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

Changing the Ungit license from MIT to Faircode

github.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 117 posts

Re: Changing the Ungit license from MIT to Faircode

#101

Post by djur »

quotemstr wrote: post #95

Why is GitHub happy to provide free hosting for proprietary software? Ungit is no longer free software in either the libre or gratis sense.

I was curious about that myself for a similar situation a while back. Their terms of service do not require a free or open source license:

> If you set your pages and repositories to be viewed publicly, you grant each User of GitHub a nonexclusive, worldwide license to use, display, and perform Your Content through the GitHub Service and to reproduce Your Content solely on GitHub as permitted through GitHub's functionality (for example, through forking). You may grant further rights if you adopt a license. If you are uploading Content you did not create or own, you are responsible for ensuring that the Content you upload is licensed under terms that grant these permissions to other GitHub Users.

Re: Changing the Ungit license from MIT to Faircode

#102

Post by erik_seaberg »

X86BSD wrote: post #84

This thread and the culture of those replying to it fascinate me. Do you really enjoy spending this much time debating licenses, clauses, and legal matters? I personally, just have to many more important things to do than worry about and waste time on compliance, laws, enforcement. It just seems like such a rediculous waste of time. I just 2 clause BSD license my code and move on. Compensate me, don't compensate me,…

Licensing is the difference between building on bedrock or quicksand. The profession has wasted millions of hours on rewrites of stuff that already existed but was entombed in failed projects.

Re: Changing the Ungit license from MIT to Faircode

#103

Post by e12e »

tyingq wrote: post #91
mkesper wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Copyleft licenses force people to release their modifications as source code Only if you distribute the software.

Is AGPL copyleft? If so, it broadens your definition of "distribute".

Sort of. I think it strengthens "the user is free to run the code", to implying that a user who has that freedom (to run the code) - has the same rights as someone who got a copy of the binary. To (be able to) ask a server to run code through an api, is seen as similar to run code on your own computer (a device, which might not in fact control either, hardware being what it is). It highlights the fact that the GPL is for users. If you use a webmail service, you should be able to fix issues with the code - just as if you ran a desktop mail user agent.

So sure, it changes the definition of "distribute" as it is used in the GPL - but my understanding of the "why" is to to be explicit about what is really needed to guarantee users the four freedoms (run, study&fix, copy, share fixes).

Re: Changing the Ungit license from MIT to Faircode

#104

Post by bitwize »

ralmidani wrote: post #55

Maybe I am missing something. If you release something under a non-copyleft license, as long as I make proper attribution, what I do with it should not be your concern. If you do not want people making money from your software without paying you, use dual copyleft/proprietary licenses instead. "Faircode" seems like an attempt to have it both ways: squeezing money out of people without being labeled copyleft (because…

In the USA, software is licensed, not sold. The licensor is free to set whatever terms they wish on the license (within the bounds of the law and reason), violation of which revokes your right to use the software.

Re: Changing the Ungit license from MIT to Faircode

#105

Post by tyingq »

e12e wrote: post #103
tyingq wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is AGPL copyleft? If so, it broadens your definition of "distribute".

Sort of. I think it strengthens "the user is free to run the code", to implying that a user who has that freedom (to run the code) - has the same rights as someone who got a copy of the binary. To (be able to) ask a server to run code through an api, is seen as similar to run code on your own computer (a device, which might not in fact control either, hardware being what it is). It highlights the fact that the GPL is…

Sure. I was just noting it for the "only if" part of the GP comment.

Re: Changing the Ungit license from MIT to Faircode

#106

Post by ralmidani »

bitwize wrote: post #104
ralmidani wrote: post #55

Maybe I am missing something. If you release something under a non-copyleft license, as long as I make proper attribution, what I do with it should not be your concern. If you do not want people making money from your software without paying you, use dual copyleft/proprietary licenses instead. "Faircode" seems like an attempt to have it both ways: squeezing money out of people without being labeled copyleft (because…

In the USA, software is licensed, not sold. The licensor is free to set whatever terms they wish on the license (within the bounds of the law and reason), violation of which revokes your right to use the software.

Then we should stop pretending "Faircode" has anything to do with freedom or open source.

Re: Changing the Ungit license from MIT to Faircode

#107

Post by ralmidani »

amyjess wrote: post #76
ralmidani wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I understand that "Faircode" is not trying to protect downstream users from non-free software. That's my point; It's not about principle, it's about extorting money while appearing to be principled. Copyleft licenses force people to release their modifications as source code, or pay the copyright owner for an exception (if the owner is open to providing the exception) Non-Copyleft licenses say "do whatever you want,…

You misunderstand the purpose of the license. This is proprietary commercial software with a 100% discount for hobbyist customers. It's very common in other industries, such as with fonts (this is almost identical to the model Blambot uses for some of their comic-book fonts). And there's nothing wrong with that.

While I generally disagree with distributing non-free software, at least those who do it usually do not call their software "Open Source". That's what makes "Faircode" so offensive.

Re: Changing the Ungit license from MIT to Faircode

#109

Post by userpass »

deepakkarki wrote: post #7
sandstrom wrote: post #3

For open-source projects driven mainly by one contributor, I think the model employed by Sidekiq[1] is better than this one. There is a base version with the MIT (or similar) license. Then there is a PRO version which adds some enterprise functionality + premium support. But still a good thing that Ungit is trying this. There is value in experimentation! [1] https://github.com/mperham/sidekiq

I've always wondered, in such cases where you have an open core and plan to monetize on extra features and plugins; what do you do if the community just goes ahead and adds those extra features? Or someone forks the project and adds the features?

They will be bribed with a job offer.

Re: Changing the Ungit license from MIT to Faircode

#110

Post by amyjess »

ralmidani wrote: post #107
amyjess wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You misunderstand the purpose of the license. This is proprietary commercial software with a 100% discount for hobbyist customers. It's very common in other industries, such as with fonts (this is almost identical to the model Blambot uses for some of their comic-book fonts). And there's nothing wrong with that.

While I generally disagree with distributing non-free software, at least those who do it usually do not call their software "Open Source". That's what makes "Faircode" so offensive.

To be honest, I am so thoroughly sick and tired of the zealotry in the FOSS community that I no longer have any desire to release software under a FOSS license.

Normally, I couldn't care less what someone does with any software I release, so I'd normally prefer to just release code under an MIT or Apache license, but I've reached the point where I honestly no longer want to help the free software movement grow, so I'd like to release my future personal projects under a subtly non-free license. Faircode looks like a very nice option. I remember Tuomo Valkonen, the creator of Ion, moving to a license that would ban LTS distributions from distributing outdated versions of his software (basically, every time he released a new version, all distributions carrying it have 28 days to remove the old version from their archives and replace it with the new one, no matter how stable the distribution is intended to be).

Honestly, the older I get, the more my views on free software are converging with Valkonen's. Half of the reason for the license change was because he was tired of LTS distros carrying old development versions filled with bugs that have already been fixed in newer versions (he was getting flooded with bug reports for things that had already been fixed), but the other half was that he was aggravated by free-software zealots and wanted to make sure he wasn't doing anything that could be seen as contributing to their movement, and he swore that all future software he releases would be closed-source.

I do agree that I wouldn't want to call it "open source", though.

Post reply on HN