3 ms·

>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 commer

>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.

>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.