Conversation

Notices

1. Embed this notice
   Matt "msw" Wilson (msw@mstdn.social)'s status on Friday, 14-Feb-2025 18:32:25 JST Matt "msw" Wilson

   in reply to

   • Howard Chu @ Symas

   @hyc Speaking (only for myself) as someone who refused to use the "open source" term for a very long time, "giving back" isn't part of the bargain from my point of view.

   To me, Free Software means that you can privately use the software however you'd like with no obligations "back" to the original author. Non-private use has limited obligations.

   If you want to *protect* and *propagate* those freedoms for *others* (farther downstream), use a copyleft license.

   • Alexandre Oliva likes this.
   • Embed this notice
     Howard Chu @ Symas (hyc@mastodon.social)'s status on Friday, 14-Feb-2025 18:32:26 JST Howard Chu @ Symas

     in reply to

     @msw sorry, but "taking without giving back" is a fundamental difference between Free Software and open source software, and yes, there *is* something wrong with that. Hell, even in that ticket, proper copyright attribution was only an afterthought.

     Asymmetric benefits -> parasitic leeches. The term "Open source" was created by cynical for-profit corporations to sabotage Free software.

   • Embed this notice
     Matt "msw" Wilson (msw@mstdn.social)'s status on Friday, 14-Feb-2025 18:32:27 JST Matt "msw" Wilson

     When you choose to use a #FOSS license like BSD-3, you are choosing asymmetrical benefit relationship.

     Others can “take without giving back” and there is nothing fundamentally wrong with that.

     For example see the CRC64 performance improvements in #Redis copied from #Valkey.

     #FreeSoftware #OpenSource #OSS

     https://github.com/redis/redis/pull/13638