The contents of that propaganda site is neither here nor there. It was formed by a political activist - Eric S Raymond, in 1998, long after the term open source had been in common use. It's an attempt to steal a common phrase for the purposes of their political ideology.
I don't buy it. And name-calling isn't going to convert anyone to your cause.
A man enjoyed writing children's stories. So he sat down, day after day, writing 3 stories for his sons. He wrapped each manuscript in a red bow, and gave them to his sons.
The first son liked his story and said thank you. The story struck him so much that he went on to write stories of his own. And as an adult wrote stories of his own for his kids.
The second son said that although he liked his story about the leopard, he's prefer it if it was a lion. That's OK says his father, feel free to change the story yourself. You change it to a lion if you want.
The third son said: "Father, this is not a gift. You are giving me nothing unless you write out on parchment that I have complete rights to copy this story, and make money from it."
Why do I care about the ability of someone 3rd or 4th down the line to pass on my code? If the situation is so removed from me that someone that wanted to thank the original programmer didn't know it was me, then I have no reason to care.
If I give someone a scarf, and they give it to someone else, and that someone else gives it on, why do I care about the details at that stage?
Again, I'm giving a gift of source code to anyone that reads my little corner of the web, and wants it. I'm not interested in creating a universal right for humanity.
In the UK, people blame all this bowing down to legal what-ifs as "It's bloody health and safety". In the US, people talk of the "Compensation culture".
You know, many people don't clear the path outside their house of snow anymore because they are scared they might get sued. Often expressed as "I'm not insured for that."
I could have 3000 people tell me the legal implications of clearing my path of snow. Sorry, I don't buy into it. I'm not going to go all legalese to cover a situation that's not going to happen.
My word is my bond. Shake my hand and we've done a deal. That's what I buy into.
Screw licenses, I'm not interested. And neither are the people that have downloaded my software.
You're confusing licenses with evidence. Whether or not there's a license on it, if someone tries to claim it as their own, you need evidence. Having a license or not makes no difference.
Posting it first on GitHub or elsewhere on the internet provides at least a low level proof.
You say I am by definition giving them a license when I give permission. And then you start using lawyers terms as to what I should write.
Sure I'll give out my source, and give people permission to do whatever they like, if they ask. But I'm not going to write a legalese license, however short.
Despite what people are saying here, I don't put licenses on gifts. I'm giving out a gift, not a right.
You seem like a reasonable person, and had you approached me, I'm sure we'd also have worked something out.
However, I was actually approached by someone demanding that I have to have a license on my code. And I know his attitude wasn't a one off because I see it all the time on Slashdot.
"None of this requires licenses. And I hate licenses. Why would I want to use one or invent one."
Then take just the little tiny tiny little action that is needed to declare that on your work: mark it public domain. I'll even make it easy for you... paste this into a file called "license.txt" in the base of your repository:"
What part of I hate licenses isn't clear here? I neither want to keep rights not give them away. I just want to open the source of certain projects up to people that want to read and learn from it. And that's what I've done. Lots of people have said thanks. There's a whole big world out there that don't care about GPL, BSD or Public Domain.
No one in the history of man has released open source without a license. That doesn't even make sense.
Sure it does. Open software, open book. Both are readable, both can be learned from, neither needs a license.
I think you probably should stop using the term open source until you understand what it means.
No. I'm not buying your religion. I'll continue to use open source to mean software that has open source - software who's source is available to read. Not what the free software foundation or RMS wants it mean.
If they want to redistribute your created work, then they are extremely vulnerable to your whims.
Then they might to do what it's intended for and learn from it and then make their own creation.
There's no gift here, because publishing it isn't releasing any of your rights, except the right of first sale. You didn't give them a damned thing except legal liability. It sounds like you either have no understanding of copyright law or you intentionally have your head up your ass.
There's certainly a gift here, and many people have thanked me for it. It's exactly attitudes and rudeness you are demonstrating that means I will never issue an open source license. You are what's called freetard. Expect to get everything for free, treating everything as a right rather than a gift. And get rude about anything that's not the way you want it.
Seriously, the very first program I shared on the internet, a freetard much like you, started acting as if I was being unreasonable for not putting a GPL license on it. That's the exact thing that meant that I will never, ever do so.
Which by law means that you have refused to give anyone permission to use the code.
Not at all. I'll give and have given anyone permission to use it. I just won't issue them with a license. Nothing in copyright law says I have to make up a list of rules and conditions in order to give people permission.
It certainly is open source. It's just not free software.
So, since you did not grant anyone permission to copy and distribute your code, no one can legally do so.
As I said, anyone that wants to redistribute it can ask me, and I'll say yes. Anyone who wants to play with it or learn from it doesn't need my permission.
Then a rogue group steals the source and starts shipping a version that becomes very popular, but breaks compatibility with the community version.
If it becomes very popular, and the community version didn't, there's a reason for that. Take OSX and BSD Unix. OSX is more popular because it's far more useful to people. And that's a good thing.
I would say that this is sort of what killed Apache Harmony - since they weren't able to verify compatibility, the project essentially collapsed.
It's an open source reimplementation of a commercial product. It died because no one was interested - the commercial original is on it's way out.
STOP assuming everyone else has your agenda.... Unlicensed code on github is unlicensed because the author hasn't bothered to make a public statement allowing use of their stuff.
STOP assuming you know why people haven't applied a license. In my case at least, you're wrong. I chose not to have a license on my open source, because I dislike licenses. It's not laziness.
Don't rip on people for assuming, then make the mother of all assumptions yourself.
Calling it masturbation and farting isn't a real argument.
I post code to the internet for others to learn from. If they want to take snippets, then good for them, that's what people do with open source. If they want to use the whole thing, then fine.
Someone took one of my apps and ported it to another platform without telling me. Good, I'm happy for them. It'd have been nice if they'd sent me a message to inform me or thank me, but I don't require that.
None of this requires licenses. And I hate licenses. Why would I want to use one or invent one.
When I give a gift to someone, I don't plaster it with terms and conditions. I hope they'll like it. I hope they'll find it useful. I'll be disappointed if they sell it on, but I'm not going to make them agree to not selling it on before I give them the gift.
The problem with open source licensing is that the number of people creating and giving is far outweighed by the number of people that see it as their RIGHT to get open source software. They are quite obnoxious about their rights, and forget that that software was actually a gift. Don't apply a license and you don't have that problem. No one makes the mistake of believing that it's their right to have your code. They remain in the correct frame of mind that the code is there through your generosity of spirit.
Slashdot Mirror
If you didn't want apps, you would have bought a dumbphone instead of a phone that comes with Android.
And if you didn't want malware, you'd have bought an iPhone rather than an Android.
I count 7 responses from you in my inbox.
I'm interesting in defending people's right not to buy into the open source license propaganda.
The contents of that propaganda site is neither here nor there. It was formed by a political activist - Eric S Raymond, in 1998, long after the term open source had been in common use. It's an attempt to steal a common phrase for the purposes of their political ideology.
I don't buy it. And name-calling isn't going to convert anyone to your cause.
You've fallen for RMS's propaganda.
Read this.
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3420777&cid=42756441
"It's that I dislike your licenses."
What's wrong with:
Copyright (c) %YEAR, %OWNER
All rights reserved.
It's a license.
You don't seem to understand the difference between between a freedom and a right.
It's not my problem if other people are confusing open source with free software.
A parable.
A man enjoyed writing children's stories. So he sat down, day after day, writing 3 stories for his sons. He wrapped each manuscript in a red bow, and gave them to his sons.
The first son liked his story and said thank you. The story struck him so much that he went on to write stories of his own. And as an adult wrote stories of his own for his kids.
The second son said that although he liked his story about the leopard, he's prefer it if it was a lion. That's OK says his father, feel free to change the story yourself. You change it to a lion if you want.
The third son said: "Father, this is not a gift. You are giving me nothing unless you write out on parchment that I have complete rights to copy this story, and make money from it."
The father cast out his third ungrateful son.
Why do I care about the ability of someone 3rd or 4th down the line to pass on my code? If the situation is so removed from me that someone that wanted to thank the original programmer didn't know it was me, then I have no reason to care.
If I give someone a scarf, and they give it to someone else, and that someone else gives it on, why do I care about the details at that stage?
Again, I'm giving a gift of source code to anyone that reads my little corner of the web, and wants it. I'm not interested in creating a universal right for humanity.
In the UK, people blame all this bowing down to legal what-ifs as "It's bloody health and safety".
In the US, people talk of the "Compensation culture".
You know, many people don't clear the path outside their house of snow anymore because they are scared they might get sued. Often expressed as "I'm not insured for that."
I could have 3000 people tell me the legal implications of clearing my path of snow. Sorry, I don't buy into it. I'm not going to go all legalese to cover a situation that's not going to happen.
My word is my bond. Shake my hand and we've done a deal. That's what I buy into.
Screw licenses, I'm not interested. And neither are the people that have downloaded my software.
You're confusing licenses with evidence. Whether or not there's a license on it, if someone tries to claim it as their own, you need evidence. Having a license or not makes no difference.
Posting it first on GitHub or elsewhere on the internet provides at least a low level proof.
"I hereby grant you the right"... a clause...
You say I am by definition giving them a license when I give permission. And then you start using lawyers terms as to what I should write.
Sure I'll give out my source, and give people permission to do whatever they like, if they ask. But I'm not going to write a legalese license, however short.
Despite what people are saying here, I don't put licenses on gifts. I'm giving out a gift, not a right.
Funny thing is people DO use my software in exactly the way I intended without anyone having to invoke the law.
You seem like a reasonable person, and had you approached me, I'm sure we'd also have worked something out.
However, I was actually approached by someone demanding that I have to have a license on my code. And I know his attitude wasn't a one off because I see it all the time on Slashdot.
"None of this requires licenses. And I hate licenses. Why would I want to use one or invent one."
Then take just the little tiny tiny little action that is needed to declare that on your work: mark it public domain. I'll even make it easy for you... paste this into a file called "license.txt" in the base of your repository:"
What part of I hate licenses isn't clear here? I neither want to keep rights not give them away. I just want to open the source of certain projects up to people that want to read and learn from it. And that's what I've done. Lots of people have said thanks. There's a whole big world out there that don't care about GPL, BSD or Public Domain.
No one in the history of man has released open source without a license. That doesn't even make sense.
Sure it does. Open software, open book. Both are readable, both can be learned from, neither needs a license.
I think you probably should stop using the term open source until you understand what it means.
No. I'm not buying your religion. I'll continue to use open source to mean software that has open source - software who's source is available to read. Not what the free software foundation or RMS wants it mean.
If they want to redistribute your created work, then they are extremely vulnerable to your whims.
Then they might to do what it's intended for and learn from it and then make their own creation.
There's no gift here, because publishing it isn't releasing any of your rights, except the right of first sale. You didn't give them a damned thing except legal liability. It sounds like you either have no understanding of copyright law or you intentionally have your head up your ass.
There's certainly a gift here, and many people have thanked me for it. It's exactly attitudes and rudeness you are demonstrating that means I will never issue an open source license. You are what's called freetard. Expect to get everything for free, treating everything as a right rather than a gift. And get rude about anything that's not the way you want it.
Seriously, the very first program I shared on the internet, a freetard much like you, started acting as if I was being unreasonable for not putting a GPL license on it. That's the exact thing that meant that I will never, ever do so.
Which by law means that you have refused to give anyone permission to use the code.
Not at all. I'll give and have given anyone permission to use it. I just won't issue them with a license. Nothing in copyright law says I have to make up a list of rules and conditions in order to give people permission.
It certainly is open source. It's just not free software.
So, since you did not grant anyone permission to copy and distribute your code, no one can legally do so.
As I said, anyone that wants to redistribute it can ask me, and I'll say yes. Anyone who wants to play with it or learn from it doesn't need my permission.
Sure it's open source. Open like a book. It's there for people to learn from. Just like a book.
What it isn't is free software.
Then a rogue group steals the source and starts shipping a version that becomes very popular, but breaks compatibility with the community version.
If it becomes very popular, and the community version didn't, there's a reason for that. Take OSX and BSD Unix. OSX is more popular because it's far more useful to people. And that's a good thing.
I would say that this is sort of what killed Apache Harmony - since they weren't able to verify compatibility, the project essentially collapsed.
It's an open source reimplementation of a commercial product. It died because no one was interested - the commercial original is on it's way out.
STOP assuming everyone else has your agenda....
Unlicensed code on github is unlicensed because the author hasn't bothered to make a public statement allowing use of their stuff.
STOP assuming you know why people haven't applied a license. In my case at least, you're wrong. I chose not to have a license on my open source, because I dislike licenses. It's not laziness.
Don't rip on people for assuming, then make the mother of all assumptions yourself.
How am I wrong? I know full well copyright applies and I'm happy to keep that right. So how am I wrong?
I'm allowed to do what ever I want with my source. Your opinion on what I should do is neither here nor there. I'm not wrong for exercising my choice.
You seem to be incapable of understanding that it is a choice. Not laziness, nor insufficient understanding of the law.
Calling it masturbation and farting isn't a real argument.
I post code to the internet for others to learn from. If they want to take snippets, then good for them, that's what people do with open source. If they want to use the whole thing, then fine.
Someone took one of my apps and ported it to another platform without telling me. Good, I'm happy for them. It'd have been nice if they'd sent me a message to inform me or thank me, but I don't require that.
None of this requires licenses. And I hate licenses. Why would I want to use one or invent one.
When I give a gift to someone, I don't plaster it with terms and conditions. I hope they'll like it. I hope they'll find it useful. I'll be disappointed if they sell it on, but I'm not going to make them agree to not selling it on before I give them the gift.
The problem with open source licensing is that the number of people creating and giving is far outweighed by the number of people that see it as their RIGHT to get open source software. They are quite obnoxious about their rights, and forget that that software was actually a gift. Don't apply a license and you don't have that problem. No one makes the mistake of believing that it's their right to have your code. They remain in the correct frame of mind that the code is there through your generosity of spirit.
Really? Putting source code on the internet without a license leads to despotism?
It's this kind of nonsense that makes me dislike the people that push open source licenses.
Without a declaration, the originator owns it, IMHO.
What's so terrible about that? Maybe he still wants to own it, whilst giving people freedom to look at it and play with it if they want.
It's not that I don't give a shit about your licenses. It's that I dislike your licenses.