Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

On Open-Sourcing Libraries

williamdurand.fr

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 30 posts

Re: On Open-Sourcing Libraries

#11

Post by couac »

_sabe_ wrote: post #6

I think it's interesting that in this time of fancy collaborative tools like github, the trend no longer seems to be collaboration but to reinvent everything as a "one man show". And it becomes apparent with new technologies like Go and redis where there are like 10 different implementations of the same database libraries at any given time, but they are all gone within a month...

Yes, because things are easier than ever for people that want to contribute but also for those who want to create new projects. Maybe GitHub could suggest existing projects to contribute on before creating a new repository :)

Re: On Open-Sourcing Libraries

#12

Post by alexchamberlain »

freework wrote: post #10
alexchamberlain wrote: post #3

The most important thing on that list is the Licence. No licence and most people can't use it.

Its becoming less of an issue as more and more as software migrates to being "as a service". A webapp is not distributed, so the license doesn't matter at all.

Errrr I present AGPL

Re: On Open-Sourcing Libraries

#13

Post by yoklov »

mwfunk wrote: post #7

I would add, please use a known and widely-used license (IMO, preferably a 2-clause BSDL variant or LGPLv2, depending on your attitude towards derived works). Don't make up your own or just state that it's public domain. Public domain is actually not a well-defined concept internationally, and means different things in different countries.

http://creativecommons.org/choose/zero/ is a good alternative/method to releasing into the public domain, and is (to my knowledge, IANAL) unambiguous internationally.

Re: On Open-Sourcing Libraries

#14

Post by jorgecastillo »

I will make a small off-topic question. I really like the ISC license but for a small snippet of code I think that it's still to big. I choped some parts and got it to this:

Copyright (c) 4-digit year, Company or Person's Name

Permission to use, copy, modify, and/or distribute this software for any purpose is hereby granted.

THE SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED "AS IS" AND THE AUTHOR DISCLAIMS ALL WARRANTIES WITH REGARD TO THIS SOFTWARE.

Would this be a valid open source license?

I am not using this license for anything big. Most of my code is pretty much useless and for the code I consider more useful I use the ISC license.

Re: On Open-Sourcing Libraries

#15

Post by rogerbinns »

jorgecastillo wrote: post #14

I will make a small off-topic question. I really like the ISC license but for a small snippet of code I think that it's still to big. I choped some parts and got it to this: Copyright (c) 4-digit year, Company or Person's Name Permission to use, copy, modify, and/or distribute this software for any purpose is hereby granted. THE SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED "AS IS" AND THE AUTHOR DISCLAIMS ALL WARRANTIES WITH REGARD TO THIS…

It is generally a bad idea to make your own, since you won't be aware of international issues. Similarly since your license is non-standard, anyone using the code now has to a do legal review to make sure things are ok, instead of looking in their list of standard approved ones.

Pick one from the top of http://opensource.org/licenses At the bottom of my LICENSE file I add "Alternatively you may strike the license above and use it under any OSI approved open source license such as those listed at http://opensource.org/licenses/alphabetical"

See also http://creativecommons.org/choose/ although they are rarely used for code.

Re: On Open-Sourcing Libraries

#16

Post by eksith »

I've been racking my brain trying to come up with a basic, concise readme to include with my code as well as a cabin design I've been working on. At first glance, these are wildly differing things, so one license type E.G. creative commons had too many options.

Finally, I came up with one single readme file I can include in almost all my work (except where I have to combine other stuff under different licenses). It's basically a variant of the ISC license.

Feel free to use this for whatever...

  Introduction...
  Things your whatchamacallit does
  
  ___________________________________________________________________________
  README
  
  
  Important stuff about the project.
  Requirements, preconditions, defaults etc...
  
  ___________________________________________________________________________
  CONTACT
  
  Twitter	:	@eksith
  
  Website	:	http://eksith.com
  
  Email		:	Eksith Rodrigo 
  ___________________________________________________________________________
  COPYING / LICENSE
  
  The contents of this package are licensed under the following unless 
  otherwise noted.
  
  
  Copyright (c) $YEAR, Eksith Rodrigo
  
  
  Sources, libraries, binaries, diagrams and/or images and documentation 
  included with this package are hereby referred to as "materials".
  
  
  Permission to use, copy, modify, and/or distribute these materials for 
  any purpose with or without fee is hereby granted, provided that the 
  above copyright notice and this permission notice be included in all copies 
  in an applicable and appropriate format.
  
  
  THESE MATERIALS ARE PROVIDED "AS IS" AND THE AUTHOR DISCLAIMS ALL 
  WARRANTIES WITH REGARD TO THESE MATERIALS INCLUDING ALL IMPLIED WARRANTIES 
  OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE AUTHOR BE LIABLE FOR 
  ANY SPECIAL, DIRECT, INDIRECT, OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES OR ANY DAMAGES 
  WHATSOEVER RESULTING FROM LOSS OF USE, DATA OR PROFITS, WHETHER IN AN 
  ACTION OF CONTRACT, NEGLIGENCE OR OTHER TORTIOUS ACTION, ARISING OUT OF OR 
  IN CONNECTION WITH THE USE OR PERFORMANCE OF THESE MATERIALS.
  
  
  END.

Re: On Open-Sourcing Libraries

#17

Post by saurik »

antoncohen wrote: post #5

I would like to add that when open sourcing a library, meaning software designed to be included within or used by other applications, please don't license it under the GPL. Of course you can license it under whatever you want, it's your code, but you need to understand the consequences. If the library is GPL it can only be used by other GPL applications (if the application is distributed), which excludes major open s…

> It seriously limits amount of people that can use your library, and hopefully you are open sourcing a library because you want to help as many people as possible.

This statement ignores the myriad alternative reasons, both personal and altruistic, why someone may wish to provide something as open source; in particular, it entirely dismisses as apparently-not-even-worthy-of-thought the actual arguments made those who use GPL-based licenses that concentrating on helping first-order consumers at the expense of those people further down the chain (the potential users of derivative software built by developers who are building on your work; especially and even specifically when your original software offered fairly unique and enabling functionality, as is described by the FSF as the situation where the GPL may be warranted for library use) seems like a strange and self-defeating bet to make about what the influence of your code will be, even when the goal is solely to "help as many people as possible".

Re: On Open-Sourcing Libraries

#18

Post by gizmo686 »

antoncohen wrote: post #5

I would like to add that when open sourcing a library, meaning software designed to be included within or used by other applications, please don't license it under the GPL. Of course you can license it under whatever you want, it's your code, but you need to understand the consequences. If the library is GPL it can only be used by other GPL applications (if the application is distributed), which excludes major open s…

Your link [1] is FSF correcting a false representation of what they said: "In July of 2003, Slashdot published a story claiming that I had claimed that the LGPL did not function as intended in the case of Java. This story was based on a misunderstanding of a response to a question sent to licensing@gnu.org, and many attempts to clarify the issue in the Slashdot story did not get across. I have received numerous questions about the story since, via both licensing@gnu.org and personal email."

It would not be complete without an explanation of why their posisition is correct, even if it is obvious to anyone who read the license.

Re: On Open-Sourcing Libraries

#19

Post by suppressingfire »

gizmo686 wrote: post #18
antoncohen wrote: post #5

I would like to add that when open sourcing a library, meaning software designed to be included within or used by other applications, please don't license it under the GPL. Of course you can license it under whatever you want, it's your code, but you need to understand the consequences. If the library is GPL it can only be used by other GPL applications (if the application is distributed), which excludes major open s…

Your link [1] is FSF correcting a false representation of what they said: "In July of 2003, Slashdot published a story claiming that I had claimed that the LGPL did not function as intended in the case of Java. This story was based on a misunderstanding of a response to a question sent to licensing@gnu.org, and many attempts to clarify the issue in the Slashdot story did not get across. I have received numerous quest…

The FSF is not a court of law.

As such, their opinion on the interpretation of the license has no particular standing. It's helpful that they're the author of the license, and if it came down to it in court, it may be persuasive. But another lawyer might have a different opinion, so the question of how it will actually be interpreted if two parties disagree remains open and unsettled. Therefore, anyone undertaking to release a bit of open code should consider the range of interpretations when choosing the license.

That's all that antoncohen was getting at, I think.

Re: On Open-Sourcing Libraries

#20

Post by kibibu »

yoklov wrote: post #13
mwfunk wrote: post #7

I would add, please use a known and widely-used license (IMO, preferably a 2-clause BSDL variant or LGPLv2, depending on your attitude towards derived works). Don't make up your own or just state that it's public domain. Public domain is actually not a well-defined concept internationally, and means different things in different countries.

http://creativecommons.org/choose/zero/ is a good alternative/method to releasing into the public domain, and is (to my knowledge, IANAL) unambiguous internationally.

http://www.wtfpl.net/ is pretty cool too, if only because any court transcripts involving disputes would be pretty hilarious.
Post reply on HN