Clearly I have an opinion - an opinion that has remain unchanged over a decade. I'm going to explain it here so that when people ask me why I dislike 'permissive' open source licenses - the core reason being that code can be incorporated in later proprietary software. Here are a few plausible scenarios with these licenses that I find, at the least, distasteful.
-
An individual or entity ('corporations are people' inclusive, though they're not) can take a project under one of these licenses, make some relatively cosmetic changes and proprietarily license the end product. They then market the product well and sell it to people who probably don't even know about the original open source project. That this hasn't happened yet doesn't mean it won't, just like the engines in the shuttle not exploding beforehand did not keep the engines from exploding that memorable time. This means that the well intentioned efforts of the developers are lost and they have placed themselves in a position where they gain no recompense for their efforts because of the very license they chose.
-
The same as the previous, with the exception that the software development was done for a government and funded by tax payers. The government may later pay licensing for the same code under a proprietary license because of superior marketing, thus forcing the taxpayer to pay twice (or more) for the same code.
Granted, these things may seem extreme - but that they didn't happen yet doesn't mean that they won't. I, for one, don't feel that I should voluntarily expend effort on an open source project if someone can take the work and close the source. That seems self defeating to me, and of course some people think it's a brilliant idea because they somehow believe that one day they might be the large company that can use the software in such a manner. My time and energy is worth something; I don't see why someone else should be able to profit from anything I do without a need to compensate me for my efforts.
I've worked on proprietary code to pay the bills - I likely will in the future because my bill collectors won't accept code in payment - but that, at least, is 'honest' - it's clear who the code belongs to and I get paid for my efforts. With GPL compatible licensing, I can contribute and know that the code will be used in the spirit it was worked on, and that should my code be truly worthwhile, people will know me by my contributions. The MIT License, and those like it, allow that to be circumvented.
The only plausible use I see for the MIT LIcense are for co-ops between software companies, where software companies work together to form a common base that they can all profit from. Since it's unlikely that they would all market the same product, it seems more likely that it would be that the software they work on would be used to provide a service. For example, if publishing companies rubbed a few brain cells together (I've been waiting years to see it happen), they could actually fork an open source CMS and create something that they could all use and share the costs of maintaining without needing to release the source to anyone else. Of course, that would require companies that view each other as competitors to work together, and that may require the present generation of business leaders to retire or die.
So that's it. I don't have a problem if you're happy with the MIT Licensing. It has worked well for some projects, there is no denying it - but I find the risks, particularly the scenarios above, too much of a risk.
Recent comments