Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Tgppl, a new type of open-source license

electriccoin.co

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

1–10 of 74 posts

Re: Tgppl, a new type of open-source license

#4

Post by onei »

samfisher83 wrote: post #2

This license sort of sounds like a patent. The creators get to make some money for a little while and then it gives everyone access to the software.

That was my impression too. However, where a patent expires, I couldn't see when the source code had to be released by. Seems a bit problematic if that is the case. I also don't see a substantial difference to just releasing the source code at a later date under a open source license when the copyright holder chooses to.

Re: Tgppl, a new type of open-source license

#5

Post by yjftsjthsd-h »

Well I'm skeptical, but at least unlike 99% of "radically new type of open-source license[s]" I think this one is actually, y'know, an open source license and not shared source pretending otherwise. If I'm reading "External Deployment" correctly, it's sorta like AGPL but with a time delay, which is... Not terrible, really.

Re: Tgppl, a new type of open-source license

#6

Post by duckerude »

kaszanka wrote: post #3

This is just more license proliferation and a solution to a nonexistent problem. Releasing software under a license like the GPL doesn't somehow prevent you from making money from it. See Ardour - GPLv2, paid binaries.

It doesn't entirely prevent you from making money, but it can make it harder.

Even the FSF acknowledges this. See for example "Proprietary software developers have the advantage of money" on https://www.gnu.org/licenses/why-not-lgpl.html.

Re: Tgppl, a new type of open-source license

#7

Post by PaulDavisThe1st »

kaszanka wrote: post #3

This is just more license proliferation and a solution to a nonexistent problem. Releasing software under a license like the GPL doesn't somehow prevent you from making money from it. See Ardour - GPLv2, paid binaries.

... and collecting US$17-20k per month (post COVID19 expansion, or was it just version 6.0?)

Re: Tgppl, a new type of open-source license

#8

Post by detaro »

kaszanka wrote: post #3

This is just more license proliferation and a solution to a nonexistent problem. Releasing software under a license like the GPL doesn't somehow prevent you from making money from it. See Ardour - GPLv2, paid binaries.

One example of a project working with existing licenses doesn't mean that there isn't a problem. And they don't claim that it entirely "prevent[s] you from making money from it". (Although I'm not convinced this license is a good solution, need to take a deeper look)

Re: Tgppl, a new type of open-source license

#9

Post by nsajko »

This (under the same name and version 1.0) has already been presented to FSF and OSI in the 2000s and 2010 on their mailing lists and other places, so I guess it didn't get approval. Since it thus isn't an open-source license, why present it as such in article title - starting out dishonest is probably not a good idea.

If I'm wrong and it is approved by OSI, that info should probably be more prominent in the blog post.

EDIT: indeed, both the 2008 mailing list post and this blog post call it "Transitive Grace Period Public Licence v. 1.0".

EDIT2: to be more constructive, a more proper way to describe the license could perhaps be "open-source-like".

EDIT3: framing this as an issue of honesty was a mistake, because Zooko or whoever can hold whatever opinion they like. It is a big issue anyways, see downthread if not convinced.

Re: Tgppl, a new type of open-source license

#10

Post by ksec »

>Radically...

I vaguely remember reading a similar Open Source License, but couldn't google it.

And it reads very AGPL like. Which may be a big no no for many Cooperation and Enterprise. And what if the Author Set a Grace Period of 50 years or longer?

It feels to me a solution looking for problem.

Post reply on HN