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

161–170 of 193 posts

Re: I changed my license

#161

Post by rambambram »

mnahkies wrote: post #12

What are people's thoughts/experiences about dual licencing? Eg: is there a clean way to dual license such that hobbyist, and exploratory work (eg: a proof of concept done in a commercial setting) are allowed, but using it in production requires a fee? If you've done this, has it been successful? Obviously there's been many projects relicense over recent years (terraform, redis, etc) - but it's less clear to me if th…

> Eg: is there a clean way to dual license such that hobbyist, and exploratory work (eg: a proof of concept done in a commercial setting) are allowed, but using it in production requires a fee?

Yes, it's called language. Contracts are nothing but text, so why don't you just write down what you think should be the rules around using your software by other people?

I get the urge of a lot of developers to pick an existing third party license from the shelf, but just as you can write your own code - and are not required to use ready-made libraries/frameworks - you can write your own open source license for your software.

Re: I changed my license

#162

Post by ghaff »

graemep wrote: post #67
mnahkies wrote: post #12

What are people's thoughts/experiences about dual licencing? Eg: is there a clean way to dual license such that hobbyist, and exploratory work (eg: a proof of concept done in a commercial setting) are allowed, but using it in production requires a fee? If you've done this, has it been successful? Obviously there's been many projects relicense over recent years (terraform, redis, etc) - but it's less clear to me if th…

In practice AGPL might achieve that. It does allow commercial use, but a lot of big businesses, especially big tech, will not use it. On the other hand it is a clear, OSI approved, FOSS license.

Well, the language is clear enough. What's not clear are the implications of the language. And, honestly, the sensible default for a lot of companies is just not to go there. And big companies tend not to operate on hopes and prayers to avoid distracting and expensive lawsuits. Without going into details I have enough familiarity with the space to know that a lot of open source-friendly companies either avoid AGPL entirely or discourage its use.

Re: I changed my license

#163

Post by ghaff »

bornfreddy wrote: post #159
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…

At its core it's a question of control. If I use this library or app, will I be safe? Will I be able to repair it, use it in the future, pay someone to fix it? Will it still be developed in a few years? FOSS is a great answer to the first few questions, but it fails at the last one. As a user, yes, I would prefer a cloud-protection license, if it means that software will still be developed in a few years time. It's n…

Well, there's no guarantee that there will be sufficient market in a few years for that software development to continue unless you fork it and do so (or pay to have done) yourself.

Re: I changed my license

#164

Post by ghaff »

RobotToaster wrote: post #110
jruohonen wrote: post #2

CC BY-NC-ND is what I'm also increasingly using (for non-code), though not always, and disheartenedly. (And as commented, the non-code context is different.)

NC is a huge pain as it can be difficult to define commercial use, and it's often defined differently in different countries. https://freedomdefined.org/Licenses/NC https://www.techdirt.com/2014/03/27/german-court-says-creati...

That's one of the reasons that defining NC broke down in the latest round of CC license revisions. Sure, even in the US, define NC as a 501(c)(3) non-profit. But that doesn't mean some mom-and-pop charity you agree with. It can easily mean a non-profit with goals you totally disagree with. And how about 501(c)(6)s like the NFL? And that's just US tax law.

Re: I changed my license

#165

Post by ghaff »

LtWorf wrote: post #134
knorker wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Huh? You release code so that people will have to rewrite it? I really don't understand what your goal would be in releasing code at all, then.

Did you read my comment or you just reply for the sake of it? I release the code so that people and companies that feel like contributing to the community can use it. Companies that want to take without giving back however are mildly inconvenienced by copyleft.

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

Re: I changed my license

#166

Post by ghaff »

knorker wrote: post #126
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

Which could make the business untenable. I'm not GP commenter, but I do want to be useful to these too. And as others have said the deceptive term of "plugging the SaaS loophole" ignores that it means most software cannot be combined with it. Most. By far most. Sure, some people will say "well fuck that software". And that's a stance. But it ain't freedom.

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 interesting to compensate for any risk.

Re: I changed my license

#167

Post by mark_l_watson »

sph wrote: post #143
mark_l_watson wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have been releasing books under Creative Commons for 20+ years. Share alike, no modifications, no commercial reuse. I sell my books via Leanpub (my books https://leanpub.com/u/markwatson ) and they can all be read free online (recommended to see if you like them), and if purchased the price can be reset to free, zero cost. I like CC because I like my books to be read and I still make money. When people choose to pa…

I recognize your nickname because I have always enjoyed your comments on Lisp on here, so I checked out the site and disappointingly because of topic and appearance, look like AI slop to me. As there's no publication date listed, and I'm particularly intolerant to slop, can you recommend a book of yours published before Autumn 2022?

My older books have real photographs on them (e.g., https://leanpub.com/lovinglisp) and newer ones have AI generated covers and some have AI generated figures. Look for books with photos I have taken of nature - those are the old books (exception is Java AI book that is 90% very old material, but has a new AI generated cover).

In the last year I have started vibe coding a lot, but I still take personal ownership of my latest code examples because I set requirements and provide a design, and ask AI coding harnesses to let me run and test the code so I tweak it. Anyway, it still feels like mostly my code and I prefer the new AI + Mark code over what I used to produce.

This has been a strange ride! I learned to program in 1965 and have always loved coding, but it is a weird new world we live in, my friend.

Re: I changed my license

#168

Post by LtWorf »

ghaff wrote: post #165
LtWorf wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Did you read my comment or you just reply for the sake of it? I release the code so that people and companies that feel like contributing to the community can use it. Companies that want to take without giving back however are mildly inconvenienced by copyleft.

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

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

Re: I changed my license

#169

Post by zelphirkalt »

Joel_Mckay wrote: post #73
zelphirkalt wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think people getting time sponsored working on FOSS is quite rare. Would like to do that myself, but instead I just develop in my free time.

You mean you have never written or used FOSS applications at work? I find that very surprising, but I have seen some shops practice clean room coding policies. =3

Yes, that's what I mean. I have used open source software before, and deployed it and so on, but no one has ever offered me to work 1 day a week or something like that during my job hours on an open source project, contributing something. Maybe at a future job.

Re: I changed my license

#170

Post by belorn »

mihaelm wrote: post #38
mnahkies wrote: post #12

What are people's thoughts/experiences about dual licencing? Eg: is there a clean way to dual license such that hobbyist, and exploratory work (eg: a proof of concept done in a commercial setting) are allowed, but using it in production requires a fee? If you've done this, has it been successful? Obviously there's been many projects relicense over recent years (terraform, redis, etc) - but it's less clear to me if th…

I think it definitely hurts adoption. No hobbyist or experimenter wants to delve into legalities head first by first having to understand the licensing terms of software, whereas permissive licenses like MIT and Apache 2.0 are easily-understood and familiar. The solution is probably to be more selective what you're open sourcing if you're planning to build a business. And what you open source, you do it under a permi…

Will hobbyists and experimenters that has no interest in understanding licenses go out of their way to locate specific licensed code, or are they more likely to just ask the AI/agent to cobble together stuff without care of any licenses?
Post reply on HN