4 ms·

When you write the code, you can do what you want. BigCorp has done a lot of stuff to be angry about. I don't see a problem with the license.

sneak 6y ago
Proprietary licenses are a problem because they limit your freedom to do what you wish with the software. Unnecessarily limiting the freedoms of others is bad.
- explorigin 6y ago
  > Unnecessarily limiting the freedoms of others is bad. What is at stake here is who determines when it is unnecessary? Again that right is afforded to the author.
- aaron-santos 6y ago
  How do you square this with the freedom of the author to license their software in whichever way they see fit?
  - sneak 6y ago
    Licenses are only ever used to remove freedoms (from others), never to add them. The author does not have any reasonable entitlement to use force to prevent others from using their software in ways they don’t like.
- dismantlethesun 6y ago
  I am okay with it. Our software is proprietary licenced, and we consume proprietary licence projects all the time (e.g. Highcharts, Nginx, ElasticSearch, etc.)
- polotics 6y ago
  Lol like the freedom to get fairly compensated for the value of one's work?
chuckSu 6y ago
Me write the code. Me do what I want... Arrrrgh!!!
evgen 6y ago
I don't see a problem with it either. The license screams "go away" and I am happy to follow its suggestion. Since there are already well-established open-source alternatives in this area I am predicting this one will die slow and quiet. The theory is interesting, but unless you are in a real complex area it looks to me like application logic or a DSL paired with existing CEP or event sourcing systems can get you close to the patterns they are trying to infer here.
- Averroito 6y ago
  Exactly. If you are happy with the current status of the "free" and "open source" world (i.e., you have no problem with all the unpaid labor getting exploited by big tech through hierarchical structures pretending to be flat and "equal"), then, please, do go away. You won't be missed. PS: This is a research prototype to test novel ideas in the field. It's definitely not a finished product and should not be used as one (it's not allowed by the license in any case).
  - evgen 6y ago
    So it is both angry and a toy. Gotcha. Nice find!
    - Averroito 6y ago
      That seems like coming from someone with a deep knowledge of how research is conducted and the purpose of research prototypes. Anyway, I've already spent too much time on trying to reply to this kind of passive-aggressive sarcasm (why did you even bother commenting in the first place?). No more. Goodbye.
  - cduzz 6y ago
    There is enormous merit to the notion that "Free software has been monetized by GigaCorp(tm) and their ilk to the detriment of society." The world is build on the work of those who came before; that said, sometimes rather than standing on the shoulders of giants we get trampled underfoot. That said, intellectual property law is a deep and dark hole. It is easy to make mistakes from which you can not recover. https://choosealicense.com/no-permission/ https://choosealicense.com/no-permission/ Seems to be the license you want, but I am not an attorney. And of course, you may want to take it off of github and publish it yourself, so as to not run afoul of the github TOS.
playpause 6y ago
Sure you can do what you want, but if you want people to actually use it, it is very silly to write a bespoke licence. And even sillier to write a bespoke one if you don’t know how licences work or what they’re for.
- Averroito 6y ago
  The issue is about the kind of use. What do we mean by "people using it"? If we are talking about exploitation, then the license prohibits it. If we are talking about experimentation, the license allows it within certain limits. A bespoke license is indeed required if you need to do something more advanced. Suggestions are more than welcome on how to avoid this.
  - playpause 6y ago
    > A bespoke license is indeed required if you need to do something more advanced. Are you a lawyer, or have you had a lawyer review your bespoke licence?

sneak 6y ago

Proprietary licenses are a problem because they limit your freedom to do what you wish with the software. Unnecessarily limiting the freedoms of others is bad.

explorigin 6y ago
> Unnecessarily limiting the freedoms of others is bad. What is at stake here is who determines when it is unnecessary? Again that right is afforded to the author.
aaron-santos 6y ago
How do you square this with the freedom of the author to license their software in whichever way they see fit?
- sneak 6y ago
  Licenses are only ever used to remove freedoms (from others), never to add them. The author does not have any reasonable entitlement to use force to prevent others from using their software in ways they don’t like.
dismantlethesun 6y ago
I am okay with it. Our software is proprietary licenced, and we consume proprietary licence projects all the time (e.g. Highcharts, Nginx, ElasticSearch, etc.)
polotics 6y ago
Lol like the freedom to get fairly compensated for the value of one's work?

chuckSu 6y ago

Me write the code. Me do what I want... Arrrrgh!!!

evgen 6y ago

I don't see a problem with it either. The license screams "go away" and I am happy to follow its suggestion. Since there are already well-established open-source alternatives in this area I am predicting this one will die slow and quiet. The theory is interesting, but unless you are in a real complex area it looks to me like application logic or a DSL paired with existing CEP or event sourcing systems can get you close to the patterns they are trying to infer here.

Averroito 6y ago
Exactly. If you are happy with the current status of the "free" and "open source" world (i.e., you have no problem with all the unpaid labor getting exploited by big tech through hierarchical structures pretending to be flat and "equal"), then, please, do go away. You won't be missed. PS: This is a research prototype to test novel ideas in the field. It's definitely not a finished product and should not be used as one (it's not allowed by the license in any case).
- evgen 6y ago
  So it is both angry and a toy. Gotcha. Nice find!
  - Averroito 6y ago
    That seems like coming from someone with a deep knowledge of how research is conducted and the purpose of research prototypes. Anyway, I've already spent too much time on trying to reply to this kind of passive-aggressive sarcasm (why did you even bother commenting in the first place?). No more. Goodbye.
- cduzz 6y ago
  There is enormous merit to the notion that "Free software has been monetized by GigaCorp(tm) and their ilk to the detriment of society." The world is build on the work of those who came before; that said, sometimes rather than standing on the shoulders of giants we get trampled underfoot. That said, intellectual property law is a deep and dark hole. It is easy to make mistakes from which you can not recover. https://choosealicense.com/no-permission/ https://choosealicense.com/no-permission/ Seems to be the license you want, but I am not an attorney. And of course, you may want to take it off of github and publish it yourself, so as to not run afoul of the github TOS.

playpause 6y ago

Sure you can do what you want, but if you want people to actually use it, it is very silly to write a bespoke licence. And even sillier to write a bespoke one if you don’t know how licences work or what they’re for.

Averroito 6y ago
The issue is about the kind of use. What do we mean by "people using it"? If we are talking about exploitation, then the license prohibits it. If we are talking about experimentation, the license allows it within certain limits. A bespoke license is indeed required if you need to do something more advanced. Suggestions are more than welcome on how to avoid this.
- playpause 6y ago
  > A bespoke license is indeed required if you need to do something more advanced. Are you a lawyer, or have you had a lawyer review your bespoke licence?