Switch to BSD?

Help archive
61

Hey Kaspar!

If RIOT is BSD'ed, for *me* personally time spent on it is not fun time I like to in my unpaid spare time anymore, it becomes work that is also fun. Work others can (and will) sell under their terms.

I totally don't get this point. How do more possibilities to work with RIOT for *others*, take fun away from *you*?

(L)GPL guarantees that my contribution will stay part of something that might improve, but is always available to me under clear tearms.

I disagree. The RIOT community guarantees that your and everyone else's contribution stay part of open and free software that might improve. Additionally, it might become part of something else, true.

As the man earning a shit load of money from one of these evil companies, using a proprietary smart phone, and buying Facebook goggles, working on RIOT for me is a very expensive hobby.

How so? RIOT is for free.

BSDing turns it into work I do for other companies, for free. I will probably not contribute much this way, unless I become one of the companies taking RIOT and selling it somehow.

That would be very sad.

Cheers, Oleg

62

I agree with Kaspar. Also as a company we have interests that if a competitor uses our work, it would be forced to admit changes or improvements back.

Best regards Johann Fischer

63

> > If RIOT is BSD'ed, for *me* personally time spent on it is not fun > > time I like to in my unpaid spare time anymore, it becomes work > > that is also fun. Work others can (and will) sell under their terms. > > I totally don't get this point. How do more possibilities to work > with RIOT for *others*, take fun away from *you*? > > > (L)GPL guarantees that my contribution will stay part of something > > that might improve, but is always available to me under clear > > tearms. > > I disagree. The RIOT community guarantees that your and everyone > else's contribution stay part of open and free software that might > improve. Additionally, it might become part of something else, true. > I agree with Kaspar.

  but this is hard to understand. (L)GPL does not guarantee that Kaspar's "contribution will stay part of something that might improve, but is always available to him under clear tearms." Anyone can take the code, modify or remove Kaspar's part and re-publish it. As Oleg said it is the community around the software that shapes the software.   

Also as a company we have interests that if a competitor uses our work, it would be forced to admit changes or improvements back.

  Sure that is a typical economic argument.

Cheers   matthias

64

Hi,

If RIOT is BSD'ed, for *me* personally time spent on it is not fun time I like to in my unpaid spare time anymore, it becomes work that is also fun. Work others can (and will) sell under their terms.

I totally don't get this point. How do more possibilities to work with RIOT for *others*, take fun away from *you*?

I'm a software developer. I code for fun and for money. I do fun work for free on my terms. My terms don't necessarily include other people selling my work without even having to tell me about it.

As the man earning a shit load of money from one of these evil companies, using a proprietary smart phone, and buying Facebook goggles, working on RIOT for me is a very expensive hobby.

How so? RIOT is for free.

My time is not.

BSDing turns it into work I do for other companies, for free. I will probably not contribute much this way, unless I become one of the companies taking RIOT and selling it somehow.

That would be very sad.

No need to get emotional, yet.

Kaspar

65

Hi Kaspar,

66

Hey,

I disagree. The RIOT community guarantees that your and everyone else's contribution stay part of open and free software that might improve. Additionally, it might become part of something else, true.

I agree with Kaspar.

   but this is hard to understand. (L)GPL does not guarantee that Kaspar's "contribution will stay part of something that might improve, but is always available to him under clear tearms." Anyone can take the code, modify or remove Kaspar's part and re-publish it. As Oleg said it is the community around the software that shapes the software.

Of course you can republish, as long as you stick with the license. If you remove all parts from every contributor not agreeing you can publish under any other license.

But assuming that you don't want to blatantly ignore the license terms or are not prepared to be sued for license infringement, you cannot simply remove my code and republish under anything other than (L)GPL.

Kaspar

67

Hi Johann,

68

Hi Emmanuel,

> > I totally don't get this point. How do more possibilities to work > > with RIOT for *others*, take fun away from *you*? > > > > > (L)GPL guarantees that my contribution will stay part of > > > something that might improve, but is always available to me > > > under clear tearms. > > > > I disagree. The RIOT community guarantees that your and everyone > > else's contribution stay part of open and free software that might > > improve. Additionally, it might become part of something else, > > true. > > > I agree with Kaspar. Also as a company we have interests that if a > competitor uses our work, it would be forced to admit changes or > improvements back. > >

OK. So is LGPLv2 indeed aligned with your company's policy and legal department? That would be interesting to know for this discussion.

Yes, even if it is not always comfortable.

69

Hi Johann

70

Hey,

    BSDing turns it into work I do for other companies, for free. I will     probably not contribute much this way, unless I become one of the     companies taking RIOT and selling it somehow.

I don't see how any company could "sell RIOT". RIOT is more a component of something "bigger" that is the actual business. So as a RIOT developer, it's not like there is no room to exploit this situation, should it occur. Isn't this win-win, essentially?

My work on RIOT is mostly about code, code review and development environment. I'm aware that "RIOT" is more than the source, but the license mostly affects that part.

If you want to sell an Iot OS software product, as soon as RIOT is *BSD'ed, all of that can be taken *as is* and then be sold under whatever terms anyone seems fit. Always based on that code & infrastructure work.

(L)GPL tries to put some restrictions on that. Mostly, the source code cannot realistically be sold as long it's (L)GPL.

If we *BSD the RIOT source, the source code *I* write *will* be sold by someone else. Not (only) the product someone develops *on top* of that source code.

Economically I'll be not only hacking on RIOT for fun, but also for the profit of someone else. I'll not be creating an open tool that people can use to base their work on, but also create a tool that others can sell.

This puts me in a position where I have to reconsider if I should continue contributing as before or if I should be trying to get a part of the profit I create.

IMHO this is not a "oooh how nice, someone found a way to make money out of this! good for them!" situation. It has the possiblity to become a "Oh nice. Those contributers write code we can sell and they don't want anything in return" situation.

Kaspar

71

Hi,

> BSDing turns it into work I do for other companies, for free. I will > probably not contribute much this way, unless I become one of the > companies taking RIOT and selling it somehow. > > >I don't see how any company could "sell RIOT". RIOT is more a component >of something "bigger" that is the actual business. So as a RIOT >developer, it's not like there is no room to exploit this situation, >should it occur. Isn't this win-win, essentially? My work on RIOT is mostly about code, code review and development environment. I'm aware that "RIOT" is more than the source, but the license mostly affects that part.

If you want to sell an Iot OS software product, as soon as RIOT is *BSD'ed, all of that can be taken *as is* and then be sold under whatever terms anyone seems fit. Always based on that code & infrastructure work.

(L)GPL tries to put some restrictions on that. Mostly, the source code cannot realistically be sold as long it's (L)GPL.

This is not correct (depending on your definition of code and selling of course).

http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#DoesTheGPLAllowMoney """ Yes, the GPL allows everyone to do this. The right to sell copies is part of the definition of free software. Except in one special situation, there is no limit on what price you can charge. (The one exception is the required written offer to provide source code that must accompany binary-only release.) """

and

http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#DoesTheGPLAllowDownloadFee """ Yes. You can charge any fee you wish for distributing a copy of the program. If you distribute binaries by download, you must provide “equivalent access” to download the source—therefore, the fee to download source may not be greater than the fee to download the binary. """

Also, on a related note, the MIT license (for example) says: """ The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be included in all copies or substantial portions of the Software. """

So, even if someone sells the code under the MIT license, you're still visibly the copyright holder.

In addition to that, the BSD licenses also contain: """ 2. 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. """

So in that case, you can't even (legally) sell a product based on RIOT without it (and you) being mentioned.

Cheers, Ludwig

72

Hey Kaspar!

IMHO this is not a "oooh how nice, someone found a way to make money out of this! good for them!" situation. It has the possiblity to become a "Oh nice. Those contributers write code we can sell and they don't want anything in return" situation.

I think it is both. And I understand that you (and other people) don't feel comfortable if companies might earn money with the code you've written in your free time - although I don't share this feeling (which might be because I've arguably written less code in my free time). On the other hand, free software also means that this software might be used for any purpose - even to harm or kill people. LGPL (or any other discussed license) does not prevent this. Are you feeling comfortable with that?

What I'm trying to say: the world might be a good or an evil place (or something in between), depending on your personal mindset, but can we really change this by choosing our license?

The other thing I read from your comment is: if any company earns money with the code I contributed to, I want to benefit from it - either by being part of this company or by having this company contributing back. Is this interpretation right?

Cheers, Oleg

73

Hi Ludwig!

So in that case, you can't even (legally) sell a product based on RIOT without it (and you) being mentioned.

Referring to a discussion I had with Hauke over lunch: would have RIOT to be mentioned only in the code or on the sold product (let's say an Internet connected toy dinosaur)?

Cheers, Oleg

74

Hi,

> So in that case, you can't even (legally) sell a product based on RIOT > without it (and you) being mentioned.

Referring to a discussion I had with Hauke over lunch: would have RIOT to be mentioned only in the code or on the sold product (let's say an Internet connected toy dinosaur)?

After thinking a bit about this and searching a bit on the web [1], I conclude that the quoted MIT license requires this implicitly while the BSD licenses are explicit about it.

Cheers, Ludwig

[1] Exemplary result:

""" Most licenses, open source or commercial, require that a copy of the copyright, patent, trademark, and attribution notices from the source software be distributed verbatim with the product using that software. Examples are GNU Public License (GPL), Microsoft Public License (MPL), and MIT license. Note that even if the source code is not distributed with your product, the copyright and other attribution must be distributed with your software. """

75

Hey,

76

Hi Joakim,

Thanks for your feedback. With the current license, are you able to plan using RIOT as a component for some of your company’s products or services?

Best,

Emmanuel

77

Hi Akshay,

Thanks for your input on this topic. With the current license, are you able to plan using RIOT as a component for some of your company’s products or services?

Best,

Emmanuel

78

arguably written less code in my free time). On the other hand, free software also means that this software might be used for any purpose - even to harm or kill people. LGPL (or any other discussed license) does not prevent this. Are you feeling comfortable with that?

That can be said about any tool.

What I'm trying to say: the world might be a good or an evil place (or something in between), depending on your personal mindset, but can we really change this by choosing our license?

This is not about good or evil.

The other thing I read from your comment is: if any company earns money with the code I contributed to, I want to benefit from it - either by being part of this company or by having this company contributing back. Is this interpretation right?

No.

I think of RIOT as a tool, a building block, that should be free for everyone.

(With free I mean free of charge under the terms of the respective license)

See it as a network of roads that we as a community want to create.

A closed-source approach would put all control about access or fees in the hands of the commercial operator(s).

A GPLed approach would make every road freely usable for everyone, but would also force all services on top of that road (e.g., transportation) to be free.

A LGPLed approach would keep the roads free, but enables non-free services that just use the roads.

A BSDed approach would allow someone to add roads somewhere to that network, charging fees or even restricting access. As the other roads have already been created for free (source is out), that someone has the ability to use all roads, and nobody can take that back, while those that put resources into building the whole other network might end up at a toll booth or a sign "not you, my friend".

The analogy with code looks even worse, it would more be a taxi flatrate service that charges a premium for an all-network-access which only the builder of a proprietary road can sell, directly profiting from the resources put into building the initial, free, network, just by investing a little resources and selling the whole.

So if I contribute to a (L)GPLed project, I assume I do so and everyone else also does, so the combined outcome is available under the same terms to everyone.

BSD changes the whole picture. It makes me feel exploited if I contribute a lot of ressources building free roads and others just invest a little but profit from the combination of all roads (even charging me) instead of pooling ressources to improve the free network and finding a way to profit from something else.

I don't want to benefit from the profit of others, I want RIOT to be open and free of charge for everyone.

Kaspar

79

Hi,

80

Hi,