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

111–120 of 187 posts

Re: I changed my license

#111

Post by Luker88 »

pocksuppet wrote: post #100
Luker88 wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> But as none of the compatible licenses come into conflict with the EUPL *by prohibiting the essential points* of publication of the source code and coverage of remote distribution (closing the SaaS loophole), these obligations, that are the core of the "reciprocal" condition, persist for the derivatives concerned.

aka: the compatible licenses do not put additional restrictions, so no, it is not MPL.

also, from the license:

> this Distribution or Communication can be done under the terms of this Compatible Licence..

So you are allowed distribution, not relicensing.

To simplify It seems to me that:

* GPL will automatically make something GPL.

* EUPL will automatically make something selectively dual-licensing. parts EUPL, parts whatever.

Also do note that EUPL is the first license to explicitly state that any issues fall under EU(Belgium) law, so EU has the last say on its license.

Re: I changed my license

#112

Post by RobotToaster »

bluGill wrote: post #108
RobotToaster wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

By "contribute back" I was referring more generally to the commons.

The chrome example actually proves my point, the KDE project, or anyone for that matter, can take the changes Google made to their code. If KHTML was MIT it's likely that wouldn't be the case

Re: I changed my license

#113

Post by layer8 »

pocksuppet wrote: post #100
Luker88 wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

This isn’t the intent, and will hopefully be fixed/clarified in version 1.3: https://interoperable-europe.ec.europa.eu/collection/eupl/di...

A “conflict” is intended to mean the case that following some EUPL obligation (such as publishing the derived source code) wouldn’t be allowed under the alternative license.

Re: I changed my license

#114

Post by knorker »

> 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.

No. YOU changed your mind, to become less free and more authoritarian.

> gained little for users

What? The world runs on Linux.

> or developers.

Were you even there before "everything" was open source and/or free software?

> our efforts did was to make it easier for big corporations build things more cheaply and for billionaires to become trillionaires.

Yeah that was always allowed.

The problem with freedom is that people get to make their own choices, eh?

Re: I changed my license

#116

Post by Tomte »

rlkamn wrote: post #107
RobotToaster wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Licenses are contracts, just like an EULA.

And if you expand the acronym EULA you will actually find that it is… a license agreement.

Re: I changed my license

#117

Post by layer8 »

brainwad wrote: post #27
LoganDark wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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.

The EUPL obligations still apply, unless they specifically conflict with the other license. There is some dispute on how exactly that is to be interpreted, but hopefully it will be clarified in version 1.3: https://interoperable-europe.ec.europa.eu/collection/eupl/di...

A “conflict” here is intended to mean that following some EUPL obligation (such as publishing the derived source code) wouldn’t be allowed under the alternative license.

Re: I changed my license

#118

Post by red_admiral »

The EUPL sound like a good idea - preserving some of the ideas of the FSF (copyleft) but in a way that governments and companies can actually use to develop their own software.

Personally I'm still in the BSD camp, but my current ranking is BSD/MIT > EUPL > (L)GPL now.

Re: I changed my license

#119

Post by brainwad »

LtWorf wrote: post #96
brainwad wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Why? MIT license or public domain helps the most people, because anyone can use it. It being usable by corporations is purely additive, it can't subtract from the number of people you'd help with a copyleft license.

Re: I changed my license

#120

Post by knorker »

pocksuppet wrote: post #101
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.

Do you have data on that last bit, or just a guess? As a hobbyist and OSS developer I treat AGPL as a rabies infected animal. I may have uses for it, but I'll keep it EXTREMELY segregated from everything else.
Post reply on HN