5 ms·

And this is the core of the issue I think: people use Apache and MIT licenses by default without thinking two seconds about the consequences. It's just the defa

by belval 6y ago

And this is the core of the issue I think: people use Apache and MIT licenses by default without thinking two seconds about the consequences. It's just the default on GitHub.

justizin 6y ago
Elastic is derived from Apache Lucene, it’s unclear if anyone involved in its’ development could legally have made it more restrictive, though they apparently are trying to. It seems like a lot of us perhaps rushed to discussion before reading this article, which is about Amazon forking ElasticSearch so that an OSS version would remain available. Honestly, this is a shitty move by Elastic and I’ll be advocating against new uses of it, though /because reasons/, I doubt this will come up for me in the near future. ;)
- __blockcipher__ 6y ago
  > Elastic is derived from Apache Lucene, it’s unclear if anyone involved in its’ development could legally have made it more restrictive, though they apparently are trying to. Actually, you can totally use Apache 2.0 code as your kernel and then make the whole thing a restrictive license. In fact, that's why we're having this discussion right now. Elastic just made their Elasticsearch/Kibana codebases entirely proprietary, even though they rely on Apache 2.0 Lucene as their kernel. Which to be clear is totally fine, I'm just pointing out the obvious.
hanniabu 6y ago
What are better alternative licenses that also wouldn't deter contributors?
- belval 6y ago
  I am not sure that there are, but that's also the point. Open source software does not guarantee or even offer a business model. If you want to license your project with a "do what you want, no warranty" license that is attractive to contributors, you cannot also add a clause to limit something.
- eloisant 6y ago
  So you're looking for a license that would give you all the benefits but still encourage people to contribute - so only you get their work for free?
  - hanniabu 6y ago
    Yes and no. I think I remember hearing about a license before that would require anybody that forks your project to create a PR for any changes they make. While this wouldn't prevent a company from using your project, but it would at least force them to pass on any of their changes.
    - jasonlotito 6y ago
      > While this wouldn't prevent a company from using your project... ...it would deter them, which is what your original question was asking. Preventing and deterring are two completely different things.

by belval 6y ago

And this is the core of the issue I think: people use Apache and MIT licenses by default without thinking two seconds about the consequences. It's just the default on GitHub.

justizin 6y ago

Elastic is derived from Apache Lucene, it’s unclear if anyone involved in its’ development could legally have made it more restrictive, though they apparently are trying to. It seems like a lot of us perhaps rushed to discussion before reading this article, which is about Amazon forking ElasticSearch so that an OSS version would remain available. Honestly, this is a shitty move by Elastic and I’ll be advocating against new uses of it, though /because reasons/, I doubt this will come up for me in the near future. ;)

__blockcipher__ 6y ago
> Elastic is derived from Apache Lucene, it’s unclear if anyone involved in its’ development could legally have made it more restrictive, though they apparently are trying to. Actually, you can totally use Apache 2.0 code as your kernel and then make the whole thing a restrictive license. In fact, that's why we're having this discussion right now. Elastic just made their Elasticsearch/Kibana codebases entirely proprietary, even though they rely on Apache 2.0 Lucene as their kernel. Which to be clear is totally fine, I'm just pointing out the obvious.

hanniabu 6y ago

What are better alternative licenses that also wouldn't deter contributors?

belval 6y ago
I am not sure that there are, but that's also the point. Open source software does not guarantee or even offer a business model. If you want to license your project with a "do what you want, no warranty" license that is attractive to contributors, you cannot also add a clause to limit something.
eloisant 6y ago
So you're looking for a license that would give you all the benefits but still encourage people to contribute - so only you get their work for free?
- hanniabu 6y ago
  Yes and no. I think I remember hearing about a license before that would require anybody that forks your project to create a PR for any changes they make. While this wouldn't prevent a company from using your project, but it would at least force them to pass on any of their changes.
  - jasonlotito 6y ago
    > While this wouldn't prevent a company from using your project... ...it would deter them, which is what your original question was asking. Preventing and deterring are two completely different things.