for making money putting stuff out under the GPL may not be such a good idea since commercial licensing alone might be better.
Of course he can do whatever the F he wants since it's his code and his choices and if they work for him all the better for him.
I just don't think it's the best strategy for maximizing profits to him.
I'm working on a number of projects including a new highly evolved version/implementation of an existing programming language. Now this language isn't the end in itself, the apps that I'm building are the goal that will make the money. The language itself may very well end up being under a BSD style license or a modified BSD with Commercial Use fees. However, a pure BSD license might still be better to build a community around the language as it will offer capabilities not available elsewhere.
It seems to me if one is able to let ones innovations and hard work out into the world for "free" then let it be free without restrictions. This excludes releasing under GPL restrictive style.
If one wants "control" and "fame" and "wealth" from ones software then choosing the GPL might be one of the strangest ways to accomplish that, certainly control and fame can come but wealth is a different thing.
If you rope in the vulture capitalists and do a reverse raking successfully without producing real world results then I suppose all the power to you or him but isn't that just a tiny Madeoff scheme?
When it comes to making money I prefer to keep the competitive advantage of keeping the source code closed for maximum advantage against the competition. It works for google and microsoft and oracle and ... and ... and ... and ... and ... and the list goes on.
Of course Google does release some systems open source but those are designed to set standards to make Google's overall competitive edge better. For example, Chrome browser is a classic example of a power program being in the BSD license maximizing an advantage for Google. It's BSD so that people adopt components of it such as the Native Client API (that replaces the antiquated Netscape Plugin API). This NCapi will only reach maximum adoption if all the browser companies provide it. Plus other reasons.
So, BSD is a viable approach.
In one successful case of BSD having an influence is that Microsoft adopted the BSD TCP/IP stack source code directly! This enabled Microsoft to join the standards that everyone was using quickly and effectively so that boxes running their software could interconnect better.
It's NOT always about the source code freedom once adopte
"Uhhhhh....I thought that the whole point of XP Mode [wincert.net] on Win 7 was to fix problems like that?" :):):)
Wow! That's my laugh for the day!
The lamson project has a supposedly accidental VIRAL PAYLOAD AT http://launchpad.net/lamson in the file lamson-0.9.4.tar.gz with 7 copies of the "Virus identified I-Worm/Mydoom.BE";"Infected" virus and 1 "Trojan horse Dropper.Generic_c.GH" trojan horse reported by AVG.
Confirmed by hand.
Reported to Zed Shaw already who claims it was an accidental inclusion in spam test data.
You seem to think that if you write a project and GPL part of it that you'd be forced to open the rest. This isn't true because you can ignore your own license.
No, what I was saying was that I can not close my modifications to someone else's GPL code if I distribute it whereas I can with BSD code. BSD licenses give me more freedom, and if I am the programmer that's what's important to me. I want to be able to control my own code, even if it is a modification of others' code.
Of course I give up bug fixes and enhancements if I do close my source.
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
Wow, that's a bit harsh. Who's the asshole again?...
To be fair, that does seems to be the conditions of so many of programming jobs nowadays...
If you aren't suspicious of your government's actions, you aren't doing your job as a responsible citizen.
I am? I said you don't own the software?
The difference is that with BSD, if you ever release the source code (and if you didn't, who cares what license you use on it in-house?), anybody else can *also* sell it as a closed-source product.
The difference is that with the BSD you do not have to release your code, even if all you do is modify someone else's BSD code. You modify someone else's GPL code and you have to release your code if you distribute it.
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
That is specifically what the GPL disallows. BSD gives you more freedom to close your derivatives of someone else's work.
As a FOSS writer (not that I do much, but hypothetically) I don't see why I would want that.
Personally I agree with him. The real issue is his writing style, a rebel teenager with some kind of a mission or to prove something I don't know and I don't care.
He just understood why companies like MySQL tried a dual license scheme. Frankly I don't know if it will work. The MYSQL commercial license turnover was ridiculously low compared to the number of web sites/services using MySQL. I would rather advocate a professional technical support. both source of revenues made USD 10 millions per year. Which is not that much...Again compared to the MySQL popularity.
Programmers (and even more CIO) from large companies pay to get protection. In this case his writing style won't help him, nobody wants to deal with an arrogant person. That's why you make a start-up when you are a programmer, that's why you hire professionals to deal with communication & marketing...I guess it will be his next discovery :-).
Yes, don't dual-license. Just set different prices for different types and sizes of users, and attract contributors by allowing them to share in package income.
How about keeping your software commercial, but also source-available (lower-case open-source) and both freely-redistributable and customizable. Your users get the benefits of OSS, and you are likely get some good cheap patches, but you can also require payment for every copy and derived version.
If you did it this way, is your software of a nature that your users are likely to cheat you, either by not paying, or by reverse-engineering their own versions using non-cleanroom methods?
If they re-wrote it, using the GPL'd code as a guidline or reference but did not copy anything directly from it, then the only thing that can prevent them from doing so is a patent. Copyright only applies when you are copying a work, not when you are creating a similar but different work.
Are you sure of that? Non-clean-room reverse engineering suggests creation of a derived work. It's a grey area, because all research draws on other work. But I'd think that studying an entire codebase, then recreating its functionality, falls over the line to the creation of a derived work.
And yet, GPL'd software is more popular.
So you claim but I doubt any GPL'd software is more ubiquitous then BSD licensed software such as Berkeley sockets or Kerberos.
So they should have started from scratch with their own code then.
They could have done that or used BSD code.
If you're going to stand on the shoulders of giants, those giants must be acknowledged.
Agreed, but the GPL doesn't do that while the BSD does. The GPL requires code to remain open but does not require previous programmers be credited. BSD licenses allow programmers to close their own code but they have to include the names of programmers who contributed code previously. So strictly from the POV of crediting contributors the BSD is better.
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
Look at what I wrote. I said BSD gives more freedom to programmers than GPL does, and you called it bullshit. BSD gives me the freedom to close my modification to others' BSD source code. GPL does not.
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
But big businesses want accountable support;
Absolutely. This is another value proposition, just beyond the license. The key here, if you are serious, is to be a business. By being a business entity, you are also offering a "business relationship" beyond just being available on the opposite side of an email address. You are also saying you pay your taxes. It is also far easier for businesses to buy from businesses than it is from people.
Pretend you are an army even if you are alone. If you can do an army's work on your own, then all the better. They don't have to know. And they don't want to know.
Knowing and becoming who your customers would rather deal with is half the sale.
Personally I use whichever licence serves my needs best
Same here.
I don't need whiners complaining to me that they can't take my code and close source it.
I don't and by the same reasoning I don't need someone complaining when I use the BSD, or any other license, and close my source.
Falcon
Should there be a Law?