71–80 of 135 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If I made 500M$ using an Open Source library and didn’t send at least 1M$ to the author, I would be an objectively bad person.
I find this whole conversation baffling. Licenses and contracts are not a replacement for being a decent person.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I find it odd how we frame fairness in regards to open source software. He licensed his software as MIT. It says anyone can you use it without owing the author anything. So how is it unfair? To be clear, I think that open source maintainers deserve much more, but I don't understand why we rarely inspect the licenses as the source of the problem.
Because there’s a clear mismatch between the value generated from Box2d vs the value the creator receives, and that’s common for open-source in general. It would be common decency to donate even a small portion of that $500 million, even if the license technically doesn’t require it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
To the larger point, do you know if Rovio did support/pay Eric in any other way than that hoodie? Angry Birds generated $500M [0], supposedly. I would also not be surprised if the Rovio developers, designers, testers, etc. who worked on this game did not get a share of that $500M pie - I actually assume they didn't. But still, you know. Dare I say it - what about "fairness"? :-) [0] https://gameworldobserver.com/2023…
I find it odd how we frame fairness in regards to open source software. He licensed his software as MIT. It says anyone can you use it without owing the author anything. So how is it unfair? To be clear, I think that open source maintainers deserve much more, but I don't understand why we rarely inspect the licenses as the source of the problem.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Because there’s a clear mismatch between the value generated from Box2d vs the value the creator receives, and that’s common for open-source in general. It would be common decency to donate even a small portion of that $500 million, even if the license technically doesn’t require it.
But if this expectation really were very common, what would be the harm of putting it in a licence?
It means there’s lots of info on the internet explaining how to use the license and they can be relatively certain they won’t accidentally fall into some legal trap or misinterpret the license. It also means there’s legal precedent around the license.
All that to say, custom licenses are actually a big issue for small players.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If I made 500M$ using an Open Source library and didn’t send at least 1M$ to the author, I would be an objectively bad person.
That’s a fine perspective, but the whole point of law is to guarantee outcomes. The license could easily say “if you make more than $500M, you must pay me $1M”. Why is that not an acceptable solution here?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
i remember being hooked on Incredibots back when that was still a thing! that was how I heard about Box2D way back.
Well hello random IncrediBots-remembering person! Such good times with an oddly wholesome and welcoming community. I spent many of my teenage and early adult years trying to replicate it in HTML5. Finally got the Open Source version of IB2 largely ported during COVID: https://github.com/JoshTheDerf/Incredibots-2-HTML5-Open-Sour...
I remember every day as a kid logging on to find new vehicles, challenges, rube-goldberg machines. Some content archives are still online, but don't scratch that itch as an adult. For its time, Incredibots really nailed the sweet spot between expressiveness and ease to create content.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I find this whole conversation baffling. Licenses and contracts are not a replacement for being a decent person.
Sure, but contracts is the remedy society has developed to the problem that there are lots of indecent people around (not to mention that reasonable persons can disagree without being unreasonable).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I used to work at Rovio (the creator of Angry Birds). Everyone was telling the story of a talk given by Peter Vesterbacka, the head of marketing. When it was time for questions, a man from the audience asked what physics engine the game uses. Vesterbacka gives the correct answer, Box2D, to which the person replied with another question. "Why isn't it mentioned in the credits? And by the way, I'm Erin Catto, the creat…
To the larger point, do you know if Rovio did support/pay Eric in any other way than that hoodie? Angry Birds generated $500M [0], supposedly. I would also not be surprised if the Rovio developers, designers, testers, etc. who worked on this game did not get a share of that $500M pie - I actually assume they didn't. But still, you know. Dare I say it - what about "fairness"? :-) [0] https://gameworldobserver.com/2023…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
To the larger point, do you know if Rovio did support/pay Eric in any other way than that hoodie? Angry Birds generated $500M [0], supposedly. I would also not be surprised if the Rovio developers, designers, testers, etc. who worked on this game did not get a share of that $500M pie - I actually assume they didn't. But still, you know. Dare I say it - what about "fairness"? :-) [0] https://gameworldobserver.com/2023…
I find it odd how we frame fairness in regards to open source software. He licensed his software as MIT. It says anyone can you use it without owing the author anything. So how is it unfair? To be clear, I think that open source maintainers deserve much more, but I don't understand why we rarely inspect the licenses as the source of the problem.