36 ms·

So sad seeing so much FUD about gplv3. I've spent years gpl-ing my daily desktop and server stacks, and comments about why $BEHEMOTH don't use it just reinforce

So sad seeing so much FUD about gplv3. I've spent years gpl-ing my daily desktop and server stacks, and comments about why $BEHEMOTH don't use it just reinforce to me its the right move. I just wish more devs had the courage to just stop capitulating to fear of a few different types. That said, Apache 2.0 is one of the licenses I usually consider as acceptable (as opposed to mit and bsd).

heavyset_go 6y ago
> I've spent years gpl-ing my daily desktop and server stacks, and comments about why $BEHEMOTH don't use it just reinforce to me its the right move. This. I've heard that licensing my code under the AGPLv3 will prevent its widespread use by industry, and my answer to that is, good! I licensed the code under the AGPLv3 because I intend for it to be used under the terms of the AGPLv3. If that puts companies off because they want to use it for free, but don't want to use it under those terms, then my licensing requirements are working as intended. If you want to pay me, that's a different story, and I leave the door open for commercial licensing.
tome 6y ago
> Apache 2.0 is one of the licenses I usually consider as acceptable (as opposed to mit and bsd) Interesting. What do you not like about the latter two? I tend to think of the three as equivalent.
- teddyh 6y ago
  The explicit patent grant is usually mentioned as the big feature.
- arminiusreturns 6y ago
  I think it's just a general trend that those who don't like bsd/mit but don't go gpl for whatever reason tend to use apache 2.0 as the other commenters mention. I found this website on stackexchange that is good for comparing: https://tldrlegal.com/ https://tldrlegal.com/
LukeEF 6y ago
I think the general feeling in the GNU/FSF is that if you are not using GPL, use Apache 2.0.
- seg_lol 6y ago
  Why not MPL?
sangnoir 6y ago
> I just wish more devs had the courage to just stop capitulating to fear of a few different types. It's not fear: it's Apache-/MIT-/BSD-license-as-marketing. It' no longer enough to have a project that solves a specific problem - you now have to build "mindshare" and a "community" and have the metrics to show VC's so they can fund your growth, and corporate acceptability is key here. The playbook of a successful open source project is: 1. Use the most liberal license you can think & grow a community 2. Become popular, gain traction in enterprise market & get millions in funding 3. AWS forks your project, tells customers they can scale it better than you 4. Investors call you and demand you do something - competing with Amazon wrecks all their projections on your future revenue. You add anti-cloud-hosting clauses to your license - building a community is no longer a concern the way Amazon is. TerminusDB were on step 0 (no thanks to the GPL), now they are on step 1.

heavyset_go 6y ago

> I've spent years gpl-ing my daily desktop and server stacks, and comments about why $BEHEMOTH don't use it just reinforce to me its the right move. This. I've heard that licensing my code under the AGPLv3 will prevent its widespread use by industry, and my answer to that is, good! I licensed the code under the AGPLv3 because I intend for it to be used under the terms of the AGPLv3. If that puts companies off because they want to use it for free, but don't want to use it under those terms, then my licensing requirements are working as intended. If you want to pay me, that's a different story, and I leave the door open for commercial licensing.

tome 6y ago

> Apache 2.0 is one of the licenses I usually consider as acceptable (as opposed to mit and bsd) Interesting. What do you not like about the latter two? I tend to think of the three as equivalent.

teddyh 6y ago
The explicit patent grant is usually mentioned as the big feature.
arminiusreturns 6y ago
I think it's just a general trend that those who don't like bsd/mit but don't go gpl for whatever reason tend to use apache 2.0 as the other commenters mention. I found this website on stackexchange that is good for comparing: https://tldrlegal.com/ https://tldrlegal.com/

LukeEF 6y ago

I think the general feeling in the GNU/FSF is that if you are not using GPL, use Apache 2.0.

seg_lol 6y ago
Why not MPL?

sangnoir 6y ago

> I just wish more devs had the courage to just stop capitulating to fear of a few different types. It's not fear: it's Apache-/MIT-/BSD-license-as-marketing. It' no longer enough to have a project that solves a specific problem - you now have to build "mindshare" and a "community" and have the metrics to show VC's so they can fund your growth, and corporate acceptability is key here. The playbook of a successful open source project is: 1. Use the most liberal license you can think & grow a community 2. Become popular, gain traction in enterprise market & get millions in funding 3. AWS forks your project, tells customers they can scale it better than you 4. Investors call you and demand you do something - competing with Amazon wrecks all their projections on your future revenue. You add anti-cloud-hosting clauses to your license - building a community is no longer a concern the way Amazon is. TerminusDB were on step 0 (no thanks to the GPL), now they are on step 1.