6 ms·

Discussion of SharpScript 2 days ago, including some attempts at explaining its licensing: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20738557 https://news.ycombinat

Discussion of SharpScript 2 days ago, including some attempts at explaining its licensing: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20738557 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20738557 TAForObvReasons: The actual Project repo https://github.com/ServiceStack/ServiceStack https://github.com/ServiceStack/ServiceStack appears to be AGPL3 with some exceptions mythz: The Exceptions are for OSS projects, where it can be used as the OSS license for that project. Regardless it's completely free to use for both commercial/non-commercial usage. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20738557#20739419 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20738557#20739419

mythz 7y ago
Yeah I'm surprised there's so much focus on the license of a free library that's also OSS. The AGPL/OSS license only applies if you're creating a custom build from source in OSS projects, if you're just using #Script from the official NuGet package you're using the commercial license which is free to use without restrictions for both commercial/non-commercial usage. #Script started out as an alternative to Razor Pages [1] (where it was initially called ServiceStack Templates [2]) to give ServiceStack Apps a productive alternative to Razor for developing server-driven Web Apps, but as it's highly extensible without external deps or reliance in external tooling it was easy to re-purpose as a dynamic emeddable language to be able to basically script any .NET App, hence the rebrand to a stand-alone #Script language, all the whilst its implementation remained in the core ServiceStack.Common assembly. If it becomes an issue we can look at pulling it out of the main ServiceStack repo in a stand-alone repo with a weaker copyleft OSS license, but it would require a bit of work and would need to ensure it's not disruptive to existing ServiceStack Customers, I just didn't expect there to be any issue for a gratis library that's also OSS. Incidentally the ServiceStack.Glue library that the Desktop Apps use to embed .NET Core Apps in a Chromium Desktop Shell is MIT [3]. [1] https://sharpscript.net/docs/sharp-pages https://sharpscript.net/docs/sharp-pages [2] https://github.com/NetCoreApps/TemplatePages https://github.com/NetCoreApps/TemplatePages [3] https://github.com/ServiceStack/ServiceStack.CefGlue https://github.com/ServiceStack/ServiceStack.CefGlue
- TAForObvReasons 7y ago
  In case you haven't worked at a larger company before: - nonstandard license = legal will have to review license - AGPLv3 is a non-starter at many places AGPLv3 software is used in some places, but projects normally license the pre-compiled binaries under more permissive terms. Example: mattermost is AGPLv3 but the binaries are MIT-licensed https://github.com/mattermost/mattermost-server/blob/master/LICENSE.txt#L5 https://github.com/mattermost/mattermost-server/blob/master/... so it'll be easier to get approval to use the binaries. I'm sure SharpScript is a cool technology, but some of your licensing choices really hamper adoption.
  - mythz 7y ago
    As I've said above, only OSS projects that create custom builds from source use the AGPL/FLOSS license, the license was added to allow OSS projects to use all of ServiceStack without needing to pay for a developers license. All other usages of ServiceStack from its official NuGet packages are only available under its commercial license which only requires a paid developers license for its commercial products that contains free-quota usage restrictions [1]. The rest of ServiceStack, inc. all core and client libraries like ServiceStack.Text, ServiceStack.Common (containing #Script), ServiceStack.Client, etc are all unrestricted libraries that are available to use graits/for free. [1] https://servicestack.net/download#free-quotas https://servicestack.net/download#free-quotas
    - password4321 7y ago
      So you are saying the lawyers have to approve the "ServiceStack License Agreement". The probability of this may be within an order of magnitude of likeliness as getting approval for the AGPLv3. https://www.nuget.org/packages/ServiceStack.Common/ https://www.nuget.org/packages/ServiceStack.Common/ -> "License Info" -> https://servicestack.net/terms https://servicestack.net/terms
      - mythz 7y ago
        Right they'd approve the commercial license just as they would with every other commercial product they're using. > which is probably in the same order of magnitude of likeliness as the AGPLv3 It's disingenuous to claim the commercial license is the same as the AGPL, the commercial license allows usage in closed-source programs, AGPL does not.

mythz 7y ago

Yeah I'm surprised there's so much focus on the license of a free library that's also OSS. The AGPL/OSS license only applies if you're creating a custom build from source in OSS projects, if you're just using #Script from the official NuGet package you're using the commercial license which is free to use without restrictions for both commercial/non-commercial usage. #Script started out as an alternative to Razor Pages [1] (where it was initially called ServiceStack Templates [2]) to give ServiceStack Apps a productive alternative to Razor for developing server-driven Web Apps, but as it's highly extensible without external deps or reliance in external tooling it was easy to re-purpose as a dynamic emeddable language to be able to basically script any .NET App, hence the rebrand to a stand-alone #Script language, all the whilst its implementation remained in the core ServiceStack.Common assembly. If it becomes an issue we can look at pulling it out of the main ServiceStack repo in a stand-alone repo with a weaker copyleft OSS license, but it would require a bit of work and would need to ensure it's not disruptive to existing ServiceStack Customers, I just didn't expect there to be any issue for a gratis library that's also OSS. Incidentally the ServiceStack.Glue library that the Desktop Apps use to embed .NET Core Apps in a Chromium Desktop Shell is MIT [3]. [1] https://sharpscript.net/docs/sharp-pages https://sharpscript.net/docs/sharp-pages [2] https://github.com/NetCoreApps/TemplatePages https://github.com/NetCoreApps/TemplatePages [3] https://github.com/ServiceStack/ServiceStack.CefGlue https://github.com/ServiceStack/ServiceStack.CefGlue

TAForObvReasons 7y ago
In case you haven't worked at a larger company before: - nonstandard license = legal will have to review license - AGPLv3 is a non-starter at many places AGPLv3 software is used in some places, but projects normally license the pre-compiled binaries under more permissive terms. Example: mattermost is AGPLv3 but the binaries are MIT-licensed https://github.com/mattermost/mattermost-server/blob/master/LICENSE.txt#L5 https://github.com/mattermost/mattermost-server/blob/master/... so it'll be easier to get approval to use the binaries. I'm sure SharpScript is a cool technology, but some of your licensing choices really hamper adoption.
- mythz 7y ago
  As I've said above, only OSS projects that create custom builds from source use the AGPL/FLOSS license, the license was added to allow OSS projects to use all of ServiceStack without needing to pay for a developers license. All other usages of ServiceStack from its official NuGet packages are only available under its commercial license which only requires a paid developers license for its commercial products that contains free-quota usage restrictions [1]. The rest of ServiceStack, inc. all core and client libraries like ServiceStack.Text, ServiceStack.Common (containing #Script), ServiceStack.Client, etc are all unrestricted libraries that are available to use graits/for free. [1] https://servicestack.net/download#free-quotas https://servicestack.net/download#free-quotas
  - password4321 7y ago
    So you are saying the lawyers have to approve the "ServiceStack License Agreement". The probability of this may be within an order of magnitude of likeliness as getting approval for the AGPLv3. https://www.nuget.org/packages/ServiceStack.Common/ https://www.nuget.org/packages/ServiceStack.Common/ -> "License Info" -> https://servicestack.net/terms https://servicestack.net/terms
    - mythz 7y ago
      Right they'd approve the commercial license just as they would with every other commercial product they're using. > which is probably in the same order of magnitude of likeliness as the AGPLv3 It's disingenuous to claim the commercial license is the same as the AGPL, the commercial license allows usage in closed-source programs, AGPL does not.