6 ms·

Luckily they did not acquire Node.js edit: I should have been more specific.. when an open source project is under a company's wing and it gets acquired, you d

by ruffrey 10y ago

Luckily they did not acquire Node.js edit: I should have been more specific.. when an open source project is under a company's wing and it gets acquired, you don't know what can happen, even under MIT. Look at express recently. Since it's the under the Node Foundation now, this is not a big deal. Had it happened a short time ago, there may have been further turmoil in the community.

dmpk2k 10y ago
Given that Node.js has always been MIT licensed, that's impossible. That's one reason why it had a liberal license; just listen to Cantrill's Oracle rants sometime to get a better idea.
- cyphar 10y ago
  Cantrill advocated the fact that CDDL was copyleft as a good thing[1] (it's a bad license overall, but the point is the same) specifically mentioning that the fact that Oracle couldn't use new DTrace and ZFS improvements from the community was a good thing. I agree (though I much prefer the GPL). So actually all of Cantrill's worries with Oracle exist with Node.js's license. I am sad when I see large free software projects licensed under MIT, we are doing ourselves a disservice by allowing proprietary software to take advantage of the free software we've developed. [1] It's part of his Fork Yeah! talk about the fork that is illumos.
  - Annatar 10y ago
    There are people out there like myself who are convinced that GPL is the most vile, fascist license out there. On the other hand, I have nothing against CDDL. I think the incompatibility of CDDL with the GPL is what saved the illumos community (even if inadvertently) from having their technology cannibalized by GNU and Linux. I'm happy that BSD is benefitting from illumos (and vice versa), but I'm even more happy that Linux isn't. <--- I do not represent anyone but myself, the position expressed here is my own and not of anyone else.
    - cyphar 10y ago
      > There are people out there like myself who are convinced that GPL is the most vile, fascist license out there. Not proprietary software? Not "open source" licenses that don't allow modification (which is also proprietary)? The GPL? The thing that gave us free software in the modern world? Well, that's certainly one opinon. > On the other hand, I have nothing against CDDL. The CDDL has a provision that if any part is held unenforcible it will be modified to make it enforceable. As a matter of licensing, that's incredibly devious and bad. There's other super dodgy parts of the CDDL that make it a bad license purely from a license point of view, let alone from "freedoms given to users" perspective. > I think the incompatibility of CDDL with the GPL is what saved the illumos community (even if inadvertently) from having their technology cannibalized by GNU and Linux. What are you talking about? Why do you care if GNU/Linux takes your code and modifies it? No damage is done to the original. > I'm happy that BSD is benefitting from illumos (and vice versa) Actually, because CDDL is somewhat-but-not-really copyleft, many BSDs essentially have copyleft requirements if you enable ZFS or DTrace. Which is funny, given how much they go on about "freedom to make proprietary software" (something I'm against). > I do not represent anyone but myself, the position expressed here is my own and not of anyone else. Your position is also wrong.
      - Annatar 10y ago
        > The CDDL has a provision that if any part is held unenforcible it will be modified to make it enforceable. As a matter of licensing, that's incredibly devious and bad. There's other super dodgy parts of the CDDL that make it a bad license purely from a license point of view, let alone from "freedoms given to users" perspective. Wait until you discover the BSD license, which lets you do whatever you want with the code... you might get a stroke (:-D) GPL gave me no freedoms, it gave me the GNU userland tools and GNU/Linux (illumos / SmartOS and AT&T SVR4 tools are just fine, thank you, do not want GNU!) http://www.blinkydog.com/wp-content/uploads/Dogs-Do-Not-Want-2.jpg http://www.blinkydog.com/wp-content/uploads/Dogs-Do-Not-Want... GNU / GPL: DO NOT WANT! > Your position is also wrong. Luckily I don't have to license anything under the GPL, GPL cannot take that away from me as long as I don't link with the kernel code licensed under it, or derive code / work from it. And I'll be extra careful I don't ever land myself in a position where I would have to license something under the GPL. Any other FOSS license is better than the GPL, I have no problem with open sourcing, and cannot wait to clean up my code in order to set it free. But not under the GPL license. Finally, CDDL is both FSF and OSI approved: the open source initiative looked over the CDDL license and deemed it to be in compliance with open source. I will take what is in my view their expert finding over your position, but thank you for sharing your opinion.
- pron 10y ago
  What does the license have to do with anything? Joyent themselves are now behind SmartOS, which is based on Solaris and its CDDL license. An open source license being more free or more liberal has absolutely nothing with the ability of the community to fork and/or continue support if the original owner discontinues it.
berns 10y ago
I think they still own the trademark. So even if anyone can fork node.js they can't use the name.
- vacri 10y ago
  It's already been successfully forked once, under 'io.js', when a group of developers were frustrated at the slow pace of Joyent's custodianship. io.js came back to node.js after politicking.
- bdcravens 10y ago
  Had the projects not merged back, I'm sure io.js would have gained significant ground, so I don't think this is that big of a deal.
dawnerd 10y ago
Same initial reaction. I can't stand Samsung and refuse to have anything to do with them. All started when they took my 5k dollar tv and started injecting ads and such all while claiming they didn't (this was before the recent media caught on)

by ruffrey 10y ago

dmpk2k 10y ago

Given that Node.js has always been MIT licensed, that's impossible. That's one reason why it had a liberal license; just listen to Cantrill's Oracle rants sometime to get a better idea.

cyphar 10y ago
Cantrill advocated the fact that CDDL was copyleft as a good thing[1] (it's a bad license overall, but the point is the same) specifically mentioning that the fact that Oracle couldn't use new DTrace and ZFS improvements from the community was a good thing. I agree (though I much prefer the GPL). So actually all of Cantrill's worries with Oracle exist with Node.js's license. I am sad when I see large free software projects licensed under MIT, we are doing ourselves a disservice by allowing proprietary software to take advantage of the free software we've developed. [1] It's part of his Fork Yeah! talk about the fork that is illumos.
- Annatar 10y ago
  There are people out there like myself who are convinced that GPL is the most vile, fascist license out there. On the other hand, I have nothing against CDDL. I think the incompatibility of CDDL with the GPL is what saved the illumos community (even if inadvertently) from having their technology cannibalized by GNU and Linux. I'm happy that BSD is benefitting from illumos (and vice versa), but I'm even more happy that Linux isn't. <--- I do not represent anyone but myself, the position expressed here is my own and not of anyone else.
  - cyphar 10y ago
    > There are people out there like myself who are convinced that GPL is the most vile, fascist license out there. Not proprietary software? Not "open source" licenses that don't allow modification (which is also proprietary)? The GPL? The thing that gave us free software in the modern world? Well, that's certainly one opinon. > On the other hand, I have nothing against CDDL. The CDDL has a provision that if any part is held unenforcible it will be modified to make it enforceable. As a matter of licensing, that's incredibly devious and bad. There's other super dodgy parts of the CDDL that make it a bad license purely from a license point of view, let alone from "freedoms given to users" perspective. > I think the incompatibility of CDDL with the GPL is what saved the illumos community (even if inadvertently) from having their technology cannibalized by GNU and Linux. What are you talking about? Why do you care if GNU/Linux takes your code and modifies it? No damage is done to the original. > I'm happy that BSD is benefitting from illumos (and vice versa) Actually, because CDDL is somewhat-but-not-really copyleft, many BSDs essentially have copyleft requirements if you enable ZFS or DTrace. Which is funny, given how much they go on about "freedom to make proprietary software" (something I'm against). > I do not represent anyone but myself, the position expressed here is my own and not of anyone else. Your position is also wrong.
    - Annatar 10y ago
      > The CDDL has a provision that if any part is held unenforcible it will be modified to make it enforceable. As a matter of licensing, that's incredibly devious and bad. There's other super dodgy parts of the CDDL that make it a bad license purely from a license point of view, let alone from "freedoms given to users" perspective. Wait until you discover the BSD license, which lets you do whatever you want with the code... you might get a stroke (:-D) GPL gave me no freedoms, it gave me the GNU userland tools and GNU/Linux (illumos / SmartOS and AT&T SVR4 tools are just fine, thank you, do not want GNU!) http://www.blinkydog.com/wp-content/uploads/Dogs-Do-Not-Want-2.jpg http://www.blinkydog.com/wp-content/uploads/Dogs-Do-Not-Want... GNU / GPL: DO NOT WANT! > Your position is also wrong. Luckily I don't have to license anything under the GPL, GPL cannot take that away from me as long as I don't link with the kernel code licensed under it, or derive code / work from it. And I'll be extra careful I don't ever land myself in a position where I would have to license something under the GPL. Any other FOSS license is better than the GPL, I have no problem with open sourcing, and cannot wait to clean up my code in order to set it free. But not under the GPL license. Finally, CDDL is both FSF and OSI approved: the open source initiative looked over the CDDL license and deemed it to be in compliance with open source. I will take what is in my view their expert finding over your position, but thank you for sharing your opinion.
pron 10y ago
What does the license have to do with anything? Joyent themselves are now behind SmartOS, which is based on Solaris and its CDDL license. An open source license being more free or more liberal has absolutely nothing with the ability of the community to fork and/or continue support if the original owner discontinues it.

berns 10y ago

I think they still own the trademark. So even if anyone can fork node.js they can't use the name.

vacri 10y ago
It's already been successfully forked once, under 'io.js', when a group of developers were frustrated at the slow pace of Joyent's custodianship. io.js came back to node.js after politicking.
bdcravens 10y ago
Had the projects not merged back, I'm sure io.js would have gained significant ground, so I don't think this is that big of a deal.

dawnerd 10y ago

Same initial reaction. I can't stand Samsung and refuse to have anything to do with them. All started when they took my 5k dollar tv and started injecting ads and such all while claiming they didn't (this was before the recent media caught on)