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

101–110 of 186 posts

Re: I changed my license

#101

Post by pocksuppet »

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…

Yes. The clean way is to use the strongest copyleft license you can find, probably AGPL. Even if corporations are technically allowed to use it, they don't want to risk touching it with a three-meter pole. Then you offer to sell them a different license. Hobbyists and OSS folks usually have no issue with AGPL.

Re: I changed my license

#102

Post by mark_l_watson »

RobotToaster wrote: post #93
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.

I like the AGPL but don’t often use it. (I did recently license two coding harnesses I wrote as AGPL.)

A long time ago, I didn’t mind huge tech companies getting rich partially via open source, now I do. In the USA the collusion between government and big tech is starting to smell a little bit like fascism. Sorry, I have only complaints, not any good answers.

Re: I changed my license

#103

Post by pocksuppet »

throawayonthe wrote: post #61
Brian_K_White wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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)

Even though it's technically allowed, a lot of companies are afraid of it. Not GPL2 - that's used a lot, because tivoization lets them ignore the spirit of it. But they fear GPL3 and AGPL.

You can also just do a crayon license. "All rights reserved, noncommercial use allowed." Nobody's stopping you. If and when Debian wants to ship your package, ask them for proper legal advice about changing it, they have lawyers.

Re: I changed my license

#104

Post by xyzelement »

When open source was becoming a huge thing for everyone to participate in - say 20ish years ago, I always saw a dichotomy that people seemed to gloss over.

You're either writing software for fun and you are happy to give it away. In which case anyone's use of it is to do as they please including make money is just bragging right for you.

Or you write software for a living in which case giving it away for free is dumb. You want to charge maximally for your money making output.

Re: I changed my license

#105

Post by pocksuppet »

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…

Almost no business relationships builds trust based on source code. It's based on whether you deliver what the other side wants.

Re: I changed my license

#106

Post by Brian_K_White »

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.)

BY-SA

As both a consumer and producer, NC makes it kind of a pointless untouchable dead end even if I never intend to make a business out of something.

A lot of unintended things could be argued as commecial and who wants to risk it? If I do something purely as ahobby, and along the way make a youtube video about it, and that video pays money, I suddenly become techically in violation of non-commercial. Or I use it in a class where I was paid to teach. Or any number of ordinary possible uses that along the way do involve an exchange of money.

Let alone the freedom to change my mind in 5 years and decide I do want to sell something I made that initially I didn't.

I don't know what I might want to do tomorrow, so best to just not invest any of my time or effort into anything that might bite me later.

ND is 100x worse. Why even bother publishing a design at all then? Just sell your commercial propeietary product, and any users who want the plans you can just sell them more service for support and customization instead.

So I only apply BY-SA to be as similar to classic GPL as possible, and it's no problem at all if there is a business that can't accept the SA terms. It doesn't prevent selling a product, it just prevents being a dick and a thief (well on paper anyway, of course they go ahead and steal anyway but that's a different problem).

If I ever had something where I didn't want anyone else to be able to sell it, I just wouldn't publish it at all in the first place.

Re: I changed my license

#107

Post by rlkamn »

RobotToaster wrote: post #97
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". Th…

EULA != license, which is the entire point.

Re: I changed my license

#108

Post by bluGill »

RobotToaster wrote: post #94
bob1029 wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

AGPL does not do anything to force people to contribute their changes back. They have to make the changes available, however that's very different from actually contributing back. It is not hard to make a low quality contribution that the upstream would for very good reason refuse even though it 'works'.

The poster child for this is chromium which is GPL because it has clear and obvious roots in the old KHTML code of 20 some years ago. In theory you can contribute to Google movement and I suppose some people do but realistically Google controls it completely and they will do whatever they want. even though the source is available it is effectively not a contribution back.

Re: I changed my license

#110

Post by RobotToaster »

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.)

NC is a huge pain as it can be difficult to define commercial use, and it's often defined differently in different countries.

https://freedomdefined.org/Licenses/NC

https://www.techdirt.com/2014/03/27/german-court-says-creati...

Post reply on HN