Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

You cut off “if you care about what happens to them afterwards”. It’s perfectly fine for somebody to just give software away as long they’re fine that someone else will make money off it. You don’t seem to be fine with it, but others are.


I've seen quite a few of these people become very bitter over the years. Taken for fools and exploited. They were supposedly "fine" with it at first. At some point it must have hit them.

I don't blame them. Their reaction is understandable. I blame whoever came up with this "permissive licensing" psyop.


That's not correct though. Charity is a valid thing.

Expectations-based giving should honestly always be frowned upon. Once you give something up it's no longer in your control. If somebody has a problem with that, it's actually them that's the problem.

I think a lot of folks don't think through the licenses they choose before they use them. They never really thought about if they'd be mad if somebody else commercialized their code. You give up that right when you chose that license but that's okay. Licensing is a choice.

You're also free to use AGPL if you want or even go proprietary -- but don't blame open source licenses if you chose them by mistake.


> Expectations-based giving should honestly always be frowned upon. Once you give something up it's no longer in your control.

Licensing something as Free Software (i.e. under a copyleft license) isn't "giving it up", so there's no contradiction with retaining (some) control.

> If somebody has a problem with that, it's actually them that's the problem.

Or the problem is with the people who want to take control because they thought the original creator "gave it up".

> I think a lot of folks don't think through the licenses they choose before they use them.

Yup, better make sure to go with a copyleft license.


Who's doing this out of charity though?

I'm willing to bet almost everyone who does free and open source software is secretly hoping it will come back to them somehow. Usually as an actual job, maybe as a consultant for the software they created, maybe custom feature work. These days it's often a patreon or github sponsorships which are ethical ways to make money. Maybe it's the prestige of having one's full name attached to some major project that drives them. Maybe it's the enthusiasm for computing freedom and the copyleft ideals: sharing your work and benefiting from the work of others in return, knowing that you're adding to a commons and that your freedom is ensured.

Expectations can be as low as basic respect and acknowledgement. But they do exist.

You're absolutely right that most people don't seem to think through the licenses that they choose. That's my point though. That's why I came here. To tell everyone that it makes no sense to choose anything but AGPLv3 or proprietary. If you agree with me, then upvote the comment so that more people will see it and hopefully avoid falling into the permissive licensing trap.


Most of my open source contributions were because I was a user and had a problem to solve. Usually in the course of doing my paid job, but not always.


Then you do have expectations.

Of continued maintenance.

I hope whoever was maintaining the software had their expectations fulfilled too. We've all seen what can happen when they aren't.




Consider applying for YC's Summer 2026 batch! Applications are open till May 4

Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: