51–60 of 91 posts
Dang if someone wants to become an expert in software licensing and modifications, this is a page to read. It's sold to us as non-news, which is good. No change for contributors, no change for end users, rights wise.
Last time I heard about a non-news update that required no changes or recertification, we learned about 787MAX and MCAS.
FYI in case anyone were wondering: Meta uses Hack, not PHP. (Hack's packaging, documentation, and availability suck because there's no performance review "impact" to making things better that no one inside Meta sees. Plus, there's job security in knowledge hoarding.) Licensing: Meta and Google[1], and likely Microsoft, Apple, and most other megacorps explicitly forbid any use of AGPL software because it cannot be pro…
In other words, if you're an open source startup and want to avoid being AWS'd, choose dual AGPL + commercial (with IP transfer CLAs).
FYI in case anyone were wondering: Meta uses Hack, not PHP. (Hack's packaging, documentation, and availability suck because there's no performance review "impact" to making things better that no one inside Meta sees. Plus, there's job security in knowledge hoarding.) Licensing: Meta and Google[1], and likely Microsoft, Apple, and most other megacorps explicitly forbid any use of AGPL software because it cannot be pro…
Not "anyone who runs a business" but "any business that uses your software to provide a proprietary network service".
That is the whole point of the AGPL!
Google's reasoning in your link is pretty clear that the problem is that they are a provider of network services. Most non tech businesses wold be completely unaffected by these issues and have no reason to care.
FYI in case anyone were wondering: Meta uses Hack, not PHP. (Hack's packaging, documentation, and availability suck because there's no performance review "impact" to making things better that no one inside Meta sees. Plus, there's job security in knowledge hoarding.) Licensing: Meta and Google[1], and likely Microsoft, Apple, and most other megacorps explicitly forbid any use of AGPL software because it cannot be pro…
In other words, if you're an open source startup and want to avoid being AWS'd, choose dual AGPL + commercial (with IP transfer CLAs).
Other than that, younger generations are getting why the old models from shareware and trial demos, source available have made a comeback under apparently new models.
I suppose my concern with not getting permission from all contributors is that a bad faith contributor could make life hard. For those S signs with a stripe, or just out of spite. For better or worse, in systems like the US anyone can sue anyone for any reason and everyone is expected to carry their own costs, which is why everyone is so paranoid and covers their ass with three tanks worth of metal. Aside: "Meanwhile…
The main link that cites is primarily about the MySQL license change to GPL and the impact on PHP licensing of tha. I also do not understand why anyone would drop the GPL because Stallman does not like their licensing.
FYI in case anyone were wondering: Meta uses Hack, not PHP. (Hack's packaging, documentation, and availability suck because there's no performance review "impact" to making things better that no one inside Meta sees. Plus, there's job security in knowledge hoarding.) Licensing: Meta and Google[1], and likely Microsoft, Apple, and most other megacorps explicitly forbid any use of AGPL software because it cannot be pro…
> So if you never want megacorps or anyone who runs a business to ever use your code, choose AGPL. Not "anyone who runs a business" but "any business that uses your software to provide a proprietary network service". That is the whole point of the AGPL! Google's reasoning in your link is pretty clear that the problem is that they are a provider of network services. Most non tech businesses wold be completely unaffect…
Can't help but wonder why not the much simpler MIT.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yep, that's my "however". For PHP, the new license will apply to version 9 and later if the proposal is adopted.
So what do you mean by "you can totally change the license of already released code"? If the license only applies to version 9 and forward, then in any practical sense the license has not been changed for "released code".
That said, my point was: as the author, if you have previously released software S version V under license L1, nothing prevents you from releasing software S version V again under a new license L2 provided all the contributors of significant portions of software S version 1 agree or L1 happens to allow this additional license (because it's permissive, or because it has a "or later" clause or some other means).
Of course, re-release under a new license or not, software S version V can be used under license L1 "forever" and users can choose to ignore the L2 release completely. You cannot remove license L1, you can only offer an additional possibility (using software S version V under the new license, which you didn't allow before the re-release unless the relicensing was allowed by L1).
I've not seen this done, but I can imagine this being useful if someone needs specifically software S version V under the new license. Usually, people can just use newer versions under the new license though.
I admit my comment was terse (and a further edition probably removed important phrasing), I hope this one makes things clearer.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> So if you never want megacorps or anyone who runs a business to ever use your code, choose AGPL. Not "anyone who runs a business" but "any business that uses your software to provide a proprietary network service". That is the whole point of the AGPL! Google's reasoning in your link is pretty clear that the problem is that they are a provider of network services. Most non tech businesses wold be completely unaffect…
The problem is that the language is vague enough and untested enough a lot of places, including non-technical ones, can be wary of being the test case.