7 ms·
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. W
by 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 agolibraries can also use LGPL
- smarx007 6y agoI 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 agoI think LGPL is ok. I think linux should have games.
- tsss 6y agoPersonally 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 agoAbsolutely, "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 agoI 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 agoMany companies make a business out of selling libraries, just saying.
- zzzeek 6y agoI 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 agoJust 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 agoim 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 agoMiddleware for creative and engineering industries (games, movies, CAD etc.) comes to mind.
- rkangel 6y agoTo 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 agoIf you're the creator, can't you simply dual licence? You certainly don't need to licence it to yourself.
- franciscop 6y agoYes, but the reason I publish libraries as open source is to allow other people to use and learn from them, not to make money.