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 $500M pie - I actually assume they didn't.
But still, you know. Dare I say it - what about "fairness"? :-)
[0] https://gameworldobserver.com/2023/02/28/angry-birds-2-reven...
I find it odd how we frame fairness in regards to open source software. He licensed his software as MIT. It says anyone can you use it without owing the author anything. So how is it unfair?
To be clear, I think that open source maintainers deserve much more, but I don't understand why we rarely inspect the licenses as the source of the problem.
Well there's this little pesky thing in the MIT license:
The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be included in all copies or substantial portions of the Software.
That's what he was asking for, a mention in the credits.
Since he eventually got the credit, your unfairness argument better build entirely on the damage the creator suffered by the delay of his credit.
He got his name in the credits. The question was if he is owed anything else. The contract he created says he was not. I’m simply suggesting he might need a different contract.
If I made 500M$ 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?
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).
You seem to be confusing what is legally/contractually required with what is fair. Fairness, in general, isn't defined by law or contracts, although some laws try to codify it.
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?
MIT is simple, open, and common which is a big benefit for indie projects, small studios, and anyone with limited legal resources.
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.
Box2d is open source. For better or for worse, Rovio are entitled to use it.