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

171–180 of 193 posts

Re: I changed my license

#171

Post by ricardobeat »

rpdillon wrote: post #157
Pannoniae wrote: post #149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is why open source is rapidly becoming obsolete ;) There have been source-available/fair source/whatever-you-name-it approaches before. They were attacked by OSI zealots every time because it's not real open source. Which is true, but the unsaid - or well, only sometimes mentioned - other half is that these open source enthusiasts would you rather have a bog standard all-rights-reserved commercial licence than a…

The freedom to host open-source software is more important than contributing back to the original project: it's where the actual value of open source comes from. Would you host your website behind Apache or Nginx if you couldn't just switch providers and keep the same web server? Would you ever pick up Postgres or MySQL if you couldn't actually pay a company to host that for you, knowing that if they screwed up, you…

> or entirely BUSL-styled licenses

Let's not get everything mixed up here - I singled out BUSL exactly because it does not prevent competing services, especially at small scale. In fact it would encourage small business and individual usage vs big cloud providers. It also has a conversion clause, so worst case scenario you have a slightly outdated MIT-licensed release to pick up from.

The EUPL the author mentions, the AGPL and others are the ones that directly prevent competing services.

That said, indeed it might not be an ideal choice for that kind of cloud-hosted software if you want to maximize adoption.

Re: I changed my license

#172

Post by ricardobeat »

xorcist wrote: post #83
ricardobeat wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Business_Source_License : Debian FSG compatible No FSF approved No OSI approved No GPL compatible No Copyleft No

I'm sorry - what I meant to say is that it is listed in the SPDX (https://spdx.org/licenses/BUSL-1.1.html) as a recognized license. The revenue gate means it will never be considered an open-source license by the OSI.

Re: I changed my license

#173

Post by [deleted] »

rpdillon wrote: post #156
ricardobeat wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No success yet, but I recently found BUSL - used by Terraform: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Business_Source_License It stops companies from building high-revenue products for free, while not being as scary as AGPL/LGPL from the business perspective, and completely unrestricted for everyone else (despite not being technically an open-source license).

This framing ignores the fact that many people pick up technologies because they want to be able to switch the vendor that is hosting it for them. If I'm hosting a LAMP stack from some shared hosting provider, it's easy for me to just move to a different hosting provider because all the software is open source and anybody can host it. This falls apart when companies choose the BUSL, which is why it's not considered O…

[deleted]

Re: I changed my license

#174

Post by AuthAuth »

Its a nice thought but copyright is dead in the age of AI. I wish it werent but it is. We're in a period where copyright is only enforced selectively and it will pass.

Re: I changed my license

#175

Post by josephcsible »

ricardobeat wrote: post #171
rpdillon wrote: post #157

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The freedom to host open-source software is more important than contributing back to the original project: it's where the actual value of open source comes from. Would you host your website behind Apache or Nginx if you couldn't just switch providers and keep the same web server? Would you ever pick up Postgres or MySQL if you couldn't actually pay a company to host that for you, knowing that if they screwed up, you…

> or entirely BUSL-styled licenses Let's not get everything mixed up here - I singled out BUSL exactly because it does not prevent competing services , especially at small scale. In fact it would encourage small business and individual usage vs big cloud providers. It also has a conversion clause, so worst case scenario you have a slightly outdated MIT-licensed release to pick up from. The EUPL the author mentions, t…

The AGPL doesn't prevent competing services.

Re: I changed my license

#176

Post by ReactiveJelly »

"favored by the NPM package ecosystem"

Huh. My story is that 15 to 20 years ago, as a young programmer, I read some of Stallman's writings and I was convinced that copyleft was the only way to keep free software free.

Copyleft vs permissive seems like a "paradox of intolerance". There's no paradox. You cut down intolerance where you see it.

But then I'm a big skeptic and I'm always willing to believe that everyone else could be wrong. Which is not a great heuristic, except when you're actually right.

Re: I changed my license

#177

Post by ghaff »

LtWorf wrote: post #168
ghaff wrote: post #165

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How? If they don't make (and distribute) changes.

Because they cannot distribute the software itself or use it for online services with AGPL

Distributing (however defined by a given license) unmodified software that is presumably widely available to customers may be a requirement but is also a profoundly uninteresting legal requirement.

Re: I changed my license

#179

Post by pocksuppet »

Joel_Mckay wrote: post #70
broodbucket wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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…

That is why the FSF invented just one GPL, and said everyone should use this one or later. Then when they invented another one, it was automatically compatible. This way, the license is compatible, and you don't have to give up any freedoms.

Re: I changed my license

#180

Post by pocksuppet »

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.

A license is a waiver of your rights that are enshrined in law and enforced by the government. It can't take away rights that other people are allowed, unless you get them to agree voluntarily in exchange for something they feel is of equal or greater value.

For example you can say someone can only copy this CD if they pay you $10. Ordinarily you're allowed to sue them for copying it, but you're allowed to promise not to sue them, under any condition whatsoever, such as them paying you $10.

But you can't say someone can only resell this CD if they pay you $10. You already don't have the right to sue them for reselling it, so they have no reason to listen to you.

Post reply on HN