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

Open Source (Almost) Everything

tom.preston-werner.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 85 posts

Re: Open Source (Almost) Everything

#21

Post by chc »

baddox wrote: post #2

The article begins by discussing their choice to open source an integral part of their product. The article ends with an admonition: "Don't open source anything that represents core business value." It seems like Grit certainly represented core business value, yet they open sourced it. I'm guessing that what they really mean is that you should open source almost everything that represents core business value, but one…

That's less "core" than what Tom seems to mean. By looking at the examples he provides, the essential distinction seems to be this:

If somebody found the code, would cloning your business be the obvious thing to do with it?

This isn't true of Grit. It is true of the core GitHub app, and it is true of the GitHub Jobs app.

Interacting with Git from Ruby is not the core business value of GitHub. It's just something GitHub does in the process of providing its real core business value, which is the awesome interface and collaboration features they've built on top of Git.

Re: Open Source (Almost) Everything

#22

Post by nirvdrum »

SeanLuke wrote: post #20

The MIT license has no patent release. I think this alone should eliminate it for all but the most basic of projects. Yet the author doesn't even seem to realize this.

That's the biggest reason I opt for v2 of the Apache license. Similar liberties with fewer liabilities.

Re: Open Source (Almost) Everything

#23

Post by halostatue »

SeanLuke wrote: post #20

The MIT license has no patent release. I think this alone should eliminate it for all but the most basic of projects. Yet the author doesn't even seem to realize this.

What license would you recommend instead, for those of us who prefer not using share-alike licenses (e.g., the GNU GPL)?

Re: Open Source (Almost) Everything

#24

Post by ajross »

halostatue wrote: post #23
SeanLuke wrote: post #20

The MIT license has no patent release. I think this alone should eliminate it for all but the most basic of projects. Yet the author doesn't even seem to realize this.

What license would you recommend instead, for those of us who prefer not using share-alike licenses (e.g., the GNU GPL)?

The Apache license is generally considered to be the most bullet-proof of the non-copyleft open source licenses. It's what Big Corporations generally use when they don't use the GPLv2. The MIT and BSD text is significantly shorter and less formal.

Re: Open Source (Almost) Everything

#25

Post by _pius »

tomp wrote: post #9

I have a question for the OP... Why the MIT licence, and not putting your code in the public domain? Is it the liability issues, or the attribution, or something else? I mainly pose this question because I am choosing a licence for my projects, either the MIT/Apache licence, or public domain.

From the article:

What is the One True License? I prefer the MIT license and almost everything we open source at GitHub carries this license. I love this license for several reasons:

It's short. Anyone can read this license and understand exactly what it means without wasting a bunch of money consulting high-octane lawyers.

Enough protection is offered to be relatively sure you won't sue me if something goes wrong when you use my code.

Everyone understands the legal implications of the MIT license. Weird licenses like the WTFPL and the Beer license pretend to be the "ultimate in free licenses" but utterly fail at this goal. These fringe licenses are too vague and unenforceable to be acceptable for use in some companies. On the other side, the GPL is too restrictive and dogmatic to be usable in many cases. I want everyone to benefit from my code. Everyone. That's what Open should mean, and that's what Free should mean.

Re: Open Source (Almost) Everything

#26

Post by chubot »

One of the strongest arguments is modularity. It's definitely true that you prevent your code from rotting and acquiring random dependencies if you think about how you can export it as a useful open source library.

Re: Open Source (Almost) Everything

#27

Post by nickpinkston »

fendrak wrote: post #10
kiba wrote: post #8

Sometime I wonder if it is possible to open source everything without becoming some sort of service company, like Redhat. The only example I can think of is makerbot industries in which their core technologies are open source.

makerbot has the distinct advantage of having open-sourced a (largely) physical product. For me at least, paying them for the bits and pieces to put their printer together would be an order of magnitude less effort than compiling and installing some software downloaded from the internet. They still offer a valuable service in manufacturing parts, and hence don't have to just sell support to make a living.

This is a great feature of open source hardware! Arduino has shown that there are plenty of platform plays in the physical world. The MakerBot builds on the RepRap mostly, and makes money doing the leg work of getting the parts to you easy / quick / cheap. Now the tons (10+ projects?) of clones coming out build on this platform.

Excited to see the future of open hardware.

Re: Open Source (Almost) Everything

#28

Post by cschep »

dhx wrote: post #17
kiba wrote: post #8

Sometime I wonder if it is possible to open source everything without becoming some sort of service company, like Redhat. The only example I can think of is makerbot industries in which their core technologies are open source.

GitHub _is_ service company. The primary advantage they have over competitors is a trusted brand name. This name has been built, in part, by engaging and contributing to the open source community. If GitHub were to open source _all_ of their software, some copycat sites may appear. These sites would not have a trusted name, thousands of well known open source projects backing them up and the expertise to properly run…

Certainly no one would buy the enterprise version of Github if it was free though. Just a thought.

Re: Open Source (Almost) Everything

#29

Post by tptacek »

true_religion wrote: post #12
tomp wrote: post #9

I have a question for the OP... Why the MIT licence, and not putting your code in the public domain? Is it the liability issues, or the attribution, or something else? I mainly pose this question because I am choosing a licence for my projects, either the MIT/Apache licence, or public domain.

There is forced attribution and the fact that in some countries putting work under the public domain doesn't mean you give up a lot of rights to it. You need to have a specifically liberal licence in order to do that.

This is probably a myth.

http://cr.yp.to/publicdomain.html

Re: Open Source (Almost) Everything

#30

Post by tingletech »

SeanLuke wrote: post #20

The MIT license has no patent release. I think this alone should eliminate it for all but the most basic of projects. Yet the author doesn't even seem to realize this.

As I understand it, this is exactly why the contracts and grants people where I work like it...
Post reply on HN