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

21–30 of 74 posts

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

#21

Post by raphlinus »

PaulDavisThe1st wrote: post #7
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?)

Super! My understand is that Krita's distribution through app stores has a similar flavor - it's pure GPL, no tricks, but people pay for the convenience and assurance of downloading the official version of the app.

My personal feeling is that as PC's become more locked down and less under user control, paying for the digitally signed version might increasingly become a viable business model. Trademarks and TOS enforcement might be a more effective moat against being undercut than copyrights and licenses.

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

#23

Post by iameli »

Haven't gone line-by-line on this one, but I like the new trend of "time limit" licenses. If I'm trying to start a business, something AGPL-ish might make sense in the short term to avoid bigger competitors copying everything we're doing. But that doesn't mean I want my great-grandchildren to be able to sue for violations 90 years from now. "AGPL for now, MIT later" seems like a good compromise.

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

#24

Post by nordsieck »

This seems like a fundamentally bad idea for software.

Simply put, living software contains a constant stream of patches, which "reset" the clock continuously.

It would be one thing if this license were used on a book or some other work which is substantially finished. Once the book is published, the clock starts ticking and users eventually get to the MIT pot of gold at the end of the timer.

With software, the only time that happens if after the software is abandoned. At that point, there's rarely many people interested in using it anyhow.

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

#25

Post by GranPC »

nordsieck wrote: post #24

This seems like a fundamentally bad idea for software. Simply put, living software contains a constant stream of patches, which "reset" the clock continuously. It would be one thing if this license were used on a book or some other work which is substantially finished. Once the book is published, the clock starts ticking and users eventually get to the MIT pot of gold at the end of the timer. With software, the only…

I haven't read the license fully, but wouldn't that just mean you would be able to use releases that are older than the time period specified?

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

#26

Post by nordsieck »

GranPC wrote: post #25
nordsieck wrote: post #24

This seems like a fundamentally bad idea for software. Simply put, living software contains a constant stream of patches, which "reset" the clock continuously. It would be one thing if this license were used on a book or some other work which is substantially finished. Once the book is published, the clock starts ticking and users eventually get to the MIT pot of gold at the end of the timer. With software, the only…

I haven't read the license fully, but wouldn't that just mean you would be able to use releases that are older than the time period specified?

> wouldn't that just mean you would be able to use releases that are older than the time period specified?

That is a fair point.

Depending on the type of software and the frequency of bug fixes that may be a more or less reasonable strategy.

Also, in case you haven't read the license, the time period is 12 months.

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

#27

Post by [deleted] »

nsajko wrote: post #9

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 pos…

[deleted]

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

#29

Post by Animats »

nordsieck wrote: post #24

This seems like a fundamentally bad idea for software. Simply put, living software contains a constant stream of patches, which "reset" the clock continuously. It would be one thing if this license were used on a book or some other work which is substantially finished. Once the book is published, the clock starts ticking and users eventually get to the MIT pot of gold at the end of the timer. With software, the only…

Yes, that looks like a problem:

...to distribute or communicate copies of the Original Work and Derivative Works to the public, with the proviso that copies of Original Work or Derivative Works that You distribute or communicate shall be licensed under this Transitive Grace Period Public Licence no later than 12 months after You distributed or communicated said copies

It looks like the effect is that the public versions must always lag a year behind the proprietary versions.

So, this isn't open source, although it is abandonware protection.

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

#30

Post by Gaelan »

StavrosK wrote: post #17

Can someone better-versed in legalese explain how this works? What is the restriction before the 12 months (and what happens after that?). Say I make money from the code, what about the contributors? Do they contribute code and get nothing for it, or am I supposed to pay them a cut?

If I'm reading the blog post right, it's essentially MIT for 12 months after you make changes, then (A?)GPL after. (To be clear, not those actual licenses.)
Post reply on HN