[clug] Vaguely off topic: iPeds and other Android tablets - availability and comparisons to that Apple one

[Michael Still]

On 8/5/10 8:13 PM, Ivan Lazar Miljenovic wrote:
> Michael Still<mikal at stillhq.com>  writes:
>
>> On 8/5/10 7:27 PM, Ivan Lazar Miljenovic wrote:
>>>
>>> They're certainly are allowed to use those projects; I'm just saying
>>> it's slightly hypocritical to use those projects and then 1) not
>>> actually give any of their own stuff back (as in stuff that was
>>> completely developed in-house, not forked off of a pre-existing project)
>>> and 2) prevent (or at least put numerous hoops to be jumped by) people
>>> from being able to write similar code and use that however they want.
>>
>> Its the hypocritical bit which confuses me. They made a business
>> decision to minimize the amount of engineering they had to do. Which
>> they were allowed to do under the terms of the license. This happens
>> all the time. Using someone's library doesn't mean you have to sign
>> onto their religion.
>>
>> I guess the point I am trying to make is that complaints like this
>> make little sense, and make people less likely to build things on top
>> of open source code.
>>
>> The open source projects that Apple has used have benefited form
>> patches back. I see no reason that they should have to release
>> unrelated code as some sort of implied social contract.
>
> My take is that the point of FLOSS is a set of mutual
> obligations/assistance.  I write code that might help you, you write
> code that might help me.
>
> I thus find it rather irritating when someone takes advantage of this
> situation to avoid having to write code, but then doesn't extend the
> same courtesy back (let alone makes money off of other people's
> freely-provided labour without even an attaboy).  It's one thing if said
> company is non-technical in nature and doesn't produce any software that
> _can_ be opened up; but when a company does produce code...
>
> I liken this to a millionaire going down to a soup-kitchen to eat
> because he can't be bothered either making dinner himself or paying
> someone else to do so.

*shrug*

We're not going to agree. I think its unreasonable for a third party to 
add extra obligations on top of what the license said. If the actual 
authors cared, they would have put that in the license.

Its like me caring who my mother sells her car to. Its her car, she can 
do what she wants with it.

Mikal