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

I changed my license

bergie.iki.fi

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 200 posts

Re: I changed my license

#51

Post by logifail »

franciscop wrote: post #46

> "Over the years it has been clear that we in the “open source” camp (as opposed to the “free software” camp) were wrong all along. We won the debate, and gained little for users or developers. All that our efforts did was to make it easier for big corporations build things more cheaply and for billionaires to become trillionaires." I hate that some people like to put us all in the same bag. Please don't include me.…

> I don't really care if either my neighbor or Elon Musk used my open source code.

I wish we could spend less (collective) time here on HN talking about/worrying about Elon Musk.

We're (allegedly) here for "anything that gratifies one's intellectual curiosity".

What SpaceX and/or Tesla are doing could certainly satisfy that, worrying about Musk himself certainly isn't.

Re: I changed my license

#52

Post by Brian_K_White »

mihaelm wrote: post #38
mnahkies wrote: post #12

What are people's thoughts/experiences about dual licencing? Eg: is there a clean way to dual license such that hobbyist, and exploratory work (eg: a proof of concept done in a commercial setting) are allowed, but using it in production requires a fee? If you've done this, has it been successful? Obviously there's been many projects relicense over recent years (terraform, redis, etc) - but it's less clear to me if th…

I think it definitely hurts adoption. No hobbyist or experimenter wants to delve into legalities head first by first having to understand the licensing terms of software, whereas permissive licenses like MIT and Apache 2.0 are easily-understood and familiar. The solution is probably to be more selective what you're open sourcing if you're planning to build a business. And what you open source, you do it under a permi…

Excuse me but as both a hobbyist and commercial software developer I say that the gpl (any version) is quite simple enough. There is no need to go all the way to bsd/mit just to get safety and clarity and freedom from encumberance.

The only people who avoid gpl and talk about mit as being the only safe option, are exactly the people no one should care about. They are the people for whom free isn't free enough, and they must steal even when it's already free.

That is not "adoption" anyone needs to care about.

Re: I changed my license

#53

Post by codemog »

alturp wrote: post #33

> "Over the years it has been clear that we in the “open source” camp (as opposed to the “free software” camp) were wrong all along. We won the debate, and gained little for users or developers. All that our efforts did was to make it easier for big corporations build things more cheaply and for billionaires to become trillionaires." Claiming this and afterwards deciding to use a weak copy left license like EUPL (whi…

Also there’s only one trillionaire and that varies by the stock that day. And it’s not because he abused open source, he’s just the greatest huckster of all time.

Re: I changed my license

#54

Post by amazingamazing »

lionkor wrote: post #47
amazingamazing wrote: post #4

Do these types of things really matter anymore? If you have tokens, given the source is available pretty easy to reimplement with plausible deniability.

If you think an LLM can just implement e.g. an alternative to the Linux kernel from scratch (or any other GPL licensed software), you might be falling for the marketing. Have you seen LLMs build large, stable, pieces of software, that work well, with your own eyes? I have not. I have seen LLMs build small, well-understood things, and I've seen LLMs do super well with extremely well specified problems, but all the res…

Bun was rewritten for software used by millions.

Re: I changed my license

#55

Post by Tomte »

ricardobeat wrote: post #44
mihaelm wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You might also be interested in the O'Saasy license ( https://osaasy.dev/ ) which is in the similar vein, but simpler. HashiCorp switched to BUSL license for their products/tools when they already had substantial market share, and they still faced MPL-licensed forks (Terraform -> OpenTofu, Vault -> OpenBao). It will be interesting to see in a few years if those tools notably cut into their share. I'm not sure a new t…

Looks nice. Two main differences: - BUSL is OSI-approved and listed in SPDX, so corporate lawyers won't be scared away by it: https://spdx.org/licenses/BUSL-1.1.html - With BUSL the restriction is revenue-based. You can still create competing products, but would have to pay a licensing fee.

> BUSL is OSI-approved

Of course it isn‘t.

Re: I changed my license

#56

Post by jimnotgym »

If one licences open source under a strong copyleft licence (say AGPL3) presumably one can open up later and issue under weaker licences (say MIT) if one chooses?

Presumably you can also sell access to it with a full commercial licence if one chooses?

Re: I changed my license

#57

Post by f311a »

lionkor wrote: post #47
amazingamazing wrote: post #4

Do these types of things really matter anymore? If you have tokens, given the source is available pretty easy to reimplement with plausible deniability.

If you think an LLM can just implement e.g. an alternative to the Linux kernel from scratch (or any other GPL licensed software), you might be falling for the marketing. Have you seen LLMs build large, stable, pieces of software, that work well, with your own eyes? I have not. I have seen LLMs build small, well-understood things, and I've seen LLMs do super well with extremely well specified problems, but all the res…

A lot of open source that we used to use as dependencies is trivial. Sometimes you only need 10% of the library. No one is talking about kernel.

Also, changing license does not prevent you from forking the source code before the change. There are no new libraries with kernel level effort that use uncommon license.

Re: I changed my license

#58

Post by franciscop »

logifail wrote: post #51
franciscop wrote: post #46

> "Over the years it has been clear that we in the “open source” camp (as opposed to the “free software” camp) were wrong all along. We won the debate, and gained little for users or developers. All that our efforts did was to make it easier for big corporations build things more cheaply and for billionaires to become trillionaires." I hate that some people like to put us all in the same bag. Please don't include me.…

> I don't really care if either my neighbor or Elon Musk used my open source code. I wish we could spend less (collective) time here on HN talking about/worrying about Elon Musk. We're (allegedly) here for "anything that gratifies one's intellectual curiosity". What SpaceX and/or Tesla are doing could certainly satisfy that, worrying about Musk himself certainly isn't.

Agreed; I mentioned Elon because the post made the reference quite explicit by saying "trillionaires", probably given the context Bezos or Gates would've been better examples though.

Re: I changed my license

#59

Post by Daegalus »

https://github.com/daegalus/daegalus/blob/main/licensing-phi...

I created something like this on my github and then i relicensed what i could that was purely mine, and kept other stuff unchanged and only used those licenses as default going forward mostly.

I chose EUPL also for pure AGPL style OSS work. and I plan to use other licenses as needed.

Re: I changed my license

#60

Post by emersion »

jimnotgym wrote: post #56

If one licences open source under a strong copyleft licence (say AGPL3) presumably one can open up later and issue under weaker licences (say MIT) if one chooses? Presumably you can also sell access to it with a full commercial licence if one chooses?

This works as long as you're the only copyright holder. If other developers contribute, weakening the license requires their approval.
Post reply on HN