Isn't it a security risk to allow arbitrary mongodb (or minimongodb) commands in the client side? In their demo, they show a client deleting data from a js console. If that is possible, what prevents an evil user from doing the same to my deployed meteor app?
Meteor is now MIT licensed
101–110 of 127 posts
Re: Meteor is now MIT licensed
#102Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think that's demonstrably false given how good development tools actually are, particularly open source ones I'm curious about your specific frame of reference. Which tools do you have in mind? Have you also used Visual Studio, C#, and Linq as a point of comparison? (I have not, but they are mentioned favorably in these comments.) A lot of people might cite Eclipse as a good development tool. The Java GUI library u…
Well, I think mostly about the tools I usually use: JavaScript, Haskell (GHC is really absurdly awesome), Emacs (which has really good support for certain languages including JavaScript and Haskell but emphatically not Java), TeX, GNU/Linux, Git and probably a bunch of other tools and libraries that don't spring to mind immediately. I have used Visual Studio (mostly for C++ but a tiny bit of C# for WPF stuff), but no…
I'd like to add a few FOSS solutions I use every day: python, Django, Apache, and MySQL. These are the cornerstone of my job, and they work quite well.
Re: Meteor is now MIT licensed
#103Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
If you're not happy with that arrangement, you're free to not use my code Exactly. This conversation exists because guelo was complaining about people choosing to not use the GPL code. They don't like the arrangement. geon articulates why.
It was anti-gpl people that pressured meteor to change their license.
Re: Meteor is now MIT licensed
#104Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you're not happy with that arrangement, you're free to not use my code Exactly. This conversation exists because guelo was complaining about people choosing to not use the GPL code. They don't like the arrangement. geon articulates why.
It was anti-gpl people that pressured meteor to change their license.
I don't follow this war so I don't know if "anti-gpl" is a known, identifiable group that actively fights the gpl, or if it is a term you are using to describe dissenters in threads like this. If the latter, be careful: people like me aren't anti-gpl, it's just not the right tool for everything I do. I am working on software that may have some "magic sauce" on which my business thrives, and for this I wouldn't choose to give it a license that says I have to give it away for free.
There are those who think I shouldn't be able to make something of value (known because others are willing to pay for it) and not give it away at all. Or rather, I can, but not software. But let me give you an analogy.
Suppose somebody sold a camera- a very nice camera- that came with the terms of use that said, "Any picture you take with this camera must be made available to anybody who wants it at full resolution and downloadable from your website (etc etc)." Furthermore, some versions of the license state that any work which includes any picture from this camera has to be made available for free. So if you make a poster, or a collage, or anything else with the picture you have to make to poster, collage, etc. downloadable at full resolution for no charge.
My guess would be the not many professional photographers would use the camera for their professional work. It might be great for students, or for artists trying to make a name for themselves, for personal use, and/or perhaps a slew of folks I'm not thinking of right now. But not for pros. In fact, if all cameras started doing this it may seriously harm the field of professional photography. I wouldn't pay a professional photographer to take pictures for a branding series of advertisements that my competitor could simply steal and reuse to devalue my branding. Parents of small kids would give serious consideration as to whether they want the pics of the kids on the web (I have to sign a release for if, for instance, a school or camp wants to use my kids' picture in its promotional material, for example- so it's a concern for some at least).
So the idea that all software should be gpl is not correct, in my view, although I am not in any way anti-gpl.
Re: Meteor is now MIT licensed
#105Earlier 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.
From a users perspective there is no difference, because only programmers care about source code.
Re: Meteor is now MIT licensed
#106Earlier quoted context omitted.
"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.
From a users perspective there is no difference, because only programmers care about source code.
The freedom potentially lost to users due to Meteor going with a non-GPL open source license is that somebody could fork it and make a better version that eventually becomes dominant but restricts the user by {charging money, only working in a subset of environments, not being updated to work with other web languages, or just lacking a desired feature}.
Edit: I'm personally glad they went with the MIT license. Also, even if a fork takes place, the original code is still available.
Re: Meteor is now MIT licensed
#107Earlier quoted context omitted.
From a users perspective there is no difference, because only programmers care about source code.
The freedom potentially lost to users due to Meteor going with a non-GPL open source license is that somebody could fork it and make a better version that eventually becomes dominant but restricts the user by {charging money, only working in a subset of environments, not being updated to work with other web languages, or just lacking a desired feature}. Edit: I'm personally glad they went with the MIT license. Also,…
How many times has that happened?
jQuery changed the face of client side development, and its MIT license has encouraged significant and substantial corporate participation, but I have never even heard of a jquery fork. They actually have MS offering paid support for their library.
Rails changed the face of server side programming, and its MIT license has only increased corporate participation. Where is the rails fork?
Node.js changed the face of the app server landscape and is probably the latest big thing in web development. MIT license, where are the forks?
It is definitely a theoretical possibility, but it just doesn't seem to ever happen in this world. What does happen is you gain the ability to have companies throw money/manpower behind your project that they would otherwise have spent building a competing product that they could actually use.
Re: Meteor is now MIT licensed
#108Earlier quoted context omitted.
The freedom potentially lost to users due to Meteor going with a non-GPL open source license is that somebody could fork it and make a better version that eventually becomes dominant but restricts the user by {charging money, only working in a subset of environments, not being updated to work with other web languages, or just lacking a desired feature}. Edit: I'm personally glad they went with the MIT license. Also,…
How many times has that happened? jQuery changed the face of client side development, and its MIT license has encouraged significant and substantial corporate participation, but I have never even heard of a jquery fork. They actually have MS offering paid support for their library. Rails changed the face of server side programming, and its MIT license has only increased corporate participation. Where is the rails for…
[deleted]
Re: Meteor is now MIT licensed
#109Earlier quoted context omitted.
From a users perspective there is no difference, because only programmers care about source code.
The freedom potentially lost to users due to Meteor going with a non-GPL open source license is that somebody could fork it and make a better version that eventually becomes dominant but restricts the user by {charging money, only working in a subset of environments, not being updated to work with other web languages, or just lacking a desired feature}. Edit: I'm personally glad they went with the MIT license. Also,…
God forbid someone put work into something, make it better, and then choose to charge for that work.
Re: Meteor is now MIT licensed
#110Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 obj…
Specifically, it trades away actual freedom right now for the person who currently has a copy of the code... How so? As far as I know, if I have GPL code, I can do whatever I want with it. Could you tell me any action I might want to take that the GPL prevents? The only "freedom" the GPL removes is the freedom to restrict the actions of others. To me, that seems like a rather odd sort of freedom.
Compile it, sell the binaries without do not inform the buyer that he can get the sources and/or refuse to give them those sources on request.