3 ms·

>That is a showstopper for businesses wishing to contribute or incorporate code from these projects. That's the whole point. If you're making money off this co

>That is a showstopper for businesses wishing to contribute or incorporate code from these projects. That's the whole point. If you're making money off this code you should be contributing back. In practice the only companies that actually seem to really have a problem with this are companies with an uncompromising dog-in-the-manger approach to intellectual property. Companies which also make you sign contracts that say ideas dreamed up in the shower and off-the-clock projects belong to them. >Takeaway: If you can choose a more permissive license for your project than GPL or LGPL, please do. Or how about you start paying some hard cash for your paranoid approach to your corporation's intellectual property instead? E.g. https://www.mongodb.org/licensing https://www.mongodb.org/licensing "If use of our drivers under the Apache License v2.0 or the database under the AGPL v3 does not satisfy your organization’s vast legal department (some will not approve GPL in any form), commercial licenses are available" Cheapskate.

nailer 11y ago
I'd contribute to a library I can use. I would not however give my entire app away. Calling people who don't want to give all their work away 'cheapskates' is itself a pretty cheap argument.
- crdoconnor 11y ago
  >Calling people who don't want to give all their work away 'cheapskates' Is not what I said. I said that if you don't want to give away your work, buy a commercial license.
  - isolate 11y ago
    You did call him a "cheapskate" though. Personal attacks are not allowed on Hacker News.
  - nailer 11y ago
    I write a whole bunch of my own libraries under MIT. I'd rather just use, or create, a different library than pay for a proprietary license. You said people who feel that way are cheapskates: the name calling is unnecessary, and it's wrong: I just expect other OSS authors to license their work on the same terms as most of us do.
    - belorn 11y ago
      > I just expect other OSS authors to license their work on the same terms as most of us do. That is exactly whats GPL says. License the work on the same terms and everyone is happy. License the work on different terms which prohibit sharing and modifications, and everyone gets unhappy. The whole point of licensing something under MIT is so others can put their modified works under different terms.
      - nailer 11y ago
        >> I just expect other OSS authors to license their work on the same terms as most of us do. >That is exactly whats GPL says. Most of us (in the JavaScript community) license work using MIT or ISC. I expect others to do the same. Sorry if that was unclear. > The whole point of licensing something under MIT is so others can put their modified works under different terms. I license things under the MIT so that people don't have to OSS their apps that links against it, which I don't consider modified works.
        teddyh 11y ago
        > I license things under the MIT so that people don't have to OSS their apps that links against it, which I don't consider modified works. Then you could use the LGPL license. Consider the advantages of, for instance, its patent grants.
        nailer 11y ago
        Correct. My position is against GPL, I don't mind LGPL at all.

nailer 11y ago

I'd contribute to a library I can use. I would not however give my entire app away. Calling people who don't want to give all their work away 'cheapskates' is itself a pretty cheap argument.

crdoconnor 11y ago
>Calling people who don't want to give all their work away 'cheapskates' Is not what I said. I said that if you don't want to give away your work, buy a commercial license.
- isolate 11y ago
  You did call him a "cheapskate" though. Personal attacks are not allowed on Hacker News.
- nailer 11y ago
  I write a whole bunch of my own libraries under MIT. I'd rather just use, or create, a different library than pay for a proprietary license. You said people who feel that way are cheapskates: the name calling is unnecessary, and it's wrong: I just expect other OSS authors to license their work on the same terms as most of us do.
  - belorn 11y ago
    > I just expect other OSS authors to license their work on the same terms as most of us do. That is exactly whats GPL says. License the work on the same terms and everyone is happy. License the work on different terms which prohibit sharing and modifications, and everyone gets unhappy. The whole point of licensing something under MIT is so others can put their modified works under different terms.
    - nailer 11y ago
      >> I just expect other OSS authors to license their work on the same terms as most of us do. >That is exactly whats GPL says. Most of us (in the JavaScript community) license work using MIT or ISC. I expect others to do the same. Sorry if that was unclear. > The whole point of licensing something under MIT is so others can put their modified works under different terms. I license things under the MIT so that people don't have to OSS their apps that links against it, which I don't consider modified works.
      - teddyh 11y ago
        > I license things under the MIT so that people don't have to OSS their apps that links against it, which I don't consider modified works. Then you could use the LGPL license. Consider the advantages of, for instance, its patent grants.
        nailer 11y ago
        Correct. My position is against GPL, I don't mind LGPL at all.