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

TinyMCE (also) moving from MIT to GPL

github.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 87 posts

Re: TinyMCE (also) moving from MIT to GPL

#51

Post by Y_Y »

panzi wrote: post #43
ssddanbrown wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's definitely an option, but I originally chose the MIT due to the simplicity & low friction/requirement for users, and for me it'd be a shame to change that, especially as it could impact users that have been using my software over the last 8 years. While I've gained a lot of understand & respect for GPL licenses over the years of being involved in open source, I'd still have a preference for MIT for this partic…

I thought when your program/library has a more permissive license you can use a GPL library without changing your license. You just need to make this clear so that someone using your code knows that it also pulls in GPL code and thus they cannot be more restrictive (e.g. closed source) than GPL. Only your program will be MIT licensed, the GPL library stays GPL of course. (And since MIT is more permissive anyone can f…

There are subtleties, but what I inferred from OP's post was that they modify or extend TinyMCE's code and that they don't want to relicense the modifications. If you just use TinyMCE without modification as a non-essential part of a larger whole it should be fine [0].

[0] https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.en.html#GPLInProprietar...

Re: TinyMCE (also) moving from MIT to GPL

#52

Post by Denvercoder9 »

homarp wrote: post #48
Denvercoder9 wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can anyone explain why the answer to the second question ( https://fosstodon.org/@drewdevault/112156847020462949 ) is "no"? The MIT license grants all the rights that the GPL requires to be granted for derivative works (it is GPL-compatible). Is the problem here just that they don't distribute or offer the source code of the GPL-licensed library along with the pre-built binaries?

it is because GPL is viral https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#WhatDoesCompatMean

I'm aware of that, but I'd like to know what specifically violates the GPL in the posed scenario. Your very link states that it's okay to distribute combinations of GPL-licensed code with code licensed under another, GPL-compatible license (which MIT is).

Re: TinyMCE (also) moving from MIT to GPL

#53

Post by panzi »

Denvercoder9 wrote: post #38
rapnie wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Drew Devault forked Redis, made the fork LGPL, then got so many questions that he created a fun little licensing quiz: https://fosstodon.org/@drewdevault/112156829031615403

Can anyone explain why the answer to the second question ( https://fosstodon.org/@drewdevault/112156847020462949 ) is "no"? The MIT license grants all the rights that the GPL requires to be granted for derivative works (it is GPL-compatible). Is the problem here just that they don't distribute or offer the source code of the GPL-licensed library along with the pre-built binaries?

The answer to 2) surprises me. I mean, they only said MIT and didn't explicitly state that they provide the source and didn't say that they use a library under GPL. I guess if they provide the source with the binary and make the licenses of the used libraries clear it is ok? Having your part under MIT doesn't change the license of the library. MIT is not more but less restrictive than GPL.

Also shouldn't the answer to 5) be: Depends on what exactly the licenses of the used libraries are, but usually lol no?

Re: TinyMCE (also) moving from MIT to GPL

#54

Post by panzi »

Denvercoder9 wrote: post #52
homarp wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

it is because GPL is viral https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#WhatDoesCompatMean

I'm aware of that, but I'd like to know what specifically violates the GPL in the posed scenario. Your very link states that it's okay to distribute combinations of GPL-licensed code with code licensed under another, GPL-compatible license (which MIT is).

Confuses me too. Maybe its because they didn't say that the code was also distributed and that they didn't explicitly say that they use a certain library that is under the GPL?

Re: TinyMCE (also) moving from MIT to GPL

#55

Post by lenerdenator »

immibis wrote: post #46
lenerdenator wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To me, this is, over the long-term, a self-solving problem. Especially for simpler projects. It took a decade for GNU/Linux to get to the point where CTOs would throw it in the same category as commercial UNIXes, but when that happened, well... when was the last time you logged into a brand-spankin'-new HP-UX machine? And that was an operating system, one of the more ambitious types of software projects. Redis is tra…

> There are already forks that are FOSS. FWIW Redis is still FOSS since SSPL is FOSS - very strong copyleft. It's not a proprietary license, it's rather "more AGPL than AGPL." Even if [the OSI]( https://opensource.org/sponsors ) disagrees.

If I'm understanding the changes Redis made, it's FOSS until you decide you want to use their server to create a cloud service offering. Am I mistaken?

Re: TinyMCE (also) moving from MIT to GPL

#56

Post by panzi »

ssddanbrown wrote: post #45
panzi wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I thought when your program/library has a more permissive license you can use a GPL library without changing your license. You just need to make this clear so that someone using your code knows that it also pulls in GPL code and thus they cannot be more restrictive (e.g. closed source) than GPL. Only your program will be MIT licensed, the GPL library stays GPL of course. (And since MIT is more permissive anyone can f…

That's generally what LGPL is. It does get a bit murky outside of standard compiled applications though. Otherwise, I think it's generally the other way around. Permissive can be used in stronger copy-left licenses, but strongly copyleft libraries can't be used (there's a lot of detail skipped when it comes to what counts as "used" here) in works provided under a more permissive library since a permissive license doe…

To me "used in" makes not much sense and I think of it as "used together with", but I might be wrong. Just because main() comes from that one object file and not the other, does that really make so much difference? In my assumption you just have to provide the source and clearly state which parts are under which license. Anyone can fork your MIT code and base their GPL program on it anyway. So providing your program part as MIT should be fine?

Re: TinyMCE (also) moving from MIT to GPL

#58

Post by Tomte »

Denvercoder9 wrote: post #52
homarp wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

it is because GPL is viral https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#WhatDoesCompatMean

I'm aware of that, but I'd like to know what specifically violates the GPL in the posed scenario. Your very link states that it's okay to distribute combinations of GPL-licensed code with code licensed under another, GPL-compatible license (which MIT is).

"provided the combination is released under the same GNU GPL version"

That‘s not happening in Drew‘s second scenario.

Re: TinyMCE (also) moving from MIT to GPL

#59

Post by Sander_Marechal »

lenerdenator wrote: post #55
immibis wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> There are already forks that are FOSS. FWIW Redis is still FOSS since SSPL is FOSS - very strong copyleft. It's not a proprietary license, it's rather "more AGPL than AGPL." Even if [the OSI]( https://opensource.org/sponsors ) disagrees.

If I'm understanding the changes Redis made, it's FOSS until you decide you want to use their server to create a cloud service offering. Am I mistaken?

Then it isn't FOSS, because it violates freedom 0: The freedom to run the program as you wish
Post reply on HN