4 ms·

I used to like permissive (OSI) licenses a lot more than restrictive licenses, but now I like copyleft better (for my own projects) because… 1. You’re still he

I used to like permissive (OSI) licenses a lot more than restrictive licenses, but now I like copyleft better (for my own projects) because… 1. You’re still helping education, nonprofits, and individuals benefit from your work. 2. It’s still open source, so people will still be able to contribute and use your work in their own projects. 3. Companies that want to use your code to make money can do so, but only if they also help out the other “worthy” causes by contributing changes back. In fact, I'm consider something more radical like a YUMMY license (you make money, I make money) - which has all the same benefits of being open source and helping worthy causes, except at least you get to make money when someone uses your work to do something that you might not even want, like selling ads.

blattimwind 8y ago
If it's not a library meant to be used by others, just put GPL (Commonwealthy) / EUPL (Not-Commonwealth) on it.
Doctor_Fegg 8y ago
I really like WTFPL as a permissive licence in these cases. Small developers and companies without layers of lawyers will read the licence, see that it says "do what the ---- you want", and use your code accordingly. Big companies with layers of lawyers will read the licence, blanch in terror, and either refuse to use the software, or contact you for alternative terms. Case in point: Google forbids use of the WTFPL. https://opensource.google.com/docs/thirdparty/licenses/#wtfpl-not-allowed https://opensource.google.com/docs/thirdparty/licenses/#wtfp...
- DannyBee 8y ago
  So i'm the one who forbid WTFPL at Google, and we forbid it mainly because it's bad for developers, believe it or not. We go over it in new googler training (and our reasoning is on the Google open source policy site we publish: https://opensource.google.com/docs/thirdparty/licenses/#wtfpl-not-allowed https://opensource.google.com/docs/thirdparty/licenses/#wtfp...) You are welcome to not (but if you go and look, it's completely consistent with my viewpoints and history in OSS so ...). I would love to live in a world where WTFPL is a good license, but we don't live in that world, and wanting it to be so will not change that. I can also tell you stories of companies we've acquired who had bad experiences, FWIW. So the "small companies" you think are being served, aren't.
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
  - redwood 8y ago
    It's in small companies' interest to have their creations used and monetized by Google without anything being given back? I'm glad you're transparent about your own context here--it's appreciated, but I hope you can see that outside the walls of Google there's another world.
    - DannyBee 8y ago
      I'm not at all sure where you got any of that, it seems like you have an axe to grind. You clearly didn't read the link i said which says our issue with WTFPL is with the lack of warranty disclaimer and with the rights grant (which is not likely to be valid in a number of countries). You will find nothing, nor have i stated anything about the ability for google to use the code for "monetization" reasons. It doesn't even enter the equation It is very hard to take your comment in good faith as a result. Our policy pages are clear on why we ban licenses, even things like AGPL. You'll note they are not economic concerns (IE google won't be able to monetize), but compliance ones. (Of course, you should view these in good faith, they were originally written for an internal audience) I can definitively state I have never banned a license at Google due to Google's ability to "monetize" the code, or even indirect versions of that (IE that if it became popular, it would hurt google's ability to do that). All concerns are compliance ones. Additionally, the pages i linked you to very clearly encourage people to contribute back as much as they can.
      - jhasse 8y ago
        > Our policy pages are clear on why we ban licenses, even things like AGPL. You'll note they are not economic concerns (IE google won't be able to monetize), but compliance ones. AGPL compliance wouldn't be that difficult if you remove making money from the equation. So indirectly your compliance concerns are based on economic concerns.
        8y ago
- derekp7 8y ago
  So similar to a clause in the license that says "don't use it for evil". Many companies will want a license that doesn't have that clause in it, because it is so ill defined.
  - blotter_paper 8y ago
    I find it funny that Crockford gave Microsoft the rights to use his software for evil, requesting nothing in return. The clause really was just a joke.
    - mishac 8y ago
      Minor correction: it was IBM, not Microsoft
fabianhjr 8y ago
About: > I'm consider something more radical like a YUMMY license (you make money, I make money) There are some projects to create such a license like License Zero https://licensezero.com/licenses https://licensezero.com/licenses and there is some discussion on the P2P Foundation: https://wiki.p2pfoundation.net/Copyfarleft https://wiki.p2pfoundation.net/Copyfarleft > It is exactly the same as (CC) non-commercial, except that commons-based commercial use //is// allowed.
danShumway 8y ago
> of being open source Minor pet peeve, I understand that different people use open source differently -- but I would classify the license you're describing as source available. A FOSS compatible license can't carry restrictions on usage. I'm assuming you already knew that and were just using the looser, more generic definition. Which is not a problem, I just have seen enough people get confused later on when somebody says, "well, technically, this isn't strictly Open Source", so I like to point it out for anyone else who's reading.

blattimwind 8y ago

If it's not a library meant to be used by others, just put GPL (Commonwealthy) / EUPL (Not-Commonwealth) on it.

Doctor_Fegg 8y ago

I really like WTFPL as a permissive licence in these cases. Small developers and companies without layers of lawyers will read the licence, see that it says "do what the ---- you want", and use your code accordingly. Big companies with layers of lawyers will read the licence, blanch in terror, and either refuse to use the software, or contact you for alternative terms. Case in point: Google forbids use of the WTFPL. https://opensource.google.com/docs/thirdparty/licenses/#wtfpl-not-allowed https://opensource.google.com/docs/thirdparty/licenses/#wtfp...

DannyBee 8y ago
So i'm the one who forbid WTFPL at Google, and we forbid it mainly because it's bad for developers, believe it or not. We go over it in new googler training (and our reasoning is on the Google open source policy site we publish: https://opensource.google.com/docs/thirdparty/licenses/#wtfpl-not-allowed https://opensource.google.com/docs/thirdparty/licenses/#wtfp...) You are welcome to not (but if you go and look, it's completely consistent with my viewpoints and history in OSS so ...). I would love to live in a world where WTFPL is a good license, but we don't live in that world, and wanting it to be so will not change that. I can also tell you stories of companies we've acquired who had bad experiences, FWIW. So the "small companies" you think are being served, aren't.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- redwood 8y ago
  It's in small companies' interest to have their creations used and monetized by Google without anything being given back? I'm glad you're transparent about your own context here--it's appreciated, but I hope you can see that outside the walls of Google there's another world.
  - DannyBee 8y ago
    I'm not at all sure where you got any of that, it seems like you have an axe to grind. You clearly didn't read the link i said which says our issue with WTFPL is with the lack of warranty disclaimer and with the rights grant (which is not likely to be valid in a number of countries). You will find nothing, nor have i stated anything about the ability for google to use the code for "monetization" reasons. It doesn't even enter the equation It is very hard to take your comment in good faith as a result. Our policy pages are clear on why we ban licenses, even things like AGPL. You'll note they are not economic concerns (IE google won't be able to monetize), but compliance ones. (Of course, you should view these in good faith, they were originally written for an internal audience) I can definitively state I have never banned a license at Google due to Google's ability to "monetize" the code, or even indirect versions of that (IE that if it became popular, it would hurt google's ability to do that). All concerns are compliance ones. Additionally, the pages i linked you to very clearly encourage people to contribute back as much as they can.
    - jhasse 8y ago
      > Our policy pages are clear on why we ban licenses, even things like AGPL. You'll note they are not economic concerns (IE google won't be able to monetize), but compliance ones. AGPL compliance wouldn't be that difficult if you remove making money from the equation. So indirectly your compliance concerns are based on economic concerns.
      - 8y ago
derekp7 8y ago
So similar to a clause in the license that says "don't use it for evil". Many companies will want a license that doesn't have that clause in it, because it is so ill defined.
- blotter_paper 8y ago
  I find it funny that Crockford gave Microsoft the rights to use his software for evil, requesting nothing in return. The clause really was just a joke.
  - mishac 8y ago
    Minor correction: it was IBM, not Microsoft

fabianhjr 8y ago

About: > I'm consider something more radical like a YUMMY license (you make money, I make money) There are some projects to create such a license like License Zero https://licensezero.com/licenses https://licensezero.com/licenses and there is some discussion on the P2P Foundation: https://wiki.p2pfoundation.net/Copyfarleft https://wiki.p2pfoundation.net/Copyfarleft > It is exactly the same as (CC) non-commercial, except that commons-based commercial use //is// allowed.

danShumway 8y ago

> of being open source Minor pet peeve, I understand that different people use open source differently -- but I would classify the license you're describing as source available. A FOSS compatible license can't carry restrictions on usage. I'm assuming you already knew that and were just using the looser, more generic definition. Which is not a problem, I just have seen enough people get confused later on when somebody says, "well, technically, this isn't strictly Open Source", so I like to point it out for anyone else who's reading.