It would be interesting to see some statistics before and after this announcement, even if it's still a young framework.
Meteor is now MIT licensed
81–90 of 127 posts
Re: Meteor is now MIT licensed
#82Earlier quoted context omitted.
If it isn't obvious, GPL is an attack against proprietary computers and against the corporations that have been trying repeatedly over decades to bottle-up and monopolize the computer revolution.
Is it surprising that the GPL represents the antithesis of the startup community? No matter how idealistic any large group of young hackers will want to be, fiduciary duty will always trump everything when you play with business. You can love the GPL as much as Stallman himself, but when you're grasping for any edge you can find over your competition, you'll think twice before shipping her a tarball of your source.
That's entirely off topic. We're discussing GPL versus a more free license. If anything, this is an argument for the GPL.
Re: Meteor is now MIT licensed
#83Earlier quoted context omitted.
Did he say this? Seems like a really bad analogy to me. If more people are using Meteor, for example, the entire ecosystem will grow. Even if half the devs are writing closed source, they are learning a common tool and that skill lets them contribute to the common knowledge pool (eg. they can answers questions on StackOverFlow). It also creates a bigger market for Meteor developers, thus accelerating adoption.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ymuqUJ3MsEs&t=3m12s
He says 'non free' there, not non-GPL'ed. The FSF considers lots of licenses other than the GPL to be 'free software'.
Re: Meteor is now MIT licensed
#84Earlier quoted context omitted.
Is it surprising that the GPL represents the antithesis of the startup community? No matter how idealistic any large group of young hackers will want to be, fiduciary duty will always trump everything when you play with business. You can love the GPL as much as Stallman himself, but when you're grasping for any edge you can find over your competition, you'll think twice before shipping her a tarball of your source.
That's entirely off topic. We're discussing GPL versus a more free license. If anything, this is an argument for the GPL.
Off topic? The topic, if I've read correctly, is: I feel it is sad that so few HN hackers seem to appreciate the vision of the GPL
Reusing GPL'd code forces developers to in turn release their code; more free licenses don't have this effect.
Re: Meteor is now MIT licensed
#85(whoa the background needs a attribute...)
Re: Meteor is now MIT licensed
#86I feel it is sad that so few HN hackers seem to appreciate the vision of the GPL. GPL needs more indispensable software like this for it to thrive and protect us all from a future of completely locked down computers.
From a user perspective, GPL offers in theory more freedom, since new products built on codebase X will also be free. It is debatable if this is true in practice. If less software gets built as a result of the license restriction, the GPL takes away freedom. Even closed source software adds some freedom - the freedom of choice. From a developer perspective, there is no question which one is more free. We often do not…
"GPL takes away freedom" is a very developer-centric point of view. From user point of view GPL gives freedoms that MIT/BSD don't give.
Where freedoms of developers and users conflict, GPL sides with users.
In other words, GPL only takes away your freedom to take freedom away from others. If you don't intend to restrict others' freedoms, GPL shouldn't get in your way.
Re: Meteor is now MIT licensed
#87Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's entirely off topic. We're discussing GPL versus a more free license. If anything, this is an argument for the GPL.
Off topic? The topic, if I've read correctly, is: I feel it is sad that so few HN hackers seem to appreciate the vision of the GPL Reusing GPL'd code forces developers to in turn release their code; more free licenses don't have this effect.
Yes, that was the original contrast, versus the MIT license of the OP. Sure, people will opt to not release code when it contains trade secrets or whatnot, but the thread is about MIT vs GPL, basically.
Anyway, not to play thread police, it just seemed to me that it was veering off into another direction. I'm cranky in the mornings!
Re: Meteor is now MIT licensed
#88Earlier quoted context omitted.
From a user perspective, GPL offers in theory more freedom, since new products built on codebase X will also be free. It is debatable if this is true in practice. If less software gets built as a result of the license restriction, the GPL takes away freedom. Even closed source software adds some freedom - the freedom of choice. From a developer perspective, there is no question which one is more free. We often do not…
"GPL takes away freedom" is a very developer-centric point of view. From user point of view GPL gives freedoms that MIT/BSD don't give. Where freedoms of developers and users conflict, GPL sides with users. In other words, GPL only takes away your freedom to take freedom away from others. If you don't intend to restrict others' freedoms, GPL shouldn't get in your way.
The GPL actually trades off freedom over time. Specifically, it trades away actual freedom right now for the person who currently has a copy of the code, in an attempt to secure potential freedom later for people who do not yet but might someday have copies of the code or of code derived from it.
As such, the GPL is always, in the "now", a license which grants less freedom than, say, the BSD or MIT licenses. Most objections to the GPL, including my own, come from a position of cost/benefit on the trade it wants to make, and of disagreeing that that trade is worth making.
Re: Meteor is now MIT licensed
#89Earlier quoted context omitted.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ymuqUJ3MsEs&t=3m12s
He says 'non free' there, not non-GPL'ed. The FSF considers lots of licenses other than the GPL to be 'free software'.
The FSF has little choice but to consider a lot of licenses "free", but is also quite clear in the opinion that strong-copyleft licenses are always superior, and that people who do not use strong-copyleft licenses aren't really as good as people who do use them.
Re: Meteor is now MIT licensed
#90I feel it is sad that so few HN hackers seem to appreciate the vision of the GPL. GPL needs more indispensable software like this for it to thrive and protect us all from a future of completely locked down computers.
From a user perspective, GPL offers in theory more freedom, since new products built on codebase X will also be free. It is debatable if this is true in practice. If less software gets built as a result of the license restriction, the GPL takes away freedom. Even closed source software adds some freedom - the freedom of choice. From a developer perspective, there is no question which one is more free. We often do not…
I license code under the GPL. If I write something and release it open source, I'm doing you a favour by letting you use it for free. If you make changes and distribute them, the least you can do is return the favour and give them back. If you're not happy with that arrangement, you're free to not use my code.
I wouldn't be happy if I spent a lot of time writing some open source software and then a company came along, improved on it, and distributed it in their closed, proprietary software. That's why I prefer the GPL over the MIT license.