8 ms·

> The change will affect corporations that want to take our code and use it to create and sell proprietary tools that directly compete with us. Yes, folks, if

> The change will affect corporations that want to take our code and use it to create and sell proprietary tools that directly compete with us. Yes, folks, if you don't like the idea of a corporation taking your ("software-as-a-service") code and using it to create and sell proprietary products, then maybe don't license your code under the MIT License (or any of the others which explicitly allow exactly that)! I apologize for stating something that's common sense but apparently, as they say, "common sense ain't so common". The MIT License is my preferred Open Source License but the AGPL is completely acceptable, too. In fact, if you (intend to) form a legal entity and sell your code as a SAAS product, the MIT License is quite likely NOT the license you should choose! I don't blame these guys a bit for switching to the AGPL now but I can't stress enough that selecting the proper open-source license is an important decision for any "serious" project. Please make sure that you understand exactly what the terms of your chosen license really mean before you decide on it -- and if your stated goal is to "grow a sustainable open-source project", well, the MIT License (and similar) is almost certainly not the best choice. -- ETA: Also, props to Plausible for choosing the AGPL as the license going forward. As mentioned, going closed source would have been the "easy choice". Alternatively, you could have selected something like the "Commons Clause" or one of the other recent "open-source but not actually open-source" licenses. In my opinion, the AGPL was absolutely the best choice. I've never used your product -- or even heard of it before now -- and probably never will but thank you for your contributions to open-source nonetheless!

franciscop 6y ago
Yup, the MIT is also my favourite license and I use it in all of my libraries. For products/websites that I might want to sell in some sort in the future, no. Well, maybe if it's a small "demo" project, but not generally.
- m463 6y ago
  libraries can also use LGPL
  - smarx007 6y ago
    I commented on this before, but I would love to have an ALGPL license for the libraries. Has limited scope but still applies to SaaS usage. Also, for the record: if you _are_ considering LGPL, you should consider EPL or MPL license instead. The reason is that Apache Foundation and Eclipse Foundation are not happy to allow LGPL dependencies in their projects, while EPL and MPL are also copyleft with a limited scope just like LGPL.
    - m463 6y ago
      I think LGPL is ok. I think linux should have games.
- tsss 6y ago
  Personally I like to use Mozilla license for libraries that I think will be popular with large corporations. They have to share any changes to my library code but not their own code if they ship it. Even better would be a Mozilla-AGPL that protects against cloud parasites but doesn't infect unrelated code. For small stuff I don't care and use MIT.
  - smarx007 6y ago
    Absolutely, "Affero" MPL or "Affero" EPL license would be a great step to remain enterprise-friendly while enforcing copyleft terms even for SaaS products.
  - ziml77 6y ago
    I didn't realize that the MPL worked like that. I've never made anything large enough to care about using anything other than MIT, but that's a great option to know about. Big corporation or not, I don't like people reinventing the wheel. I don't care if someone using my code doesn't propagate that philosophy.
- pjmlp 6y ago
  Many companies make a business out of selling libraries, just saying.
  - zzzeek 6y ago
    I haven't seen a viable commercial programming library in decades, but that may just because I'm not doing corporate-centric platforms like C++ / .NET / Java . Beyond that, if there is an open source library, I don't see how a corporation steals that and sells it, as developers would just find the open source one and use that. It's also very difficult / impossible to not have the source available if the library is written in a scripting language.
    - pjmlp 6y ago
      Just one example among many kinds of products that we reach for, https://www.telerik.com/ https://www.telerik.com/ As for scripting languages, encrypted custom loaders are relatively common.
      - zzzeek 6y ago
        im sure they exist but I've never heard of anyone using anything like this in Python. I've seen some closed-source database drivers for Python which is because they are implemented as native C code. but nobody uses them and there are vastly better open source choices that everyone uses. Commercial libraries are not viable in the Python ecosystem where an open source alternative that is decently maintained exists, there's nothing to be gained by trying to steal an MIT library and selling it as some kind of encrypted package, nobody would ever use it.
    - formerly_proven 6y ago
      Middleware for creative and engineering industries (games, movies, CAD etc.) comes to mind.
    - rkangel 6y ago
      To give one example: Matlab toolboxes. The reason that enterprise uses Matlab (over Octave for example) is generally the availability of the various toolboxes. These are libraries that let you accomplish certain tasks easily. For instance, we use the Signal Processing toolbox regularly to prototype signal processing approaches or investigate system performance.
- k__ 6y ago
  If you're the creator, can't you simply dual licence? You certainly don't need to licence it to yourself.
  - franciscop 6y ago
    Yes, but the reason I publish libraries as open source is to allow other people to use and learn from them, not to make money.
antonvs 6y ago
That was my exact reaction to that line. The article was basically describing their learning curve about some OSS licenses. I'm curious what led to the choice of the MIT license in the first place, given their goals.
markosaric 6y ago
yep, we know now! first time involved in an open source project and perhaps naively we thought that these things don't happen!
- api 6y ago
  Its called "SaaSification" and it definitely happens.
brobdingnagians 6y ago
You quoted Voltaire, slightly modified, without attribution. If only he had licensed it under AGPL then you'd have to give attribution. I guess he must have done it under MIT or BSD.
- konjin 6y ago
  If we lived in a sane world the source code for Windows XP would have been in the public domain 5 years ago.
- jlgaddis 6y ago
  FWIW, I was quoting my grandfather. I have heard the name Voltaire before but did not know who he was until I just looked it up -- and I'd wager my grandfather didn't know who he was either. Thus, there's the issue of intent (or lack thereof). I suppose Voltaire can terminate my license if he wishes. However: a.) I have a feeling that (after being dead for 242 years) he doesn't care and b.) I very much look forward to receiving a letter from his lawyer informing me of such.
  - brobdingnagians 6y ago
    Well put :) makes sense that a lot of smart people have come to the same conclusion, with slight variations
burntsushi 6y ago
Well, it's not common sense because it isn't necessarily a consistent position. Just because you don't like people taking your code and bundling it into a proprietary product doesn't mean you're necessarily also okay with using the legal system to enforce that preference. For example, I release my code into the public domain to the extent possible. But I am also very strongly opposed to plagiarism. Yet putting code into the public domain means people can legally plagiarize my work.
- paulryanrogers 6y ago
  Then why not choose an attribution license such as BSD?
  - burntsushi 6y ago
    I told you why. I'm not comfortable legally enforcing that preference. The only thing that needs to be accepted is that laws and ethics aren't necessarily equivalent. Just because something is legal doesn't make it ethical. If you accept that, then it's easy to see how one might choose a permissive license even if one finds certain actions allowed by that permissive license to be unethical. If you think laws and ethics are the same or should be, then I suppose that's a deeper disagreement and not one I mean to explore here. :-)
    - enriquto 6y ago
      A good choice in your case is to release your software without a license at all. I really like this option: it is elegant (no spurious license files and headers polluting your program), morally irreproachable, and it gets the job done (only people who are ridiculously obsessed with legal papers will not be able to use your software). The only problem is that if your software becomes somehow well-known, you'll be bugged to no end to release it into any license, and you will need to develop an anti-spam filter to automatically delete these mails.
      - burntsushi 6y ago
rmc 6y ago
AGPL still allows compeditors, it just means you, and all users, get access to their improvements.

franciscop 6y ago

Yup, the MIT is also my favourite license and I use it in all of my libraries. For products/websites that I might want to sell in some sort in the future, no. Well, maybe if it's a small "demo" project, but not generally.

m463 6y ago
libraries can also use LGPL
- smarx007 6y ago
  I commented on this before, but I would love to have an ALGPL license for the libraries. Has limited scope but still applies to SaaS usage. Also, for the record: if you _are_ considering LGPL, you should consider EPL or MPL license instead. The reason is that Apache Foundation and Eclipse Foundation are not happy to allow LGPL dependencies in their projects, while EPL and MPL are also copyleft with a limited scope just like LGPL.
  - m463 6y ago
    I think LGPL is ok. I think linux should have games.
tsss 6y ago
Personally I like to use Mozilla license for libraries that I think will be popular with large corporations. They have to share any changes to my library code but not their own code if they ship it. Even better would be a Mozilla-AGPL that protects against cloud parasites but doesn't infect unrelated code. For small stuff I don't care and use MIT.
- smarx007 6y ago
  Absolutely, "Affero" MPL or "Affero" EPL license would be a great step to remain enterprise-friendly while enforcing copyleft terms even for SaaS products.
- ziml77 6y ago
  I didn't realize that the MPL worked like that. I've never made anything large enough to care about using anything other than MIT, but that's a great option to know about. Big corporation or not, I don't like people reinventing the wheel. I don't care if someone using my code doesn't propagate that philosophy.
pjmlp 6y ago
Many companies make a business out of selling libraries, just saying.
- zzzeek 6y ago
  I haven't seen a viable commercial programming library in decades, but that may just because I'm not doing corporate-centric platforms like C++ / .NET / Java . Beyond that, if there is an open source library, I don't see how a corporation steals that and sells it, as developers would just find the open source one and use that. It's also very difficult / impossible to not have the source available if the library is written in a scripting language.
  - pjmlp 6y ago
    Just one example among many kinds of products that we reach for, https://www.telerik.com/ https://www.telerik.com/ As for scripting languages, encrypted custom loaders are relatively common.
    - zzzeek 6y ago
      im sure they exist but I've never heard of anyone using anything like this in Python. I've seen some closed-source database drivers for Python which is because they are implemented as native C code. but nobody uses them and there are vastly better open source choices that everyone uses. Commercial libraries are not viable in the Python ecosystem where an open source alternative that is decently maintained exists, there's nothing to be gained by trying to steal an MIT library and selling it as some kind of encrypted package, nobody would ever use it.
  - formerly_proven 6y ago
    Middleware for creative and engineering industries (games, movies, CAD etc.) comes to mind.
  - rkangel 6y ago
    To give one example: Matlab toolboxes. The reason that enterprise uses Matlab (over Octave for example) is generally the availability of the various toolboxes. These are libraries that let you accomplish certain tasks easily. For instance, we use the Signal Processing toolbox regularly to prototype signal processing approaches or investigate system performance.
k__ 6y ago
If you're the creator, can't you simply dual licence? You certainly don't need to licence it to yourself.
- franciscop 6y ago
  Yes, but the reason I publish libraries as open source is to allow other people to use and learn from them, not to make money.

antonvs 6y ago

That was my exact reaction to that line. The article was basically describing their learning curve about some OSS licenses. I'm curious what led to the choice of the MIT license in the first place, given their goals.

markosaric 6y ago

yep, we know now! first time involved in an open source project and perhaps naively we thought that these things don't happen!

api 6y ago
Its called "SaaSification" and it definitely happens.

brobdingnagians 6y ago

You quoted Voltaire, slightly modified, without attribution. If only he had licensed it under AGPL then you'd have to give attribution. I guess he must have done it under MIT or BSD.

konjin 6y ago
If we lived in a sane world the source code for Windows XP would have been in the public domain 5 years ago.
jlgaddis 6y ago
FWIW, I was quoting my grandfather. I have heard the name Voltaire before but did not know who he was until I just looked it up -- and I'd wager my grandfather didn't know who he was either. Thus, there's the issue of intent (or lack thereof). I suppose Voltaire can terminate my license if he wishes. However: a.) I have a feeling that (after being dead for 242 years) he doesn't care and b.) I very much look forward to receiving a letter from his lawyer informing me of such.
- brobdingnagians 6y ago
  Well put :) makes sense that a lot of smart people have come to the same conclusion, with slight variations

burntsushi 6y ago

Well, it's not common sense because it isn't necessarily a consistent position. Just because you don't like people taking your code and bundling it into a proprietary product doesn't mean you're necessarily also okay with using the legal system to enforce that preference. For example, I release my code into the public domain to the extent possible. But I am also very strongly opposed to plagiarism. Yet putting code into the public domain means people can legally plagiarize my work.

paulryanrogers 6y ago
Then why not choose an attribution license such as BSD?
- burntsushi 6y ago
  I told you why. I'm not comfortable legally enforcing that preference. The only thing that needs to be accepted is that laws and ethics aren't necessarily equivalent. Just because something is legal doesn't make it ethical. If you accept that, then it's easy to see how one might choose a permissive license even if one finds certain actions allowed by that permissive license to be unethical. If you think laws and ethics are the same or should be, then I suppose that's a deeper disagreement and not one I mean to explore here. :-)
  - enriquto 6y ago
    A good choice in your case is to release your software without a license at all. I really like this option: it is elegant (no spurious license files and headers polluting your program), morally irreproachable, and it gets the job done (only people who are ridiculously obsessed with legal papers will not be able to use your software). The only problem is that if your software becomes somehow well-known, you'll be bugged to no end to release it into any license, and you will need to develop an anti-spam filter to automatically delete these mails.
    - burntsushi 6y ago

rmc 6y ago

AGPL still allows compeditors, it just means you, and all users, get access to their improvements.