alt Hacker NewsAs a BSD developer from the 90s, that does not reflect my experience.
We wanted our code to be as widely used as possible. It’s really not any more complicated than that.
There was always tension between the folks that shipped GPL software and folks that shipped BSD/MIT software, but the dividing line was not whether or not we were “commercial programmers and startup bros”.
It has always come down to questions of what we believe freedom to mean, how we wanted to contribute utility to the world, and whether we saw the use of our software in commercial projects as a loss to ourselves in a zero sum game.
The rise of “software as a service” has changed that calculus for some, and disadvantaged those that sought to build commercial service entities around their open source software. In the areas that I work, it’s made no material difference.
As for Ruby on Rails, I think it’s outsized presence on hacker news might have given you an inaccurate picture of its influence on the broader open source ecosystem.
Replies
> It has always come down to questions of what we believe freedom to mean, how we wanted to contribute utility to the world, and whether we saw the use of our software in commercial projects as a loss to ourselves in a zero sum game.
Very well put! I personally believe that "freedom" must include the freedom to do anything you want with the software, even close off your fork if you choose. And I do not believe that a commercial project using my software harms anyone at all, as my project is still there, still available for all. Accordingly, I have always believed in and used permissive licenses. It has nothing to do with corporate profits, and I find it vexing that people make that bad faith assumption in discussions such as this.
Yep. This tinfoil conspiracy theory about these licenses being a scheme by VC backed startups is insane. Only a relative newbie to the scene could fall for that narrative. If you've been on the scene for 15-20 years, you know this is just the ethos, and these various licenses arose out of specific needs, but not opposing ideologies.
> There was always tension between the folks that shipped GPL software and folks that shipped BSD/MIT software, but the dividing line was not whether or not we were “commercial programmers and startup bros”.
> It has always come down to questions of what we believe freedom to mean, how we wanted to contribute utility to the world, and whether we saw the use of our software in commercial projects as a loss to ourselves in a zero sum game.
I remember the shitstorm Zed Shaw caused when he built something on top of MIT/BSD-licensed libraries and released it under GPL. "B-but that's against the spirit of the license!" people said.