Seeing big companies take advantage of BSD or MIT licensed projects without sharing their contributions will always pain me.

Sometimes there's a benefit in getting open source code into proprietary software. Think libraries implementing interoperability APIs, communication protocols, file formats, etc

That's what permissive licenses are for.

If some company wants to keep their code closed and they have a choice between something interoperable or something proprietary that they will subsequently promote, and the licence is the only thing stopping them from going for the open source approach, that's worse.

Completely agree that a good breadth of everything else is suited to copyleft licensing though

If some company wants to keep their code closed

That's the whole point, you're leveraging the use of the commons so that it's less feasible to keep your code closed. If they want to keep their code closed, they can spend a lot more manhours building everything from scratch.
- Our man-hours come from leadership and architects so separated from code they can't agree on drawings or what constitutes a micro service architecture or... Any real pattern at all.

Someone biulds a thing and puts it on the curb in front of his house with a sign:

I had fun building this and learnt a lot. Do with it whatever you want.

Then someone else comes along, takes it, and sells it.
I fail to see how the inventor was taken advantage of. They presumably thought about which license they want to use and specifically chose this one.

Taking without giving is always viewed negatively in social settings.

Maybe "taking advantage of" is wrong but then again, it is a dick move anyway.
- If I'm putting BSD or MIT license on something, I'm explicitly saying you can use it however you want, you can change it however you want, you don't have to share back, I just ask for credit for my part in it
  
  It's not taking so much as being given freely
- With software there would be infinite copies of that free item for everyone to get. So the dick move is to sell it to people who are unaware that they could get it for free.
This person takes advantage of people who are unaware that they could just get it for free as well.

However, if this person is putting in an effort to sell this item (like advertisement or creating a platform to distribute this item more easily) then I don't see anything wrong in charging money for that.
That's not really a common situation though. Sure, people might use the BSD license on something they did as a hobby, or just to learn things. But, the scenario described here is more like:

A group of people all have the same little problem, and they work together to come up with a solution for it. They solve the main problem, but their solution has a few rough edges and there are similar problems they didn't solve, but they're not motivated to keep working on it because what they have is good enough for their current needs. So, they put out some flyers describing how to do what they did, and inviting anybody who's interested to keep working on improving their fix.

A company comes along, sees the info, and builds a tool that solves the problem but not quite as well, and for a small fee. They spend tons of money promoting their solution, drowning out the little pamphlet that the original guys did. They use as much IP protection as possible, patenting their designs, trademarking the look and feel, copyrighting the instructions, etc. Often they accidentally(?) issue legal threats or takedown notices to people who are merely hosting the original design or original pamphlets.

Maybe the original inventor didn't get screwed in this scenario, but you could say that the public did.
This is perfectly fine to do under GPL as well. I don't see the problem.

There are companies that sell Linux distros on a DVD or USB drive.

This seems like complaining that the BSD license does exactly what it intends to do.

Yeah, as if the authors had no idea what terms the license has....
- ignorance is one thing, but it's a whole nother level of loser behaviour to intentionally do unpaid work for big tech companies in your free time

I feel like most people base their decision on license purely on anecdotes of a handful of cases where the outcome was not how they would have wanted it. Yet, most people will never be in that spot, because they don't have anything that anyone would want to consume.

If I had produced something of value I want to protect, I wouldn't make it open in the first place. Every piece of your code will be used to feed LLMs, regardless of your license.

It is perfectly fine to slap MIT on your JavaScript widget and let some junior in some shop use it to get their project done. Makes people's life easier, and you don't want to sue anyone anyway in case of license violations.

If you're building a kernel module for a TCP reimplementation which dramatically outperforms the current implementation, yeah, probably a different story

I once read that the license should be smaller than your code. Gives me a good baseline:

Permissive license for small projects and little tests

Copyleft license for big projects
- I'm stealing this 👍
- Cries in left-pad.

I know Luke Smith is controversial, but this Blogpost of him is kinda funny and fits the topic:

Why I Use the GPL and Not Cuck Licenses

To an extent I agree with this, but "Once upon a time, this guy licensed his code under BSD instead of GPL and basically it's his fault the Intel Management Engine exists" is definitely a step too far
- Tanenbaum is right, they obviously could've taken the time and money to write an OS themselves if they had to, but they didn't have to, because a BSD license cuck wrote it for them. Thanks a lot, sucker!
  
  I have no issues with this point.
  
  But what’s up with the CIA “a bunch of n****rs” image above that? WTF?
- yeaah true

I read a story of someone that contributed to a BSD project, including fixes over some period of time, but later they ended up having to use a proprietary UNIX for work, that included their code, in a an intermediate, buggy state, but they were legally forbidden from applying their own bug fixes!

At the very least the GPL guarantees that if I am ever downstream of myself, I has fix my own damn mistakes and don't have to suffer them.

I am still willing to contribute to BSD stuff, but vastly prefer something like the AGPLv3.

So it's an argument against restrictive licenses? The more freedom the better? I mean Unix in this case had a too restrictive license?
- What? GPL does not restrict freedom, it ensures its continued existence.
- It's an argument against a license that permits relicensing under a more restrictive license. (E.g. BSD)

In some cases it works, in some it doesn't. PostgreSQL for example for huge support after Oracle got control of MySQL, despite the license.

Yes. But it's despite.

You totally misunderstand MIT licensing

Why not explain what's missing to the room?
- One project goal of OpenBSD is: "We strive to make our software robust and secure, and encourage companies to use whichever pieces they want to."
  They are not being taken advantage of, this is a desired outcome.

LGPL ftw

Can someone help me? I have been licencing my code under BSD2Clause, I wish to switch to gplv3. How do I switch?

Do I have to put the licence at the top of every file?
Where do I put my name ie Copyright <Author Name> <Year>

Thank you

Here is a guide from the GNU website: https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-howto.en.html
- Thank you so much. This is exactly what I needed
Delete the current LICENSE file in your repository and replace it with the new one.

You don't have to put your name, year etc anywhere, the license is valid for the entire repo. You are not filing for an IP, it's just a usage license.

Note that all the legal jargon is not necessary, you can write one yourself as long as you make it clear what you allow and what you don't allow.

I.e. "don't be a dick" requires elaboration, "do not use my code if you intend to make money off of it or parts of it" is clear and legally binding.
- So just replace my old licence file with the GPL?

No one brought up ai yet? No, srsly …..

My opinion on these licenses is theoretical since I haven’t actually developed any open source.

However an analogous scenario which DOES affect me, and most people here ….

I’ve posted my opinion online in various places. Offered freely to the public to do as they please.
I’m fine with companies making money off providing the aggregate of such efforts to the public, such as by advertising. However my pseudonym retains credit and the audience is open

All well and good until AI came along and everyone sees a potential jackpot. And there’s Reddit, wanting a bigger share of that jackpot. They’ve taken the idea a step farther and I’m not ok with it. I guess I don’t like the restrictions and I don’t like the extra levels of profiteering: Reddit makes money off providing my content in a limited form to private companies. They in turn make money off AI trained by my content, to a limited audience and there is no longer a portion credited to my pseudonym. Technically they’re in the right since I never thought to prevent this scenario, but they’re not using it in the way I expected/intended/ was told

Something I don't get paid enough to understand - what constitutes contributions, and what's the definition of selling the software?

For instance, I don't think I've worked on a project where we have made changes to the source code for security policies (much quicker path to update immediately if something gets flagged). But I don't think I know of an instance where we sell our software as a service - as far as I know it's largely used to support other services we sell.

Except now that I say that, that's not entirely true, we DO have a review board that we have to submit every third party library to and it takes forever to hear back but we have occasionally gotten a "no can't use that" or "contract is pending." So maybe I'm just super unaware of who reviews the third party software and they review the licenses.

We have a scanner that does that on every build.

It blocks builds for dependencies with

licenses not acceptable to Legal

serious or critical vulnerabilities.

political messages, even if you agree with them

we may also add a criteria to block non-release dependencies.

As a developer, you’re free to use anything that works

I have yet to figure out how my company views contributing back to open source. I don’t know of anyone actively doing that, but it turns out we host a few originals of open source. I’ve been trying to improve development processes, get tools and dependencies up to date ….. but then I ran into things where it’s a bigger change because of the downstream opensource dependencies and because it’s not really owned by the company

Personally I believe that the rights of users to privacy and freedom are more important then a corporations right to use open source software to make proprietary software. There's a reason why nobody uses FreeBSD and why Linux is the dominant open source operating system.

The reason is not the license.
Hi. Nobody here. Do you know that if you own a PS5 or Nintendo Switch, you're a FreeBSD user?

Maybe we've got a different idea what it means to be a user.
- The closest FreeBSD has to users is its proprietary derivatives, at this point FreeBSD might as well be considered proprietary.
I don't get what you're trying to say here: the BSDs aren't private and secure?
- I'm saying that when code is open source it helps the open source ecosystem and when using open source code means contributing your modifications everyone benefits.

I have spent the last 10 years of my career writing open source scientific software