
Why I'm not using your open source project - ingve
https://www.nczonline.net/blog/2015/12/why-im-not-using-your-open-source-project/
======
wbond
I think a general comment that goes hand in hand with this list is: don't
expect someone who has released open source code to be supporting you. If you
are using extensive open source code in your (money-making) project,
acknowledge that by helping out or making donations.

Open source is a two-way street. If you just take, and especially if you have
an attitude of entitlement, that is the fastest way to burn your bridges with
developers who are providing you with tremendous value.

------
crdoconnor
>That is a showstopper for businesses wishing to contribute or incorporate
code from these projects.

That's the whole point. If you're making money off this code you should be
contributing back.

In practice the only companies that actually seem to really have a problem
with this are companies with an uncompromising dog-in-the-manger approach to
intellectual property. Companies which also make you sign contracts that say
ideas dreamed up in the shower and off-the-clock projects belong to them.

>Takeaway: If you can choose a more permissive license for your project than
GPL or LGPL, please do.

Or how about you start paying some hard cash for your paranoid approach to
your corporation's intellectual property instead?

E.g.

[https://www.mongodb.org/licensing](https://www.mongodb.org/licensing)

"If use of our drivers under the Apache License v2.0 or the database under the
AGPL v3 does not satisfy your organization’s vast legal department (some will
not approve GPL in any form), commercial licenses are available"

Cheapskate.

~~~
nailer
I'd contribute to a library I can use. I would not however give my entire app
away. Calling people who don't want to give all their work away 'cheapskates'
is itself a pretty cheap argument.

~~~
crdoconnor
>Calling people who don't want to give all their work away 'cheapskates'

Is not what I said. I said that if you don't want to give away your work, buy
a commercial license.

~~~
nailer
I write a whole bunch of my own libraries under MIT. I'd rather just use, or
create, a different library than pay for a proprietary license. You said
people who feel that way are cheapskates: the name calling is unnecessary, and
it's wrong: I just expect other OSS authors to license their work on the same
terms as most of us do.

~~~
belorn
> I just expect other OSS authors to license their work on the same terms as
> most of us do.

That is exactly whats GPL says. License the work on the same terms and
everyone is happy. License the work on different terms which prohibit sharing
and modifications, and everyone gets unhappy.

The whole point of licensing something under MIT is so others can put their
modified works under different terms.

~~~
nailer
>> I just expect other OSS authors to license their work on the same terms as
most of us do.

>That is exactly whats GPL says.

Most of us (in the JavaScript community) license work using MIT or ISC. I
expect others to do the same. Sorry if that was unclear.

> The whole point of licensing something under MIT is so others can put their
> modified works under different terms.

I license things under the MIT so that people don't have to OSS their apps
that links against it, which I don't consider modified works.

~~~
teddyh
> _I license things under the MIT so that people don 't have to OSS their apps
> that links against it, which I don't consider modified works._

Then you could use the LGPL license. Consider the advantages of, for instance,
its patent grants.

~~~
nailer
Correct. My position is against GPL, I don't mind LGPL at all.

