Quotes of the week

I think the point was that none of these cases are really examples of companies making their money off of BSD-licensed code, but rather from their own modifications and additions. After all, the BSD-licensed code they started from is freely available to the world, and they could hardly expect to make much money selling what their customers already have access to.

> If someone puts a sign up and says "free donuts, donate what you like" and you just take the books and don't leave any money... well, it's not very social but you're not doing anything wrong. But this is why I think that copyleft licenses are necessary in the long term - otherwise companies will just [ruin] the commons.

First, taking the books would be theft, since it was the *donuts* that were free... ;)

But more importantly, we're talking about an infinite supply of donuts here. Whether you choose to publish your changes or keep them secret, making use of code (BSD-licensed or otherwise) does not prevent others from doing the same. One could argue that contributing back would make everyone better off, but you certainly aren't making things any *worse*. Not contributing back may not be "social", but it isn't anti-social either. If using the BSD-licensed code at least means that your customers get a better product than if you'd decided to roll your own ad-hoc version, some good has come out of the arrangement. The commons isn't enhanced, but neither is it diminished.

If the license were copyleft instead, it *might* mean that the modifications are made available to the users—or it might just mean that the product doesn't exist at all, or that it exists but uses some idiosyncratic proprietary from-scratch implementation riddled with bugs and incompatibilities, either of which would be worse for all concerned than a version based on BSD-licensed code with some proprietary modifications.