Meteor meets NoGPL
blog.lassus.se
Meteor meets NoGPL
1–10 of 121 posts
Re: Meteor meets NoGPL
#2LoseThos is the only public domain 64-bit OS.
God says... C:\LoseThos\www.losethos.com\text\QUIX.TXT
leave behind me the name of a madman; for though I have been one, I would not that the fact should be made plainer at my death. Call in to me, my dear, my good friends the curate, the bachelor Samson Carrasco, and Master Nicholas the barber, for I wish to confess and make my will." But his niece was saved the trouble by the entrance of the three. The instant Don Quixote saw them he exclaimed, "Good news for you, good sirs, that I am no longer Don Quixote of La Mancha, but Alonso Quixano, whose way o
Re: Meteor meets NoGPL
#3"The basic idea is that the source code is publicly available for people to look at and modify and that it costs nothing to use as long as you’re building a GPL application with it and give out your source code too"
Can anyone confirm whether this is actually accurate? I'm not sure it is...
Re: Meteor meets NoGPL
#4"The basic idea is that the source code is publicly available for people to look at and modify and that it costs nothing to use as long as you’re building a GPL application with it and give out your source code too" Can anyone confirm whether this is actually accurate? I'm not sure it is...
I've been reading up on GPL because I know little about the nuances, but I think you only need to GPL and provide the source code if you distribute it to others. Web seems tricky for GPL, but I thought that was the purpose of AGPL. Please correct me it I am wrong.
Re: Meteor meets NoGPL
#5It's a question of whether a program using Meteor is to be considered a "derived work".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_General_Public_License#Link...
Re: Meteor meets NoGPL
#6I think I prefer the paid-support model a-la RedHat. I think the OP makes a good point of this licensing possibly hindering uptake/contributions to the Meteor project. Just by virtue of Meteor choosing this licensing model, I've lost some of my excitement to try it out. I would most certainly use it for something commercial and because it looks so sweet I would be willing to shell out some $ for, say, some email support or maybe for some bleeding-edge features.
Having to worry about not being able to use Meteor in a commercial capacity without knowing the price-point breaks the deal off the bat. I'm a one man team and don't have the time nor resources to swim through legalities and pricing--I need to be writing code.
This isn't to say, though, that if I wanted to do something outside of the scope of a commercial app I wouldn't try Meteor--but who knows when/if that will happen.
Re: Meteor meets NoGPL
#7Personally, I'd prefer they just kept it closed source and charged money for it rather than making it "open source, but not really since you can't use it to build anything unless you give out all your code or can lawyer your way past this obnoxious, ambiguously worded license".
I don't care about being able to look at somebody else's source code. I just want something that I can use. Meteor looked really cool until I realized they had those two points exactly backwards.
Re: Meteor meets NoGPL
#8Personally, I'd prefer they just kept it closed source and charged money for it rather than making it "open source, but not really since you can't use it to build anything unless you give out all your code or can lawyer your way past this obnoxious, ambiguously worded license". I don't care about being able to look at somebody else's source code. I just want something that I can use. Meteor looked really cool until I…
You can use Meteor. I quote from FAQ: If the GPL doesn't work for your project, get in touch (contact@meteor.com) and we will write you a commercial license to your specifications.
Re: Meteor meets NoGPL
#9"The basic idea is that the source code is publicly available for people to look at and modify and that it costs nothing to use as long as you’re building a GPL application with it and give out your source code too" Can anyone confirm whether this is actually accurate? I'm not sure it is...
Not entirely. If you're building an application based on GPL licensed code, which is not handed over to the an other party, you're not required to handover any adjustments you've made in the GPL licensed code. That's what is referred to as the 'Services as a loophole' construct (ab)used in the GPL. See also this 2007 article by Tim O'Reilly: http://radar.oreilly.com/2007/07/the-gpl-and-software-as-a-s...
Btw, The AGPL tries to prevent this loophole and does require you to share adjustments made by you on AGPL licensed code even if your only using the software as a service and the other party will not receive the application/code.
Re: Meteor meets NoGPL
#10Personally, I'd prefer they just kept it closed source and charged money for it rather than making it "open source, but not really since you can't use it to build anything unless you give out all your code or can lawyer your way past this obnoxious, ambiguously worded license". I don't care about being able to look at somebody else's source code. I just want something that I can use. Meteor looked really cool until I…
How is dual proprietary/GPL anything other than strictly less obnoxious than proprietary alone? You can, after all, stick your fingers in your ears and pretend that it's proprietary alone, and there will be no observable difference.