3 ms·
> Looking even farther out, at this point does it make sense for any startup looking to create infrastructure software to open source it? Of course it still do
by zzzcpan 8y ago
> Looking even farther out, at this point does it make sense for any startup looking to create infrastructure software to open source it?
Of course it still does, just not under permissive licenses. Hopefully the industry will converge on Kyle Mitchell's license for this, instead of everyone coming up with their own licenses:
https://github.com/kemitchell/api-copyleft-license https://github.com/kemitchell/api-copyleft-license
- pauldix 8y agoI view that as a significant negative impact to OSS. I have a strong preference for liberal licenses like MIT or Apache 2.0. Infectious licenses like copy-left put restrictions on it that make it less appealing as open source. I wrote a bit on it here: https://www.influxdata.com/blog/copyleft-and-community-licenses-are-not-without-merit-but-they-are-a-dead-end/ https://www.influxdata.com/blog/copyleft-and-community-licen...
- LamaOfRuin 8y agoWhile I understand your argument, I dispute that copy-left makes things inherently less appealing as open source, or that you can make any objective claim that liberal licenses ultimately result in broader utility. 1. I personally find copy-left inherently more appealing (as something to potentially contribute to) purely because of my ideological leanings. 2. While the first order calculation of use for liberally licensed software seems clearly in favor of them, it's impossible to ever know what benefits the copy-left restrictions would bring one or more orders removed from the original distribution.
- anth_anm 8y ago> software that you build with it, other than applications. I'm no lawyer, but this sounds like complete nonsense.
- smarx007 8y agoIsn't it similar to LAGPL? And EPL (but w/o the ASP loophole addressed)?