OSNews

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.

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.

Wow. I can't believe people are still hung up on this completely stupid conception. They may be playing the "do what's fair" card in order to get contributions but you don't really think that's the reason that they are asking for money, do you?

The OpenBSD project is not looking to profit. They are not looking for reimbursements so that they can retire after having made the world a better place. They are looking for enough money to continue on in the same bare-bones fashion that has allowed them to contribute so much already. This is not about money for what happened in the past. This about money to allow for what could happen in the future.

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.