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

191–200 of 202 posts

Re: I changed my license

#191

Post by Joel_Mckay »

pocksuppet wrote: post #179
Joel_Mckay wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

GPL and LGPL works for a lot of people, but becomes a persistent issue when porting to other OS. They both still become a contaminating license if you have to static link something, embed 3rd party blobs, or even use icons for a consistent user interface experience.

Having a less restrictive FOSS compatible license that doesn't obligate people to modify the general purpose libraries for their edge case has proven important.

GPL only truly makes sense if targeting an OS supporting shared-object library paradigms. This is part of the reason why 95% of commercial Applications are running in an emulated/wrapper on the nix platforms.

The year of the Linux Desktop is still a ways off, and the foundational library structures are under constant upgrade or permutation. Snap/Flatpak/AppImage and Docker/RancherVM were all designed to try and mitigate the compatibility chaos of perpetual nix Beta release cultures.

It has some advantages, but also a lot of disadvantages similar to the Butterfly Effect bugs when something with the same name slightly changes behavior. =3

Re: I changed my license

#192

Post by cindyllm »

Joel_Mckay wrote: post #191
pocksuppet wrote: post #179

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

GPL and LGPL works for a lot of people, but becomes a persistent issue when porting to other OS. They both still become a contaminating license if you have to static link something, embed 3rd party blobs, or even use icons for a consistent user interface experience. Having a less restrictive FOSS compatible license that doesn't obligate people to modify the general purpose libraries for their edge case has proven imp…

[dead]

Re: I changed my license

#193

Post by Joel_Mckay »

knorker wrote: post #189
ghaff wrote: post #166

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One problem is that people (mostly--we'll ignore the various edge cases) know what traditional *nix-style distribution looks like. No one knows what network interactions resolve to if someone with deep pockets and/or a grudge wants to file a lawsuit. So better to just run away. Use an AGPL license if you like but--and I'm not even a lawyer--but I'll probably just walk away. Your software is probably not that interest…

Yup. As I said in another comment "I treat AGPL as a rabies infected animal. I may have uses for it, but I'll keep it EXTREMELY segregated from everything else".

Indeed, keeping track of every shader/asset/texture under CC BY-SA 4.0 was a nonstarter.

For media, 3D files, game FX, and icons it is only CC0 Public Domain projects we recommend to folks having fun. Keeping track of every Copyright and Copyleft trolls content demands is just too much work for small hobbies. =3

We also financially support people clearing barriers for future artists and creatives (clean Blender resources.)

https://polyhaven.com/

And procedural textures with bake export (actually made Blender usable for mere mortals):

https://sanctus.gumroad.com/l/SLibrary

One of the problems we found was people reselling other peoples pirated works, or plug-ins for features already in Blender for free. Cons will always con regardless of community intentions. Make something fun and beautiful instead =3

Re: I changed my license

#194

Post by knorker »

pocksuppet wrote: post #183
knorker wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

If you don't want to give people downstream of you my source code, I'm happy to sell you a commercial license.

This means you have only solved the problem for large companies, and specifically those who have money and who have a functioning procurement system that's developer-driven. Which is a very narrow use case.

Also relevant comment: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49596403

Re: I changed my license

#195

Post by 312918967 »

pocksuppet wrote: post #181
rlkamn wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, and the point is that in order to obtain and keep the license, you have to fulfill additional clauses that you agreed to by accepting the EULA . If EULA is the same as a license, why would MSFT not just use a license? The intellectual contortions of the AI boosters here are stunning.

"an end-user license agreement is the same as a license agreement, so why do they use an end-user license agreement instead of a license agreement?" I don't understand this question.

No one but, you, an AI moron, has asked this question. Get your AI girlfriend to explain it to you.

Re: I changed my license

#196

Post by ghaff »

Joel_Mckay wrote: post #193
knorker wrote: post #189

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yup. As I said in another comment "I treat AGPL as a rabies infected animal. I may have uses for it, but I'll keep it EXTREMELY segregated from everything else".

Indeed, keeping track of every shader/asset/texture under CC BY-SA 4.0 was a nonstarter. For media, 3D files, game FX, and icons it is only CC0 Public Domain projects we recommend to folks having fun. Keeping track of every Copyright and Copyleft trolls content demands is just too much work for small hobbies. =3 We also financially support people clearing barriers for future artists and creatives (clean Blender resou…

There can be issues with public domain in Europe (moral rights you can't disclaim yada-yada in some non-common law countries). And, as I distantly recall, there were some issues with CC0 related to patents. MIT-0 would probably be my choice absent deep legal research into the topic (though I have discussed public domain as related to software with IP lawyers as related to a book I wrote).

Re: I changed my license

#197

Post by ghaff »

LtWorf wrote: post #186
ghaff wrote: post #177

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

https://opensource.google/documentation/reference/using/agpl...

I don't think we're disagreeing about anything. I wasn't giving a legal opinion but lawyers, especially at large firms, are a lot more conservative about some matters than I might be for a personal project. If you have deep pockets and provide any path to those pockets, someone could sue you.

I used to work for a very open source-friendly company and, while AGPL wasn't broadly verbotten and I can't quote any publicly available documents, its use was not encouraged in general. (And outside of Linux which was what it was, permissive licenses became much more common for new projects.)

Re: I changed my license

#198

Post by Joel_Mckay »

ghaff wrote: post #196
Joel_Mckay wrote: post #193

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Indeed, keeping track of every shader/asset/texture under CC BY-SA 4.0 was a nonstarter. For media, 3D files, game FX, and icons it is only CC0 Public Domain projects we recommend to folks having fun. Keeping track of every Copyright and Copyleft trolls content demands is just too much work for small hobbies. =3 We also financially support people clearing barriers for future artists and creatives (clean Blender resou…

There can be issues with public domain in Europe (moral rights you can't disclaim yada-yada in some non-common law countries). And, as I distantly recall, there were some issues with CC0 related to patents. MIT-0 would probably be my choice absent deep legal research into the topic (though I have discussed public domain as related to software with IP lawyers as related to a book I wrote).

Trademarks are still a possible liability, which is why film sets use gaffers tape or stickers to cover equipment logos and branding. The photo can be CC0, but the coca-cola logo is still owned by a company.

Patent claim sections are the only legal part at the end of the document, and may only cover functional or process facets of an innovation. Software patents are also only valid in certain jurisdictions.

Generally speaking, if something has been time-stamped in the public domain you can challenge a patent for $2k. Since a global patent is around $240k to $600k each, most people would not want to take that bet with archive.org active.

The Patent first-to-file changes under the US system may have altered the 17 organizations disclosure limit rules, but as far back as I can recall any patented technology older than 19 years is almost certainly public domain. =3

Re: I changed my license

#199

Post by rpdillon »

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

To support sibling comment: no it doesn't?

But your point about the revenue cut off in the BUSL is worthwhile (assuming we're talking about a licensor that is leveraging the additional use grant). I just disagree that it's a remedy because it basically punishes a business for being successful, by changing the rules upon which it was built. I'd be very curious to hear of anybody who has licensed software under the BUSL and has ended up getting a license from companies that meet those revenue thresholds.

It's worth noting that the BUSL, by default, with no additional use grant, prohibits the use of the software in production. So I actually think you have the two licenses reversed. The BUSL prohibits production use and competing services by default unless an additional use grant is specified and then it is only allowed under the revenue threshold specified in the additional use grant.

The AGPL has no prohibition whatsoever on the deployment of competing services.

Re: I changed my license

#200

Post by Brian_K_White »

Joel_Mckay wrote: post #151
Brian_K_White wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Quelle horreur! Ok buddy whatever you say. These arguments are so ridiculously invalid I'll trade you a Clockwork Orange for a "not even wrong" suggested google. Talk about "passionate about the subject" indeed.

If one proposed an absurd analogy, than we should expect an absurd response. Have a wonderful day =3 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sealioning

The more one complains about their right to steal being infringed, the less anyone should care what their opinion is.

You think it's just awful? Ok.

Post reply on HN