3 ms·

So why not just close it and sell it then? Using a license to extort money from commercial entities who he seems to say use it without paying a dime for it and

by X86BSD 10y ago

So why not just close it and sell it then? Using a license to extort money from commercial entities who he seems to say use it without paying a dime for it and operating under the guise of open source is... warped in my pov. I don't begrudge him making phat loot. But if that's the goal open source is not the right avenue imo. Let the flame war begin but I don't see the point in open sourcing code if you don't want people to use it however they want. YMMV and probably does.

jackbravo 10y ago
Under a copyleft license you CAN use it however you want. You just are obliged to open source any modification you make to it. I'm not sure how the "derived works" clause applies to node.js projects using this project.
- e12e 10y ago
  You're obligated to also distribute sources to changes if you distribute. You can implement single-image clustering on top of the Linux kernel all you want, and keep your changes - so long as you don't distribute the software. If you do, you must distribute under the gpl.
- kevin_thibedeau 10y ago
  GPL and LGPL require that users of your software have to be able to relink with their own version of the copyleft code. It's not enough just to provide the source (for compiled languages).
wvenable 10y ago
All copyleft licenses have the same principle; to promote openness. This is explicitly not the same as "use it however they want". I think the motivation to not have your open source code used in a closed source product that is sold for profit should be obvious.
- 0mp 10y ago
  Also, the motivation seems to be a desire for building a bigger community which gives back its improvements. ZeroMQ for example sticks to LGPL for the very reason - they believe that it is easier to build a community and discourage "dark forks" when software is licensed under GPL-like license. (See http://zeromq.org/area:faq#toc4 http://zeromq.org/area:faq#toc4).
  - williamstein 10y ago
    They have tried hard for the last year it relicense zeromq under a much more liberals license, but have had trouble getting all permissions.
stock_toaster 10y ago
Additionally, the requirement for being able to sell a business friendly license, seems to imply that any community code contributions must now assign copyright of the contribution to the project owner (CLA?). Otherwise, wouldn't you then have features locked to the EUPL version? (presumably...I am not familiar with the EUPL at all though)
wmf 10y ago
The open source version acts as advertising for the paid version. It also allows programmers to imagine that they will get paid (without even having to do "business stuff" like marketing) and get open source cred at the same time. This rarely works but the other open source business models never work, so it's the leader.
prodigal_erik 10y ago
I want you to benefit from my work only if I also benefit from your work. If you seek an unfair advantage over me, I will not cooperate.
drdaeman 10y ago
Others have pointed some reasons, but there's also another important one. Copyleft is a promise to he end-users that - no matter the circumstances - they won't be stuck with whatever they were served, but would be able to maintain or hire someone to maintain. It's not only freedom to adapt and modify the code, but also - when a project is a library - a freedom to not be stuck with ancient bug-ridden insecure builds if there are newer versions. So if you ask "why copyleft?" think how much abandonware with statically linked libraries (e.g. ancient OpenSSL) you've seen.

by X86BSD 10y ago

jackbravo 10y ago

Under a copyleft license you CAN use it however you want. You just are obliged to open source any modification you make to it. I'm not sure how the "derived works" clause applies to node.js projects using this project.

e12e 10y ago
You're obligated to also distribute sources to changes if you distribute. You can implement single-image clustering on top of the Linux kernel all you want, and keep your changes - so long as you don't distribute the software. If you do, you must distribute under the gpl.
kevin_thibedeau 10y ago
GPL and LGPL require that users of your software have to be able to relink with their own version of the copyleft code. It's not enough just to provide the source (for compiled languages).

wvenable 10y ago

All copyleft licenses have the same principle; to promote openness. This is explicitly not the same as "use it however they want". I think the motivation to not have your open source code used in a closed source product that is sold for profit should be obvious.

0mp 10y ago
Also, the motivation seems to be a desire for building a bigger community which gives back its improvements. ZeroMQ for example sticks to LGPL for the very reason - they believe that it is easier to build a community and discourage "dark forks" when software is licensed under GPL-like license. (See http://zeromq.org/area:faq#toc4 http://zeromq.org/area:faq#toc4).
- williamstein 10y ago
  They have tried hard for the last year it relicense zeromq under a much more liberals license, but have had trouble getting all permissions.

stock_toaster 10y ago

Additionally, the requirement for being able to sell a business friendly license, seems to imply that any community code contributions must now assign copyright of the contribution to the project owner (CLA?). Otherwise, wouldn't you then have features locked to the EUPL version? (presumably...I am not familiar with the EUPL at all though)

wmf 10y ago

The open source version acts as advertising for the paid version. It also allows programmers to imagine that they will get paid (without even having to do "business stuff" like marketing) and get open source cred at the same time. This rarely works but the other open source business models never work, so it's the leader.

prodigal_erik 10y ago

I want you to benefit from my work only if I also benefit from your work. If you seek an unfair advantage over me, I will not cooperate.

drdaeman 10y ago

Others have pointed some reasons, but there's also another important one. Copyleft is a promise to he end-users that - no matter the circumstances - they won't be stuck with whatever they were served, but would be able to maintain or hire someone to maintain. It's not only freedom to adapt and modify the code, but also - when a project is a library - a freedom to not be stuck with ancient bug-ridden insecure builds if there are newer versions. So if you ask "why copyleft?" think how much abandonware with statically linked libraries (e.g. ancient OpenSSL) you've seen.