7 ms·

I created this software using Angular, Electron, FFmpeg, and angular2-virtual-scroll. All proceeds go to Against Malaria Foundation (GiveWell's top-rated chari

by yboris 8y ago

I created this software using Angular, Electron, FFmpeg, and angular2-virtual-scroll. All proceeds go to Against Malaria Foundation (GiveWell's top-rated charity). Currently not open source, but am trying to figure out how to set a license that encourages people to tinker with the code, but not to clone a copy and sell it.

Trump2020MAGA 8y ago
A GPL license might be good
- phoe-krk 8y ago
  GPL doesn't prevent commercial usage. It requires source code to be released under the same license whenever you release a binary, though, which is what the OP might want.
gpm 8y ago
> Currently not open source, but am trying to figure out how to set a license that encourages people to tinker with the code, but not to clone a copy and sell it. Seems like either GPL or the creative commons by-nc-sa (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/3.0/ https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/3.0/) to me. Probably the latter because the GPL allows commercializing as a website. (Disclaimer: IANAL)
- nathcd 8y ago
  > creative commons by-nc-sa Creative Commons discourages using its' licenses for code: https://creativecommons.org/faq/#can-i-apply-a-creative-commons-license-to-software https://creativecommons.org/faq/#can-i-apply-a-creative-comm... > Probably the latter because the GPL allows commercializing as a website. If you want your copyleft to apply to over-the-network users, you want AGPL: https://www.gnu.org/licenses/agpl-3.0.en.html https://www.gnu.org/licenses/agpl-3.0.en.html
  - gpm 8y ago
    Two problems with the AGPL. The first is that it doesn't really stop commercialization, it's perfectly possible to make a commercial service using open source components. The second is that I'm of the opinion that it may fail once tested in court, basically for the reasoning laid out here [0] (not sure if the author of that is a lawyer, I've seen lawyer's express that position before though). [0] https://www.devever.net/~hl/agplunenforceable https://www.devever.net/~hl/agplunenforceable
    - chii 8y ago
      > One does not require permission from the copyright holder merely to use software one already possesses That's patently not true. One does not have "posession" by merely having access to the binary or source. One must first agree (implicitly, or explicitly) before they can acquire the software, such as agreeing to the licence when downloading. Therefore, as soon as you have the right to use the software, the licence applies (as the licence is what grants you the "possession"). As for the law mentioned (17 USC 117,17 U.S. Code § 117 - Limitations on exclusive rights: Computer programs), that only applies in a very narrow set of circumstances, such as copying for any technical requirements for operation, or backup purposes. The AGPL additional provisions don't overlap with this provision of the copyright law. The author seems to have misinterpreted the law imho.
      - gpm 8y ago
        > That's patently not true. One does not have "posession" by merely having access to the binary or source. One must first agree (implicitly, or explicitly) before they can acquire the software, such as agreeing to the licence when downloading. Sorry, but you're the mistaken one here. You need a license to make copies of, derivative works, etc. If the copyright holder makes a copy and sends it to me I do not need any license to hold onto it or execute it. We can see this through, for example, Vault Corp. v. Quaid Software [0] (the portion about direct infringement, Wikipedia has a link to the actual ruling as well if you prefer that). EULA's, unlike the GPL, use contract law to get around this. In order to purchase/download the software I enter into a contract with you giving up some of my rights. The FSFs position as I understand it is that the GPL and AGPL are not contracts though, just licenses, so they don't serve a similar function (assuming the courts agree with the FSF). [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vault_Corp._v._Quaid_Software_Ltd https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vault_Corp._v._Quaid_Software_.... (Disclaimer: IANAL)
kowdermeister 8y ago
> encourages people to tinker with the code, but not to clone a copy and sell it. What I usually see happening is that they release two versions. One under GPLv3, MIT or whatever very permissive licence and a Pro version with many advanced features with a proprietary licence. If you want to prevent forking and copying then I either suggest to keep it closed source or make sure that you maintain the best version of the app so users will have no motivation to switch to a fork and be loyal to the original creator.
ktta 8y ago
You can always reveal the source code, without giving it an open source license. Of course, this will mean some people might not contribute, but you take what you get. Another way is giving it a 'non-commercial use only' stipulation, which might not be lawyer proof. Any of this won't prevent people from trying to profit off of it though. PS: Remember to have an CLA so you won't have any problems with selling it.
giancarlostoro 8y ago
I'd just GPL license it and charge for a MIT licensed version for commercial use. Be clear when you relicense it for commercial use though, like if MIT is only for a specific released version or set of versions up to a point or what. Of course technically you can sell GPL software, but they'd have to be willing to provide the code back, which means you benefit off of it to some degree.
peterburkimsher 8y ago
It looks nice! I like the browser view. One feature I need (and would like to tinker with the code to add it) is support for subtitles in multiple languages at the same time. http://voicetube.com http://voicetube.com does this to help people learn English; I'm trying to learn Chinese.
- uvu 8y ago
  Ah, voicetube idea is nice :)
  - richardvt 8y ago
    I'm the maker of VoiceTube. Hope you love it!
    - peterburkimsher 8y ago
      Hi Richard! It's Peter from Pingtype; we chatted on Skype a while ago. Good to see you joining HN. I've posted a couple more videos on my YouTube since then. https://pingtype.github.io https://pingtype.github.io Unfortunately life in Taiwan has been really hard for the last few months though, so I'm preparing to leave. Busy looking for new jobs in other countries now.
      - natch 8y ago
        Wow, pingtype is cool! What kind of job are you looking for?
        peterburkimsher 8y ago
        I studied electronic systems engineering, but most of my work experience has been in software. I'm most passionate about control systems/automation, network admin, and circuit design. But I've done a wide variety of other projects (big data, web apps, device drivers, tech support and repairs for friends). I'm not good at art or marketing, so front-end design isn't for me. I'll consider pretty much anything else though.
eganist 8y ago
You're getting a lot of legal advice from non-lawyers. Reach out to the EFF and see if they can give you some pro Bono consulting on how to license it for your needs. Alternatively, @buu700 and I have worked with and can recommend https://twitter.com/falconred https://twitter.com/falconred (Jim Rennie). I get no commission for the rec—we last worked with him two years ago.
JoshTriplett 8y ago
> Currently not open source, but am trying to figure out how to set a license that encourages people to tinker with the code, but not to clone a copy and sell it. By definition, any such license wouldn't be open source. However, as others have mentioned, putting it under a copyleft license would make it unlikely that others would do so, since they wouldn't be able to distribute their version without providing source under the same license themselves.
- pinum 8y ago
  Not everyone treats "open source" as a political term. The OSI doesn't have any special right to define it. Many just use it as a catchier alternative to "source available".
  - JoshTriplett 8y ago
    (off topic) People can certainly use a term in a way contrary to the expectations and definitions used by the vast majority of other people, and then they shouldn't act surprised if they're either misunderstood, called incorrect, or perhaps most importantly, called out as being intentionally obtuse and confusing and asked to stop that. Language is descriptive rather than prescriptive, but descriptive language can still call some usages incorrect when they're exceedingly likely to be interpreted differently than the standard meaning and lead to unclear communication. Several decades ago, before open source was nearly as widespread and before there were any popular definitions, it was understandable when people use the term rather fuzzily; everyone had their own understanding of it. That's not the case anymore. In any case, the original point would still stand if stated as "that set of goals is incompatible with what the vast majority of people who use the term 'open source' would consider 'open source'", but that would be excessively verbose, would only serve to confuse the point with a needless distraction that wasn't part of the original topic, and would in particular distract from the more important point of "here's a possible way to do what you're trying to do without that problem".
    - deleted 8y ago
      [deleted]
Kiro 8y ago
A bit OT but seeing that it seems hard to find a license that applies to this use case, would it be possible to just define your own custom license?
thinkingemote 8y ago
If I remember correctly by default a repository on GitHub with no licence means you have the full copyright. People can clone it and if you have a CLA you could accept changes, but they cannot really do anything with it. So perhaps just showing the code and not putting any open source license could work in this case?
- yboris 8y ago
  This is excellent! I'll look into that -- it would be awesome if the default setting (with no extra work on my part) will suit my needs!
otterpro 8y ago
I'd go with GPL as many comments mentioned here. If you are slightly paranoid about someone stealing the code and making a commercialized version (which happens a lot with VLC), then I suggest you separate some of the functionalities into modules, in which parts are GPL'ed, and others are made private. Perhaps the UI and basic functionalities (aka lite version) could be made OSS, but some more advanced features are not included in the source, such as filter or scrub view. It would make it virtually impossible to make a clone, but you also get the benefit of people contributing and learning from the code from the OSS version.
- yboris 8y ago
  Thank you for the advice. In my case it feels like it would take quite a bit of effort to pull out features from the software and make a stripped-down version available. My primary reason for wanting to share the code is that perhaps it will be a useful place for others to learn some things (though I don't think my code is stellar / exemplary and I know it has some serious shortcomings). I guess it isn't a big problem if someone releases a clone of my app for free as long as I somehow can require (request) they always link back to the original on their website and in the app itself. But I'm not eager to chase people around and pester them if they don't comply. I'm thinking I might wait for a full year since release (until February 2019) and just put out the whole code on GitHub with a 'free to do anything' license and a personal request that people always include a link to the original in the compiled app and on/through whatever websites they share it on.

by yboris 8y ago

Trump2020MAGA 8y ago

A GPL license might be good

phoe-krk 8y ago
GPL doesn't prevent commercial usage. It requires source code to be released under the same license whenever you release a binary, though, which is what the OP might want.

gpm 8y ago

> Currently not open source, but am trying to figure out how to set a license that encourages people to tinker with the code, but not to clone a copy and sell it. Seems like either GPL or the creative commons by-nc-sa (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/3.0/ https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/3.0/) to me. Probably the latter because the GPL allows commercializing as a website. (Disclaimer: IANAL)

nathcd 8y ago
> creative commons by-nc-sa Creative Commons discourages using its' licenses for code: https://creativecommons.org/faq/#can-i-apply-a-creative-commons-license-to-software https://creativecommons.org/faq/#can-i-apply-a-creative-comm... > Probably the latter because the GPL allows commercializing as a website. If you want your copyleft to apply to over-the-network users, you want AGPL: https://www.gnu.org/licenses/agpl-3.0.en.html https://www.gnu.org/licenses/agpl-3.0.en.html
- gpm 8y ago
  Two problems with the AGPL. The first is that it doesn't really stop commercialization, it's perfectly possible to make a commercial service using open source components. The second is that I'm of the opinion that it may fail once tested in court, basically for the reasoning laid out here [0] (not sure if the author of that is a lawyer, I've seen lawyer's express that position before though). [0] https://www.devever.net/~hl/agplunenforceable https://www.devever.net/~hl/agplunenforceable
  - chii 8y ago
    > One does not require permission from the copyright holder merely to use software one already possesses That's patently not true. One does not have "posession" by merely having access to the binary or source. One must first agree (implicitly, or explicitly) before they can acquire the software, such as agreeing to the licence when downloading. Therefore, as soon as you have the right to use the software, the licence applies (as the licence is what grants you the "possession"). As for the law mentioned (17 USC 117,17 U.S. Code § 117 - Limitations on exclusive rights: Computer programs), that only applies in a very narrow set of circumstances, such as copying for any technical requirements for operation, or backup purposes. The AGPL additional provisions don't overlap with this provision of the copyright law. The author seems to have misinterpreted the law imho.
    - gpm 8y ago
      > That's patently not true. One does not have "posession" by merely having access to the binary or source. One must first agree (implicitly, or explicitly) before they can acquire the software, such as agreeing to the licence when downloading. Sorry, but you're the mistaken one here. You need a license to make copies of, derivative works, etc. If the copyright holder makes a copy and sends it to me I do not need any license to hold onto it or execute it. We can see this through, for example, Vault Corp. v. Quaid Software [0] (the portion about direct infringement, Wikipedia has a link to the actual ruling as well if you prefer that). EULA's, unlike the GPL, use contract law to get around this. In order to purchase/download the software I enter into a contract with you giving up some of my rights. The FSFs position as I understand it is that the GPL and AGPL are not contracts though, just licenses, so they don't serve a similar function (assuming the courts agree with the FSF). [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vault_Corp._v._Quaid_Software_Ltd https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vault_Corp._v._Quaid_Software_.... (Disclaimer: IANAL)

kowdermeister 8y ago

> encourages people to tinker with the code, but not to clone a copy and sell it. What I usually see happening is that they release two versions. One under GPLv3, MIT or whatever very permissive licence and a Pro version with many advanced features with a proprietary licence. If you want to prevent forking and copying then I either suggest to keep it closed source or make sure that you maintain the best version of the app so users will have no motivation to switch to a fork and be loyal to the original creator.

ktta 8y ago

You can always reveal the source code, without giving it an open source license. Of course, this will mean some people might not contribute, but you take what you get. Another way is giving it a 'non-commercial use only' stipulation, which might not be lawyer proof. Any of this won't prevent people from trying to profit off of it though. PS: Remember to have an CLA so you won't have any problems with selling it.

giancarlostoro 8y ago

I'd just GPL license it and charge for a MIT licensed version for commercial use. Be clear when you relicense it for commercial use though, like if MIT is only for a specific released version or set of versions up to a point or what. Of course technically you can sell GPL software, but they'd have to be willing to provide the code back, which means you benefit off of it to some degree.

peterburkimsher 8y ago

It looks nice! I like the browser view. One feature I need (and would like to tinker with the code to add it) is support for subtitles in multiple languages at the same time. http://voicetube.com http://voicetube.com does this to help people learn English; I'm trying to learn Chinese.

uvu 8y ago
Ah, voicetube idea is nice :)
- richardvt 8y ago
  I'm the maker of VoiceTube. Hope you love it!
  - peterburkimsher 8y ago
    Hi Richard! It's Peter from Pingtype; we chatted on Skype a while ago. Good to see you joining HN. I've posted a couple more videos on my YouTube since then. https://pingtype.github.io https://pingtype.github.io Unfortunately life in Taiwan has been really hard for the last few months though, so I'm preparing to leave. Busy looking for new jobs in other countries now.
    - natch 8y ago
      Wow, pingtype is cool! What kind of job are you looking for?
      - peterburkimsher 8y ago
        I studied electronic systems engineering, but most of my work experience has been in software. I'm most passionate about control systems/automation, network admin, and circuit design. But I've done a wide variety of other projects (big data, web apps, device drivers, tech support and repairs for friends). I'm not good at art or marketing, so front-end design isn't for me. I'll consider pretty much anything else though.

eganist 8y ago

You're getting a lot of legal advice from non-lawyers. Reach out to the EFF and see if they can give you some pro Bono consulting on how to license it for your needs. Alternatively, @buu700 and I have worked with and can recommend https://twitter.com/falconred https://twitter.com/falconred (Jim Rennie). I get no commission for the rec—we last worked with him two years ago.

JoshTriplett 8y ago

> Currently not open source, but am trying to figure out how to set a license that encourages people to tinker with the code, but not to clone a copy and sell it. By definition, any such license wouldn't be open source. However, as others have mentioned, putting it under a copyleft license would make it unlikely that others would do so, since they wouldn't be able to distribute their version without providing source under the same license themselves.

pinum 8y ago
Not everyone treats "open source" as a political term. The OSI doesn't have any special right to define it. Many just use it as a catchier alternative to "source available".
- JoshTriplett 8y ago
  (off topic) People can certainly use a term in a way contrary to the expectations and definitions used by the vast majority of other people, and then they shouldn't act surprised if they're either misunderstood, called incorrect, or perhaps most importantly, called out as being intentionally obtuse and confusing and asked to stop that. Language is descriptive rather than prescriptive, but descriptive language can still call some usages incorrect when they're exceedingly likely to be interpreted differently than the standard meaning and lead to unclear communication. Several decades ago, before open source was nearly as widespread and before there were any popular definitions, it was understandable when people use the term rather fuzzily; everyone had their own understanding of it. That's not the case anymore. In any case, the original point would still stand if stated as "that set of goals is incompatible with what the vast majority of people who use the term 'open source' would consider 'open source'", but that would be excessively verbose, would only serve to confuse the point with a needless distraction that wasn't part of the original topic, and would in particular distract from the more important point of "here's a possible way to do what you're trying to do without that problem".
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]

Kiro 8y ago

A bit OT but seeing that it seems hard to find a license that applies to this use case, would it be possible to just define your own custom license?

thinkingemote 8y ago

If I remember correctly by default a repository on GitHub with no licence means you have the full copyright. People can clone it and if you have a CLA you could accept changes, but they cannot really do anything with it. So perhaps just showing the code and not putting any open source license could work in this case?

yboris 8y ago
This is excellent! I'll look into that -- it would be awesome if the default setting (with no extra work on my part) will suit my needs!

otterpro 8y ago

I'd go with GPL as many comments mentioned here. If you are slightly paranoid about someone stealing the code and making a commercialized version (which happens a lot with VLC), then I suggest you separate some of the functionalities into modules, in which parts are GPL'ed, and others are made private. Perhaps the UI and basic functionalities (aka lite version) could be made OSS, but some more advanced features are not included in the source, such as filter or scrub view. It would make it virtually impossible to make a clone, but you also get the benefit of people contributing and learning from the code from the OSS version.

yboris 8y ago
Thank you for the advice. In my case it feels like it would take quite a bit of effort to pull out features from the software and make a stripped-down version available. My primary reason for wanting to share the code is that perhaps it will be a useful place for others to learn some things (though I don't think my code is stellar / exemplary and I know it has some serious shortcomings). I guess it isn't a big problem if someone releases a clone of my app for free as long as I somehow can require (request) they always link back to the original on their website and in the app itself. But I'm not eager to chase people around and pester them if they don't comply. I'm thinking I might wait for a full year since release (until February 2019) and just put out the whole code on GitHub with a 'free to do anything' license and a personal request that people always include a link to the original in the compiled app and on/through whatever websites they share it on.