Date: Fri, 17 Apr 2020 18:06:13 -0600 (MDT) From: Dale Scott <dalescott@shaw.ca> To: Polytropon <freebsd@edvax.de> Cc: Aryeh Friedman <aryeh.friedman@gmail.com>, Paul Pathiakis <pathiaki2@yahoo.com>, freebsd-questions <freebsd-questions@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: freebsd should be rewritten based on microkernel architecture Message-ID: <1659102270.119843446.1587168373188.JavaMail.zimbra@shaw.ca> In-Reply-To: <20200417213025.16ba5877.freebsd@edvax.de> References: <3f1496d1f598c84b3871b630f161256e152aca75.camel@tom.com> <CAGBxaXmvde89R%2BREcup9PEV6SAzQAitwHn9og92uz51GYpu%2B%2BQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAEJNuHwewpssL-t49D9pLYWNqYqwAzx4bE2eQdtow05=E9UY5Q@mail.gmail.com> <CAGBxaXmvaNtiFZiza_fGrHzWAcMp64d_NWstwvvVvQ959oGWHQ@mail.gmail.com> <681077991.2278153.1587146552233@mail.yahoo.com> <CAGBxaXkMQf9Gs2bujJZjR0Gcv3nyig_FgcGc8m8282fB8_e_Xg@mail.gmail.com> <20200417213025.16ba5877.freebsd@edvax.de>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
----- Original Message ----- > From: "Polytropon" <freebsd@edvax.de> > To: "Aryeh Friedman" <aryeh.friedman@gmail.com> > Cc: "Paul Pathiakis" <pathiaki2@yahoo.com>, "freebsd-questions" <freebsd-= questions@freebsd.org> > Sent: Friday, April 17, 2020 1:30:25 PM > Subject: Re: freebsd should be rewritten based on microkernel architectur= e ... > The _choice_ of licensing terms is very important to a programmer. IANAL but... ;-) I think of "open-source" as a legal framework for a community to share soft= ware development by pooling their resources. The license protect the invest= ment the participants make (e.g. the time spent coding, testing, writing bu= g reports, writing user manuals, supporting other members of the community,= etc.), and also gives protection from an actor acting in bad faith. When a= company (a single legal entity) develops software, regardless of whether t= he programmer is a full-time employee or a contractor, the code generally b= elongs to the company. There simply is no "my code", it is "their code" and= I relinquished my rights to it in return for compensation. The developer d= oes not have the right to re-use a single character for any reason (which i= s different from it not being worth the effort to penalize an infraction). = Of course, developers own the knowledge in their heads that enabled them to= write the code, and can use that knowledge to write new code (although oth= er contractual restrictions may be in force, such as a non-competition or n= on-disclosure agreement). A single developer providing software under an open source license is for t= he most part simply being altruistic and helping their fellow developers by= providing tutorials, examples and proof-of-concepts for projects consisten= t with a single developer. The developer's personal beliefs will determine = what license is appropriate - but generally either "permissive" (e.g. BSD) = or "copyleft" (e.g. GPL). A permissive license might be appropriate if the = goal is to provide benefit to as many people as possible with minimum const= raints (a permissive license typically only imposes keeping the original li= cense and copyright notice, and prevents being sued for errors or not being= fit for use). However, if you believe someone who modifies your code has an obligation to= share in kind, then imposing this through a copyleft license will likely b= e appropriate. Note though that the GPL only requires source to be shared w= ith those who receive the software in non-source form, which may not includ= e the original developer! Also note that payment is irrelevant so far as th= e license is concerned. For example, the GPL does not prevent me from "sell= ing" a customized version of ERPNext (an enterprise ERP application license= d using the GPL), so long as I distribute the source for my changes to thos= e who I have provided my modified version to. (I mean "selling" in concept = as I would not own the code, but would be able to charge for customization = services). The license becomes more significant for projects with multiple developers,= projects that incorporate open-source software to expedite development, an= d companies who use the software. Vague ownership of the code or vague allo= wed use creates risks for the entire community. What if two developers work= together for a year to create a software application but then part ways. W= ho owns the rights to the codebase? Do the developers share ownership joint= ly or individually? Can one developer continue development of the software = on their own if the other developer doesn't want them to? Does each develop= er have rights only to the characters they typed? What are the risks to a c= ompany if the project cannot show they have a legal right to offer the soft= ware (which could be the result of including GPL code in a BSD project, or = re-using code created under contract to an employer)? What are the risks if= the company uses the software to create their own product? What if the sof= tware is an enterprise ERP, CRM or FRACAS system and the company uses it to= run their business! A company that proactively protects shareholders from = risky legal situations would have to just walk away..... Licensing itself isn't complicated, it's all the other details.... ;-) ---=20 Dale Scott=20 Engineering and NPI Leader=20 Web: www.dalescott.net=20 Email: dale@dalescott.net=20
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?1659102270.119843446.1587168373188.JavaMail.zimbra>