5 ms·

Ask HN: Releasing code as open source

I wrote an iPad app that was rejected by Apple with no hope of being accepted anytime in the foreseeable future. I've decided to move on and use the concepts for another project but in the event that others might find it useful I'd like to release the code as open source. Having never done this before I'm not sure the "best" way to go about it; simply open up a public repository on github and post the code, or do I need to select a specific license, update the source to reflect this choice, provide documentation, etc.? I'm sure there are no hard-and-fast rules but I'd like to do this in a way that is most beneficial to other developers out there.

frossie 16y ago
Let's be clear. "Open source" actually means distributed with a license compatible with the open source movement. Unlicensed is not technically open source. (Semantics, I know, but it can make a difference - not knowing exactly what your application does it is hard to tell whether it is relevant). If you care at all what happens to it, slapping the GPL on it and putting it on github are easy choices. Here are the instructions on how to GPL your code: http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-howto.html http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-howto.html If you really don't care what happens to it (i.e. don't care if it is forked a zillion times) just slap it on your website somewhere - but personally I would still GPL it.
- jasongullickson 16y ago
  Thanks, that's the sort of info I'm looking for. I don't want to make the use restrictive but I'd like to prevent someone else from claiming it and then preventing others from using it in the future.
  - jamaicahest 16y ago
    The http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BSD_licenses http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BSD_licenses might be worth considering, http://opendevice.blogspot.com/2007/06/best-gnu-gpl-vs-bsd-comparison-ever.html http://opendevice.blogspot.com/2007/06/best-gnu-gpl-vs-bsd-c... provides a decent comparison
    - loup-vaillant 16y ago
      The comparison you mentioned is dangerous, because it makes a huge mistake: > if you choose to copy and paste GPL code into your own program you have to share it No, no, no and NO. The obligation of licensing your program with the GPL only triggers upon distribution. As long as you keep the program for yourself, you don't have to share anything. Some people chose the BSD licence because they believe this fallacy. Other people say the GPL isn't really free precisely because they believe this fallacy. It's about the 5th time I scream that all over HN. Please pay attention.
  - _delirium 16y ago
    Which kind of license you should pick depends on what exactly you mean by "claiming it and then preventing others from using it in the future". The two main styles of licensing are: * Permissive (BSD-style, MIT-style): Anyone can use your code for any purpose, including in proprietary products, but they must retain the copyright notice. * Copyleft (GPL): Anyone can use your code, on the condition that any software they use it in gives the same freedom to reusers. Which you should choose depends on what you'd consider fair/unfair reuse of your code. For example, if Microsoft used an adapted version of your code in the next version of Excel, would you consider that a great thing, and be happy to see your code out there, or would you consider it a betrayal of your intent for someone to adapt a version of your code and then keep the adaptation closed-source?
    - jasongullickson 16y ago
      I'm OK with the code being used in a commercial product so long as that doesn't prohibit others from using it as well (in other words, I wouldn't want Microsoft to somehow copyright a function my code provides that would get anyone else who uses that function sued). Don't get me wrong, I don't see this as a possibility but I'd like to save others the trouble.
      - _delirium 16y ago
        That shouldn't be a problem with pretty much any option. At worse, Microsoft (or whoever) can make an improved version of your code that they copyright, but they couldn't copyright the original version that you released in a way that would prevent others from using it. The biggest difference between licenses is whether you care about those derived works: if someone improved your code, should that improved code also have to stay open source, or is it okay if someone takes the improved version closed-source? If you want to ensure that any improved versions stay open too, then copyleft licenses (the GPL is the main one) are the way to go. If you don't care about that, and only care that the original stays open, then any permissive open-source license is fine ("BSD-style" licensing).
        jasongullickson 16y ago
cmelbye 16y ago
I would give it a GPL/LGPL/Mozilla/etc license (your choice, GPL is popular) and put it on a public GitHub repository, and then post it here on Hacker News so we can see it :)
- jasongullickson 16y ago
  I think GPL will be the way to go, and once it's out I'll be happy to share it here.
- jasongullickson 16y ago
  Well hopefully I didn't do anything wrong that's too embarassing: http://github.com/jjg/DashApp http://github.com/jjg/DashApp
deleted 16y ago
[deleted]
kilian 16y ago
It depends on what you want. Do you want people to just do whatever they want, then go with MIT or a BSD license. If you want people to contribute back (and 'keep on giving') use one of the GPL licences. Personally I always use MIT. It's no harm to go over your code again and clean it here and there (not having seen the code, just in general ;) Regarding documentation: If you want people to do stuff with your code, providing documentation is very helpful. Writing documentation is a boring task, so most open-source projects conveniently forget to do so. If you have a well documented source even, it's much, much more useful to others.
- jasongullickson 16y ago
  That's good to hear, I'd like to "have good manners" as a way of putting it, but it's good to know that I can release the code and wait to see how much interest there is before I invest additional time pruning and creating documentation.
hga 16y ago
One quibble with using the GPL: it is the position of the FSF that it and the Apple App store licensing terms are incompatible: http://www.fsf.org/blogs/licensing/more-about-the-app-store-gpl-enforcement http://www.fsf.org/blogs/licensing/more-about-the-app-store-... However, if you're holding the license, it's up to you if you take action against anyone using your code in an iOS app. (And perhaps you don't want people going down that dark path anyway...). The more you care about other people using your code, the less you'll want to use a restrictive license. The vast majority of open source Lisp implementations are not GPLed, I assume at least in part for that reason (CLisp was coerced into the GPL by its use of readline). For Clojure Rich Hickey uses the Eclipse Public License -v 1.0 for reasons that I forget but that made complete sense to me when I reviewed them (http://opensource.org/licenses/eclipse-1.0.php http://opensource.org/licenses/eclipse-1.0.php). Do pick one of the most common, license proliferation is a bane of FOSS. On the other hand, software like language implementations that don't require including so much of themselves in a released version are very natural fits for the GPL, e.g. GCC. The more community involvement you get, the better.
schacon 16y ago
I would highly recommend using an MIT license - I think everyone working at GitHub uses it for all of our OS work. http://github.com/schacon/showoff/blob/master/LICENSE http://github.com/schacon/showoff/blob/master/LICENSE It is very open and people that are interested in learning from or using your code don't have to worry about licensing issues. If you are a hard-core copyleft advocate, then great, use the GPL - if you don't care, please use MIT. It makes people looking at your code not have to worry about exactly how they're using it and it makes sure they don't have to beg you to ask permission in case they want to use snippets in a non-GPL program.

frossie 16y ago

Let's be clear. "Open source" actually means distributed with a license compatible with the open source movement. Unlicensed is not technically open source. (Semantics, I know, but it can make a difference - not knowing exactly what your application does it is hard to tell whether it is relevant). If you care at all what happens to it, slapping the GPL on it and putting it on github are easy choices. Here are the instructions on how to GPL your code: http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-howto.html http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-howto.html If you really don't care what happens to it (i.e. don't care if it is forked a zillion times) just slap it on your website somewhere - but personally I would still GPL it.

jasongullickson 16y ago
Thanks, that's the sort of info I'm looking for. I don't want to make the use restrictive but I'd like to prevent someone else from claiming it and then preventing others from using it in the future.
- jamaicahest 16y ago
  The http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BSD_licenses http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BSD_licenses might be worth considering, http://opendevice.blogspot.com/2007/06/best-gnu-gpl-vs-bsd-comparison-ever.html http://opendevice.blogspot.com/2007/06/best-gnu-gpl-vs-bsd-c... provides a decent comparison
  - loup-vaillant 16y ago
    The comparison you mentioned is dangerous, because it makes a huge mistake: > if you choose to copy and paste GPL code into your own program you have to share it No, no, no and NO. The obligation of licensing your program with the GPL only triggers upon distribution. As long as you keep the program for yourself, you don't have to share anything. Some people chose the BSD licence because they believe this fallacy. Other people say the GPL isn't really free precisely because they believe this fallacy. It's about the 5th time I scream that all over HN. Please pay attention.
- _delirium 16y ago
  Which kind of license you should pick depends on what exactly you mean by "claiming it and then preventing others from using it in the future". The two main styles of licensing are: * Permissive (BSD-style, MIT-style): Anyone can use your code for any purpose, including in proprietary products, but they must retain the copyright notice. * Copyleft (GPL): Anyone can use your code, on the condition that any software they use it in gives the same freedom to reusers. Which you should choose depends on what you'd consider fair/unfair reuse of your code. For example, if Microsoft used an adapted version of your code in the next version of Excel, would you consider that a great thing, and be happy to see your code out there, or would you consider it a betrayal of your intent for someone to adapt a version of your code and then keep the adaptation closed-source?
  - jasongullickson 16y ago
    I'm OK with the code being used in a commercial product so long as that doesn't prohibit others from using it as well (in other words, I wouldn't want Microsoft to somehow copyright a function my code provides that would get anyone else who uses that function sued). Don't get me wrong, I don't see this as a possibility but I'd like to save others the trouble.
    - _delirium 16y ago
      That shouldn't be a problem with pretty much any option. At worse, Microsoft (or whoever) can make an improved version of your code that they copyright, but they couldn't copyright the original version that you released in a way that would prevent others from using it. The biggest difference between licenses is whether you care about those derived works: if someone improved your code, should that improved code also have to stay open source, or is it okay if someone takes the improved version closed-source? If you want to ensure that any improved versions stay open too, then copyleft licenses (the GPL is the main one) are the way to go. If you don't care about that, and only care that the original stays open, then any permissive open-source license is fine ("BSD-style" licensing).
      - jasongullickson 16y ago

cmelbye 16y ago

I would give it a GPL/LGPL/Mozilla/etc license (your choice, GPL is popular) and put it on a public GitHub repository, and then post it here on Hacker News so we can see it :)

jasongullickson 16y ago
I think GPL will be the way to go, and once it's out I'll be happy to share it here.
jasongullickson 16y ago
Well hopefully I didn't do anything wrong that's too embarassing: http://github.com/jjg/DashApp http://github.com/jjg/DashApp

deleted 16y ago

[deleted]

kilian 16y ago

It depends on what you want. Do you want people to just do whatever they want, then go with MIT or a BSD license. If you want people to contribute back (and 'keep on giving') use one of the GPL licences. Personally I always use MIT. It's no harm to go over your code again and clean it here and there (not having seen the code, just in general ;) Regarding documentation: If you want people to do stuff with your code, providing documentation is very helpful. Writing documentation is a boring task, so most open-source projects conveniently forget to do so. If you have a well documented source even, it's much, much more useful to others.

jasongullickson 16y ago
That's good to hear, I'd like to "have good manners" as a way of putting it, but it's good to know that I can release the code and wait to see how much interest there is before I invest additional time pruning and creating documentation.

hga 16y ago

One quibble with using the GPL: it is the position of the FSF that it and the Apple App store licensing terms are incompatible: http://www.fsf.org/blogs/licensing/more-about-the-app-store-gpl-enforcement http://www.fsf.org/blogs/licensing/more-about-the-app-store-... However, if you're holding the license, it's up to you if you take action against anyone using your code in an iOS app. (And perhaps you don't want people going down that dark path anyway...). The more you care about other people using your code, the less you'll want to use a restrictive license. The vast majority of open source Lisp implementations are not GPLed, I assume at least in part for that reason (CLisp was coerced into the GPL by its use of readline). For Clojure Rich Hickey uses the Eclipse Public License -v 1.0 for reasons that I forget but that made complete sense to me when I reviewed them (http://opensource.org/licenses/eclipse-1.0.php http://opensource.org/licenses/eclipse-1.0.php). Do pick one of the most common, license proliferation is a bane of FOSS. On the other hand, software like language implementations that don't require including so much of themselves in a released version are very natural fits for the GPL, e.g. GCC. The more community involvement you get, the better.

schacon 16y ago

I would highly recommend using an MIT license - I think everyone working at GitHub uses it for all of our OS work. http://github.com/schacon/showoff/blob/master/LICENSE http://github.com/schacon/showoff/blob/master/LICENSE It is very open and people that are interested in learning from or using your code don't have to worry about licensing issues. If you are a hard-core copyleft advocate, then great, use the GPL - if you don't care, please use MIT. It makes people looking at your code not have to worry about exactly how they're using it and it makes sure they don't have to beg you to ask permission in case they want to use snippets in a non-GPL program.