5 ms·

Tuffy is an open-source Markov Logic Network inference engine

41 points by adulau 16y ago

jwr 16y ago
This is exactly what we need in our startup. We use Clojure, so Java is a perfect fit. We would be able to contribute quite a bit, we have already done some work in those areas. So — I was very happy while reading the description… …until the "GPLv3" part. People need to understand that a library project which is under GPLv2 or GPLv3 gets immediately rejected in most commercial settings. Note that I'm not judging here — just stating a fact. We reject a lot of interesting options because of licenses. Of course, the authors of the library are free to choose whichever license they like. But choosing invasive licenses such as the GPL means that they will not benefit from our contributions and they will restrict the user base for their libraries to experimenters and academics. Less users, less contributions, less development, less popularity. Again, I'm not being judgmental — I'm not saying it's necessarily a bad thing, I just want the authors to be aware of this. EDIT: I actually realized I need to write an article/blogpost about this, as many people are unaware of how software gets rejected upfront in a commercial setting because of the license. Will explain.
- aerique 16y ago
  Don't forget there's always the possibility of contacting the authors for a commercial license.
  - jwr 16y ago
    In my experience that has never worked. 1. First and most importantly, in a bootstrapped startup you simply don't have the money for a commercial license of any kind. 2. The authors usually aren't ready to provide one, so negotiations take months and involve things like revenue estimations and the like. 3. The authors usually aren't ready to provide one, so drafting a contract takes ages. And then you get into legal questions such as do the authors actually have all the copyright assignments in place. 4. The authors usually aren't ready to provide one, and in an academic setting it isn't always obvious they can license the work commercially. Again, not insurmountable, but takes time. Considering all of the above, it just isn't worth the effort.
- rbanffy 16y ago
  Let's just be clear that GPL software is commercial software. Even if it's provided for free, it's still "commercial" in a sense that the author expects something in exchange - fixes, improvements, bug reports, feature requests. In order to be commercial, it's not required to involve financial transactions, as barter is a form of commerce. I also hate when people do the open-source/commercial dichotomy. Unlike Canonical, Red Hat, Oracle, and others your business model may not be compatible with charging for a product that's open-source, but that does not preclude other businesses from using it. Companies like Amazon, Google, Facebook, Twitter and Rackspace use GPLv3 software routinely in their "commercial" settings. I agree LGPL could be preferred for libraries, because it makes it easier to use the software someone generously gave you in a closed product you can profit without giving anything back to the generous souls that offered it to you in the first place. > Less users, less contributions, less development, less popularity. I see how the *BSD vs Linux thing is going. And, BTW, all you can't do is link to the library directly from less-free-than-GPLv3 code. You would be perfectly fine writing a GPLv3 wrapper around the library and call it via RPC from inside your closed-source product. You then provide the source to your wrapper along with the product and you'll be perfectly compliant.
  - jwr 16y ago
    > Companies like Amazon, Google, Facebook, Twitter and Rackspace use GPLv3 software routinely in their "commercial" settings. True. But they don't use GPL libraries as part of their strategic code base, especially if that code base is then "distributed" to their clients. I also use GPL software and I'm happy with it. Linux is a good example. But I can't put my main software application under the GPL. Don't box me as a "GPL-hater", because I'm not. I'm just providing a viewpoint that library authors might not have considered.
    - rbanffy 16y ago
      Won't box you, jwr, but we have to agree that the only business model where using GPL'ed libraries is the one where you link the GPL library as part of your code and sell (or give away) the resulting program as closed source. Google, Facebook, Oracle, even Microsoft are free to base their web properties on GPL-ed code without any fear whatsoever someone will obtain their prized source. In this case, the simplest way to dodge the GPL would be to write a service around the library and call it through an IPC mechanism. This way you can distribute your private code along the GPL library, as long as you provide code for your service layer. This is hardly an unsolvable problem.
- mindcrime 16y ago
  But choosing invasive licenses such as the GPL means that they will not benefit from our contributions and they will restrict the user base for their libraries to experimenters and academics. That's just not true. There's absolutely nothing keeping GPL'd software from being commercial software, and there is - in fact - plenty of commercial GPL software out there. Yes, some companies will reject the GPL, but that's far from being the same as "will only be used by experimenters and academics."
  - jwr 16y ago
    Please note that we are discussing in the context of a machine-learning _library_. I didn't repeat that in every sentence, but it's worth remembering. If you have a startup that uses software that requires machine learning libraries, chances are your business model doesn't just involve living off consulting fees and professional services.
    - mindcrime 16y ago
      Please note that we are discussing in the context of a machine-learning _library_. I didn't repeat that in every sentence, but it's worth remembering. Yep, I'm aware. If you have a startup that uses software that requires machine learning libraries, chances are your business model doesn't just involve living off consulting fees and professional services. You do realize that you can sell GPL'd software, right? Just because you are GPL, doesn't restrict you to just consulting fees and services. FWIW, the software I'm working on for my startup, does (or will) involve a healthy dose of machine learning libraries, and I wouldn't necessarily rule out using a GPL'd library. Right now I'm sticking to mostly Apache Licensed stuff, but - then again - I'm also releasing my stuff under the APLv2.
      - mbreese 16y ago
        You do realize that you can sell GPL'd software, right Yes, and there's nothing preventing your client from reselling it to other potential clients. So realistically, you can really only count on consulting fees and services.
- deleted 16y ago
  [deleted]
- naner 16y ago
  Are you distributing .jar files to clients? Also you could email the project and politely ask them to consider releasing it under LGPL or EPL.

41 points by adulau 16y ago

jwr 16y ago

This is exactly what we need in our startup. We use Clojure, so Java is a perfect fit. We would be able to contribute quite a bit, we have already done some work in those areas. So — I was very happy while reading the description… …until the "GPLv3" part. People need to understand that a library project which is under GPLv2 or GPLv3 gets immediately rejected in most commercial settings. Note that I'm not judging here — just stating a fact. We reject a lot of interesting options because of licenses. Of course, the authors of the library are free to choose whichever license they like. But choosing invasive licenses such as the GPL means that they will not benefit from our contributions and they will restrict the user base for their libraries to experimenters and academics. Less users, less contributions, less development, less popularity. Again, I'm not being judgmental — I'm not saying it's necessarily a bad thing, I just want the authors to be aware of this. EDIT: I actually realized I need to write an article/blogpost about this, as many people are unaware of how software gets rejected upfront in a commercial setting because of the license. Will explain.

aerique 16y ago
Don't forget there's always the possibility of contacting the authors for a commercial license.
- jwr 16y ago
  In my experience that has never worked. 1. First and most importantly, in a bootstrapped startup you simply don't have the money for a commercial license of any kind. 2. The authors usually aren't ready to provide one, so negotiations take months and involve things like revenue estimations and the like. 3. The authors usually aren't ready to provide one, so drafting a contract takes ages. And then you get into legal questions such as do the authors actually have all the copyright assignments in place. 4. The authors usually aren't ready to provide one, and in an academic setting it isn't always obvious they can license the work commercially. Again, not insurmountable, but takes time. Considering all of the above, it just isn't worth the effort.
rbanffy 16y ago
Let's just be clear that GPL software is commercial software. Even if it's provided for free, it's still "commercial" in a sense that the author expects something in exchange - fixes, improvements, bug reports, feature requests. In order to be commercial, it's not required to involve financial transactions, as barter is a form of commerce. I also hate when people do the open-source/commercial dichotomy. Unlike Canonical, Red Hat, Oracle, and others your business model may not be compatible with charging for a product that's open-source, but that does not preclude other businesses from using it. Companies like Amazon, Google, Facebook, Twitter and Rackspace use GPLv3 software routinely in their "commercial" settings. I agree LGPL could be preferred for libraries, because it makes it easier to use the software someone generously gave you in a closed product you can profit without giving anything back to the generous souls that offered it to you in the first place. > Less users, less contributions, less development, less popularity. I see how the *BSD vs Linux thing is going. And, BTW, all you can't do is link to the library directly from less-free-than-GPLv3 code. You would be perfectly fine writing a GPLv3 wrapper around the library and call it via RPC from inside your closed-source product. You then provide the source to your wrapper along with the product and you'll be perfectly compliant.
- jwr 16y ago
  > Companies like Amazon, Google, Facebook, Twitter and Rackspace use GPLv3 software routinely in their "commercial" settings. True. But they don't use GPL libraries as part of their strategic code base, especially if that code base is then "distributed" to their clients. I also use GPL software and I'm happy with it. Linux is a good example. But I can't put my main software application under the GPL. Don't box me as a "GPL-hater", because I'm not. I'm just providing a viewpoint that library authors might not have considered.
  - rbanffy 16y ago
    Won't box you, jwr, but we have to agree that the only business model where using GPL'ed libraries is the one where you link the GPL library as part of your code and sell (or give away) the resulting program as closed source. Google, Facebook, Oracle, even Microsoft are free to base their web properties on GPL-ed code without any fear whatsoever someone will obtain their prized source. In this case, the simplest way to dodge the GPL would be to write a service around the library and call it through an IPC mechanism. This way you can distribute your private code along the GPL library, as long as you provide code for your service layer. This is hardly an unsolvable problem.
mindcrime 16y ago
But choosing invasive licenses such as the GPL means that they will not benefit from our contributions and they will restrict the user base for their libraries to experimenters and academics. That's just not true. There's absolutely nothing keeping GPL'd software from being commercial software, and there is - in fact - plenty of commercial GPL software out there. Yes, some companies will reject the GPL, but that's far from being the same as "will only be used by experimenters and academics."
- jwr 16y ago
  Please note that we are discussing in the context of a machine-learning _library_. I didn't repeat that in every sentence, but it's worth remembering. If you have a startup that uses software that requires machine learning libraries, chances are your business model doesn't just involve living off consulting fees and professional services.
  - mindcrime 16y ago
    Please note that we are discussing in the context of a machine-learning _library_. I didn't repeat that in every sentence, but it's worth remembering. Yep, I'm aware. If you have a startup that uses software that requires machine learning libraries, chances are your business model doesn't just involve living off consulting fees and professional services. You do realize that you can sell GPL'd software, right? Just because you are GPL, doesn't restrict you to just consulting fees and services. FWIW, the software I'm working on for my startup, does (or will) involve a healthy dose of machine learning libraries, and I wouldn't necessarily rule out using a GPL'd library. Right now I'm sticking to mostly Apache Licensed stuff, but - then again - I'm also releasing my stuff under the APLv2.
    - mbreese 16y ago
      You do realize that you can sell GPL'd software, right Yes, and there's nothing preventing your client from reselling it to other potential clients. So realistically, you can really only count on consulting fees and services.
deleted 16y ago
[deleted]
naner 16y ago
Are you distributing .jar files to clients? Also you could email the project and politely ask them to consider releasing it under LGPL or EPL.