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

91–100 of 192 posts

Re: I changed my license

#91

Post by throwaway89201 »

apt-get wrote: post #32

Worth noting that the "escape hatch" clauses in the EUPL that allow converting it into other licenses mean it's only ever as strong as the weakest license it names for such an operation, AKA EPL/MPL/LGPL. Any actor that wants to mess around with providing a closed extension on a network service can exercise that option with an EUPL codebase, so if you care about that, you're better off explicitly naming the AGPL or w…

You are describing the compatibility clause as if it's settled that the EUPL simply allows you to convert to a compatible license. The compatibility clause is an unfortunate ambiguity, but it's not the intention of the license authors to lose strong copyleft and SaaS loophole protections this way. See for example here [1] [2] [3].

[1] https://interoperable-europe.ec.europa.eu/collection/eupl/di...

[2] https://interoperable-europe.ec.europa.eu/collection/eupl/ho...

[3] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45422512

Re: I changed my license

#92

Post by Joel_Mckay »

xorcist wrote: post #86
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…

> it makes me happy if people can make a business using a bit of my work It's an idea as old as any: The freedom to restrict the freedom of others, is it really a freedom? It is a tiresome debate. People can argue about it until the sun sets without reaching an agreement. Better to be clear about which kind of freedom you mean, and respect the choice of others. Plenty of businesses have been started around free softw…

Philosophically, I see it as forced charity is no longer a true charity paradox.

Or, a copyright troll is functionally indifferent from a copyleft troll.

It is important to keep the path clear for kids to build their own success stories. =3

Re: I changed my license

#93

Post by RobotToaster »

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…

The usual way I've seen it work is using the AGPL.

AGPL doesn't bar use in commercial production, but the requirements usually scare off any corporate from using it in production.

Re: I changed my license

#94

Post by RobotToaster »

bob1029 wrote: post #80
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…

If you are trying to monetize your software, the biggest factor is whether or not your customer trusts you. MIT and source out on GitHub is the easiest way to build trust. You will find that some people simply "steal" your work in this arrangement, but much like with movie piracy I don't think they ever intended to compensate you or anyone else. So, we wind up alienating all potential customers because we are so worr…

How does MIT build any more trust than a copyleft licence like AGPL? At the very least AGPL stops people "stealing" your work without contributing back their changes?

Re: I changed my license

#95

Post by skeledrew »

roundabout-host wrote: post #87
ghaff wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, I think of it more in the context of photo and video integrity, but you can certainly imagine an unscrupulous individual rewriting something and changing the meaning. Of course, I doubt a license would stop that person.

Doesn't CC BY require to say what you changed?

If a person would ignore one part of a license, they may also ignore other parts.

Re: I changed my license

#96

Post by LtWorf »

brainwad wrote: post #31
LtWorf wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But why should I work for free so that companies can fire my fellow human beings?

The causality is wrong here. You chose to work for free with no reward, and _then_ companies found your work and used it. Presumably you started out working for free because it was intrinsically rewarding (otherwise: stop doing work you hate for free?).

I chose to do it for free to help other people. And picking a MIT license does the opposite.

Re: I changed my license

#97

Post by RobotToaster »

1294899 wrote: post #63

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.

The current argument AI owners use is that it falls under fair use as "transformative use", so the licence is entirely irrelevant. If that wasn't the case anything trained on GPL code would have to be released under the GPL.

I'm now sure what if any argument they are using in Europe. Most countries here have a "fair dealing" exemption which is similar to USA "fair use", but it doesn't include "transformative use". The closest would be "pastiche", but that wouldn't really cover it.

Re: I changed my license

#99

Post by Luker88 »

throwaway89201 wrote: post #91
apt-get wrote: post #32

Worth noting that the "escape hatch" clauses in the EUPL that allow converting it into other licenses mean it's only ever as strong as the weakest license it names for such an operation, AKA EPL/MPL/LGPL. Any actor that wants to mess around with providing a closed extension on a network service can exercise that option with an EUPL codebase, so if you care about that, you're better off explicitly naming the AGPL or w…

You are describing the compatibility clause as if it's settled that the EUPL simply allows you to convert to a compatible license. The compatibility clause is an unfortunate ambiguity, but it's not the intention of the license authors to lose strong copyleft and SaaS loophole protections this way. See for example here [1] [2] [3]. [1] https://interoperable-europe.ec.europa.eu/collection/eupl/di... [2] https://interop…

The way I read all of that is that:

* BigTech can take your EUPL library and write a small wrapper in MPL

* such a wrapper can therefore be used in any project, even a closed one that is a network service.

* however all of that still qualifies as distributing EUPL, and the EUPL core would still need to be made available under EUPL (whether modified or not).

Saying that since I have an MPL wrapper then all the code is MPL is not allowed.

So you can't just copy all the code and change the license to MPL.

This is basically AGPL without virality and anti-tivo, correct?

Re: I changed my license

#100

Post by pocksuppet »

Luker88 wrote: post #99
throwaway89201 wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are describing the compatibility clause as if it's settled that the EUPL simply allows you to convert to a compatible license. The compatibility clause is an unfortunate ambiguity, but it's not the intention of the license authors to lose strong copyleft and SaaS loophole protections this way. See for example here [1] [2] [3]. [1] https://interoperable-europe.ec.europa.eu/collection/eupl/di... [2] https://interop…

The way I read all of that is that: * BigTech can take your EUPL library and write a small wrapper in MPL * such a wrapper can therefore be used in any project, even a closed one that is a network service. * however all of that still qualifies as distributing EUPL, and the EUPL core would still need to be made available under EUPL (whether modified or not). Saying that since I have an MPL wrapper then all the code is…

On the face of it, no it doesn't say that. It just says the combined work can be MPL. Then someone can take that MPL work, and distribute it without source code because the MPL allows that. It explicitly says any conflict between the EUPL and the MPL shall be resolved in favor of the MPL.
Post reply on HN