license #4

New Issue

jboverf · 2019-05-02T01:05:03Z

jboverf commented

2019-05-02 01:05:03 +00:00

I realized bombadillo doesn't have a license. This isn't critical but it's always good to let people know where they stand if they want to reuse the code for any reason. Not sure if you're a GPL or permissive fan, but it'd be good to pick and commit it either way. The convention I've always used is a file called LICENSE at the root of the repo.

sloum commented

2019-05-02 02:15:29 +00:00

My politics have not really aligned in a way that works with software licenses particularly well. I have not landed anywhere I am happy with. My ideal license is: completely free and open for any non-commercial use. Most people do not consider that an open source license. I have found that while some of my ideals align with the FSF (who I greatly appreciate in many ways), their pro-commerce slant is not one of them.

As a result, I'm not quite sure what to do. Free for non-commercial use licenses are very common for media (wikimedia uses licenses of that sort regularly), but I have not found one in use for software.

I'm not necessarily 100% opposed to a more common license, but I'd like to think on it for a bit.

My politics have not really aligned in a way that works with software licenses particularly well. I have not landed anywhere I am happy with. My ideal license is: completely free and open for any non-commercial use. Most people do not consider that an open source license. I have found that while some of my ideals align with the FSF (who I greatly appreciate in many ways), their pro-commerce slant is not one of them. As a result, I'm not quite sure what to do. Free for non-commercial use licenses are very common for media (wikimedia uses licenses of that sort regularly), but I have not found one in use for software. I'm not necessarily 100% opposed to a more common license, but I'd like to think on it for a bit.

sloum added the

non-code

label 2019-05-02 02:18:04 +00:00

sloum self-assigned this 2019-05-02 02:18:11 +00:00

jboverf commented

2019-05-02 12:01:33 +00:00

Understood! Is the concern about the integration of code into a commercial product, or just selling your code outright? GPL would protect against the former (by forcing anyone who integrated your code to also license under GPL), but not against the latter. In my experience working at software companies, GPL licensed code is de-facto non-commercial: you're typically told by lawyers you can't use it unless it's permissively licensed. The main weakness of GPL here (as Mongo and others have found) is you can't prevent people from running your software as a service and selling it. In any case, definitely don't feel any pressure to slap on a license you're not comfortable with!

sloum commented

2019-05-02 14:57:16 +00:00

Hmmm... Interesting. My reading of GPL had seemed more lenient for commercial uses. My main concern is use in a commercial product (which I am against). I am ok with a license that forces any company incorporating all or part of my (our now) software to distribute their software under the same license (you know, what Steve Ballmer would refer to as a cancer). So if the GPL fits the bill I could be satisfied with that. :)

jboverf commented

2019-05-02 20:48:00 +00:00

Lol Ballmer...been a while since I thought of that guy. The OSI site links to this site which has a nice summary:

https://tldrlegal.com/license/gnu-general-public-license-v3-%28gpl-3%29

Basically this means any company that wanted to use any of your code in some other software package would then be forced to release their code under the GPL. It would not stop a company from using your software as-is. It would also allow them to sell your software as is. The moment they integrate into something else though, the new code has to be GPL licensed. Virus indeed :-)

Lol Ballmer...been a while since I thought of that guy. The OSI site links to this site which has a nice summary: https://tldrlegal.com/license/gnu-general-public-license-v3-%28gpl-3%29 Basically this means any company that wanted to use any of your code in some other software package would then be forced to release their code under the GPL. It would not stop a company from using your software as-is. It would also allow them to sell your software as is. The moment they integrate into something else though, the new code has to be GPL licensed. Virus indeed :-)

jboverf commented

2019-05-02 20:49:32 +00:00

But on the selling front, the source code always has to be available, as do any modifications they make. So even if they sell it, building from source for free is always an option