OSNews

"The BSD license is not ideal for exactly this reason, as it requires nothing of the people redistributing the code."

What part of the word "money" is it you people dont understand? GPL vs. BSD is totally irrelevant on this topic. How insecure are you people in your faith in the GPL that you have to bring this sh1t up over and over again?

What part of the word "money" is it you people dont understand? GPL vs. BSD is totally irrelevant on this topic

You brought up the GPL vs BSD topic. The GP was talking about BSD flaws only.
You're pretty naive to believe that the license does not influence the money you get from a project.

How insecure are you people in your faith in the GPL that you have to bring this sh1t up over and over again?

I'm searching for the part which is not flamebait in what you wrote there.
Now go read Theo's numerous exchanges, and tell me how insecure he is in his faith of the BSD license to bring this sh1t up over and over again.
You are the same, taking jabs at the GPL as soon as someone shows BSD flaws, keeping your head in the sand that the situation is not due to the licensing (and human nature).

You make the point in the article very well. If the issue is making money, then BSD allows lot's of people to do that, except the people actually writing the code. My comment was entirely within this context.

From the users (distributor's) perspective, the BSD license is great because it allows me to make all the money I can and not have to share it with anybody, which is exactly the point of the article. The GPL might be a better license for the authors, because it at least forces participation in the project.

BTW, I'm not trying to start a religious flamewar, just have a discussion about the merit of the situation that the OpenSSH project finds itself in. Please don't accuse me of being a religious zealot because I see some merit in the GPL.

How is it that you have the right to complain when you use a license that requires no giving back?

This is the heart of a thorough misconception. There is a difference between "is" and "should" (legal code and ethics). Yes, the license does not require that you give anything back. But the question is, is it morally good to earn tons of money with the work of other people, and give not back a cent?

The answer depends on your ethical POV. My personal opinion is that it is bad.

When you choose to release source code under a license that does not require further recognition than your ownership of copyright, you don't really have any reason to expect reimbursement later on simply because it's popular. It's deciding terms after the fact. You're 'shameful' for not sharing the wealth with someone that didn't come to you and say, "share the wealth with me, or your conduct is shameful." They said, "here's the code, do whatever you want; death to telnet!" This isn't an issue about their licensing vs. other OSS licenses, because typically speaking there's no requirement for financial remuneration there either.

But people have little place to shame others for them acting under the agreement between both parties, simply because one party profits from it financially and the other doesn't. People buy properties both physical and intellectual from one another, or even those received as a gift, and then often find ways to sell it for a profit. Sometimes this can be a substantial increase over the costs associated with acquiring it. You don't, after someone rakes in money, ask where the other person's share is because someone is doing well. Even if it is on the backs of others. Those companies are doing well precisely because they don't retroactively go back through all of the people that make their business possible and say, "You know what, we made even more money than we thought we would. Here's some money."

You get up one morning and you decide to write some open source software, release it to the world, and it's a great success. Maybe it's in the best interest of certain parties if they invest some money into further development, and maybe it isn't. Maybe it is and they still don't. That doesn't make them "shameful." They didn't grab up your work expecting to support you. It was never part of any agreement. At best their actions are stupid and counterproductive. Other people with their criticisms are turning open source software into "indeterminate cost software." Use it, and pay an unspecified, unagreed to amount or be publicly flogged for greed.

According the to "agreement" there are no requirements apart from "don't mess with the copyright notice".

We are allowed to use it without giving anything back, so it's perfectly ethical correct NOT to give anything back.

If you want money, then make sure people cannot get it without paying you.

In America we call it the 1st Ammendment.
Everyone has a right to complain kid. That's one of those inalienable things .

Maybe next we should say Republicans can't talk because that war in Iraq isn't ending quick enough?