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

61–70 of 197 posts

Re: I changed my license

#61

Post by throawayonthe »

Brian_K_White wrote: post #52
mihaelm wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 th…

right but the GPL explicitly allows commercial use, which isn't what the original comment was about ("use in production requires a fee"); i agree with the previous comment that such a license is hard to assess for a hobbyist, but the GPL is not such a license (hence yes it's simple enough)

Re: I changed my license

#63

Post by 1294899 »

The license still allows AI training theft. What is needed is an OSS EULA that forbids IP theft, since the governments are corrupt and still allow it.

The EULA needs a clause that 10% of the market cap of a company will be paid to the IP holder upon violating it.

Re: I changed my license

#64

Post by Joel_Mckay »

ricardobeat wrote: post #39
Joel_Mckay wrote: post #6

For FOSS I personally prefer Apache 2.0 license, as 10 years from now I have no idea what people will need for their projects. Personally, it makes me happy if people can make a business using a bit of my work. Just don't redirect commercial support tickets onto community projects, or get neglected customers to contact authors. The way I see it... is symbiotic commercial relationships are important, as people can get…

This, for some reason, has become a controversial idea — as evidenced by your comment being downvoted. I don’t understand what angle people are coming from, when they disregard the community effects of open-source software entirely. If your main goal is to make money, there is absolutely nothing wrong with building a business instead.

If people have a rational self-interest in helping build great works, than the projects simply manifest out of necessity. There is zero benefit in assuming everything is a zero-sum game.

With billions of people online someone is always having the best or worst day of their lives. I rather people be honest about what they think, and trust respectful disagreement is welcome. Have a great day =3

Re: I changed my license

#65

Post by throawayonthe »

kzrdude wrote: post #37

Using EUPL is mostly a way to signal that you want to use a license grounded in EU law, not in US law. That's at least the way I've looked at it.

if the EUPL actually closes the SaaS loophole (first time i'm hearing about it though) in a legally grounded way i can see it being used by people outside the EU who say the AGPL is unenforceable/is actually nonfree/is too hard to actually comply with

Re: I changed my license

#66

Post by zelphirkalt »

Joel_Mckay wrote: post #6

For FOSS I personally prefer Apache 2.0 license, as 10 years from now I have no idea what people will need for their projects. Personally, it makes me happy if people can make a business using a bit of my work. Just don't redirect commercial support tickets onto community projects, or get neglected customers to contact authors. The way I see it... is symbiotic commercial relationships are important, as people can get…

I think people getting time sponsored working on FOSS is quite rare. Would like to do that myself, but instead I just develop in my free time.

Re: I changed my license

#67

Post by graemep »

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…

In practice AGPL might achieve that. It does allow commercial use, but a lot of big businesses, especially big tech, will not use it. On the other hand it is a clear, OSI approved, FOSS license.

Re: I changed my license

#68

Post by meindnoch »

amazingamazing wrote: post #54
lionkor wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Mechanical translation.

Re: I changed my license

#69

Post by [deleted] »

LoganDark wrote: post #36
brainwad wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But the EUPL itself says that derivative works may be distributed under the LGPL instead, as long as those works are derived from both a EUPL and LGPL parent. This seems kinda trivial to abuse and the author should have noticed this clause if that was their main concern.

Huh, that's a pretty massive loophole. Pretty much makes the whole license irrelevant.

[deleted]

Re: I changed my license

#70

Post by Joel_Mckay »

broodbucket wrote: post #41
Joel_Mckay wrote: post #6

For FOSS I personally prefer Apache 2.0 license, as 10 years from now I have no idea what people will need for their projects. Personally, it makes me happy if people can make a business using a bit of my work. Just don't redirect commercial support tickets onto community projects, or get neglected customers to contact authors. The way I see it... is symbiotic commercial relationships are important, as people can get…

>Personally, it makes me happy if people can make a business using a bit of my work Copyleft doesn't say that they can't, it says they have to make their changes available

I am mostly just an anti-contaminating license proponent. Porting to multiple platforms gets complicated if you include a 3rd party commercial library with a project that on linking demands it also become publicly accessible.

For example, if someone wants to do something creative... they shouldn't have to cite 400 different peoples licenses. That isn't sustainable or fun.

I will stick with Apache 2.0, but understand different folks have other use-cases =3

Post reply on HN