This is a conversation I keep having with people who support permissive licenses.
>Oh no, you're allowed to do whatever you want, but you shouldn't.
>>Then why is Amazon allowed to do it if they shouldn't?
>It's not polite.
>>...
>Oh no, you're allowed to do whatever you want, but you shouldn't.
>>Then why is Amazon allowed to do it if they shouldn't?
>It's not polite.
>>...
The same can be said about using the Apache license and the service here in question. In fact, the difference is that it's completely legal.
The original authors don't lose anything.
The point is that you've specifically let people do something then when they do it you're upset they did it.
If you don't want them to do it, don't explicitly allow them to do it. There are plenty of licenses which would have stopped this.
I don't think we should stone adulterers. But I also think cheating on your partner can mean you're an asshole.
-- Edward Thurlow
I can't think of a more effective way to entrench a oligopoly: small companies get screwed because if they use open source the way the big girls do they get cancelled, and they can't get big because they can't use open source the way the big girls do.
Civilization runs on politeness and other things that flow not from our current laws but from respect for others. We ignore that at our peril.
The two are not the same.
But my point isn't about the specific license. It's about one set of people very generously doing lots of labor and publishing the result in hopes of making the world a little better. And then some other people exploiting that for personal gain with no regard for the first group.
That's a social dynamic that's at the heart of IP laws. For example, Gutenberg enabled the creation of the publishing industry. Pirate book publishers saw a way to make some money by exploiting the labor of authors and original publishers for their own gain. That moral problem is why copyright was considered important enough to put into the constitution. [1]
Focusing on the specific text of a specific license is missing the point. Both my point and the point of this article, which is why YC is taking heat for backing these guys.
[1] https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artI-S8-C8-1/...
This is a _gross_ misunderstanding of what publishing was like in the first few centuries of the printing press.
Copyright laws originated as a form of government censorship and control over the printing press in 15th-16th century Europe. Governments and religious authorities sought to regulate the spread of information by granting exclusive printing privileges to select printers. This allowed them to censor and control what content was published.
It was only when the people who were censored won that copyright was invented to keep them from killing everyone involved.
That's twice now that you've replied in a way that to me seems like favoring the argumentative nitpick over the substance of what I'm saying. If I don't reply after this, it'll be because I feel like there's not much point in writing for somebody who I can't get through to.
Printed press invented: circa 1440
US Constitution drafted: circa 1780
1780 - 1440 = 340
>hundreds of years
Hmmm.
>That's twice now that you've replied in a way that to me seems like favoring the argumentative nitpick over the substance of what I'm saying.
If your argument is based on false premises then there is no substance in your conclusion.
I find it baffling in conversations I keep having with people that someone thinks that because something is legally permissible, then it is acceptable. It's the same vein of when people cry "free speech" when they said something reprehensible, as if that somehow should protect them from how people react to their horrible statements.
I think what is driving this is one the of the fundamental problems with the tech industry and its relationship to society: the ingraining of the assumption that because something is legal to do means it is OK to do. They are not and I think there should be more outrage when something like this tries to slide by.
I guess random lynchings are a way to pass the time when you are completely powerless by choice.
That is the reason why people are forced to release under the extremely permissive licenses and hope for moral behavior by their users.
That is the reason why the smug response "You allowed me to do this" isn't sufficient.
> That is the reason why people are forced to release under the extremely permissive licenses and hope for moral behavior by their users.
No one is forcing you to release source code under permissive licenses. You're literally saying that you're doing it because you want more users. Congratulations on your imaginary internet points.
Meanwhile Bezos is very much making non-imaginary money off your work.
If the Microsoft-funded OSI does not agree, perhaps we need an OSI-2.0.
You will increasingly find developers that disagree with AI exploitation, so a new institution that is not Microsoft-funded would be welcome. That is how the original OSI started before they purged ESR.