3 ms·
> Do you want total world domination for your new protocol? Release a reference implementation under MIT or similar. Not sure this would be the right strategy
by tannhaeuser 7y ago
> Do you want total world domination for your new protocol? Release a reference implementation under MIT or similar.
Not sure this would be the right strategy in this case (assuming by world domination you mean your protocol gets maximal use). Because your protocol/impl could be forked into a closed variant with proprietary extensions, defeating the purpose of an open protocol. At which point you might be stuck maintaining the mundane, laborious base code, and others do the exciting stuff and take over your project (aka embrace-extend-extinguish). As has happened multiple times back in the last decade when we still saw value in using standardized protocols such as WebDav, XMPP, etc.
For these cases, FSF recommends LGPL instead.
- anderspitman 7y agoSorry this is off-topic, but can you expound a bit more on the history of WebDAV in this context?
- tannhaeuser 7y agoSorry I don't have really more knowledge above what's in the protocol specs and on Wikipedia.
- dbcurtis 7y agoWell you are talking about control of the product road map, which isn't really something that the license can do much about. GPL is just as forkable as MIT or BSD. And as to being "stuck" maintaining code that you don't want to... well, just stop already. Control over the evolution of a protocol isn't easy to bake into a license. It is probably better to look at tools like trademark where you can require passing compliance tests to fly a logo, for instance. Again, be clear about your goals. Controlling the evolution of a protocol forever is different from launching and declaring victory once it takes on a life of its own. Both are legit, but require different tool kits.