I changed my license

Post by jruohonen » Sun, Sep 06, 2026, 11:12 AM UTC

hypfer wrote: post #15

jruohonen wrote: post #2

CC BY-NC-ND is what I'm also increasingly using (for non-code), though not always, and disheartenedly. (And as commented, the non-code context is different.)

ND is usually a bit sad, as it makes the thing a dead-end. The magic of the web has always been that things would continuously morph through being reinterpreted and all, and that just doesn't happen with ND. I can of course see the valid reasons why one would pick that license, but it's still.. kinda sad that it's culturally dead.

Post by hypfer » Sun, Sep 06, 2026, 11:14 AM UTC

jruohonen wrote: post #21

hypfer wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

ND is usually a bit sad, as it makes the thing a dead-end. The magic of the web has always been that things would continuously morph through being reinterpreted and all, and that just doesn't happen with ND. I can of course see the valid reasons why one would pick that license, but it's still.. kinda sad that it's culturally dead.

True enough; philosophically, I am still in the BY camp (a.k.a. BSD/MIT/etc.), and I do not particularly care about the NC part, but ND is increasingly important for non-code. But if they could do even the BY properly, it would be a step to the right direction (and, to some extent, I think they're doing that).

Post by LoganDark » Sun, Sep 06, 2026, 11:15 AM UTC

jraph wrote: post #5

LoganDark wrote: post #3

I don't like the phrasing of the EUPL because it says you have rights full stop and then in a later section it says there are actually conditions. For that reason I would not immediately be sure the conditions are even enforceable, other than "this was surely made by lawyers and therefore also surely valid". Aside from that, it is nice to see Communication counted alongside Distribution; this should have been done fr…

> I don't like the phrasing of the EUPL because it says you have rights full stop and then in a later section it says there are actually conditions. For that reason I would not immediately be sure the conditions are even enforceable. Full right to use no conditions ≠ full right on what you can do with the code

    2. Scope of the rights granted by the Licence
    
    The Licensor hereby grants You a worldwide, royalty-free, non-exclusive,
    sublicensable licence to do the following, for the duration of copyright vested
    in the Original Work:
    
    - use the Work in any circumstance and for all usage,
    - reproduce the Work,
    - modify the Work, and make Derivative Works based upon the Work,
    - communicate to the public, including the right to make available or display
      the Work or copies thereof to the public and perform publicly, as the case may
      be, the Work,
    - distribute the Work or copies thereof,
    - lend and rent the Work or copies thereof,
    - sublicense rights in the Work or copies thereof.
    
    Those rights can be exercised on any media, supports and formats, whether now
    known or later invented, as far as the applicable law permits so.
    
    In the countries where moral rights apply, the Licensor waives his right to
    exercise his moral right to the extent allowed by law in order to make effective
    the licence of the economic rights here above listed.
    
    The Licensor grants to the Licensee royalty-free, non-exclusive usage rights to
    any patents held by the Licensor, to the extent necessary to make use of the
    rights granted on the Work under this Licence.

Post by brainwad » Sun, Sep 06, 2026, 11:17 AM UTC

LoganDark wrote: post #22

dotancohen wrote: post #7

This article would do better if it simply enumerated the problems with the LGPL and addressed how this new license which I've never heard of addresses those problems. This hinting and alluding might make great SEO, but that's fit for neither the audience of people producing software, nor for HN.

The article seems pretty clear that the LGPL is too weak compared to the EUPL for this author, and one of the main concerns is the "SaaS loophole" which I assume would be addressed by the AGPL but also seems addressed by the EUPL.

Post by hypfer » Sun, Sep 06, 2026, 11:19 AM UTC

jruohonen wrote: post #28

hypfer wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Huh. Can you elaborate why you view ND as increasingly important, whereas NC bothers you less? Because for me, it would be the exact other way round.

ND is important for those who do "authoritative writing" (for a lack of a better term); i.e., when you write with your real name, you do not want nonsense and disinformation associated with your name.