7 ms·

No but in the next couple days. I actually wanted to go with the strictest copyleft license, but there was a discussion earlier about dual-licensing, which left

No but in the next couple days. I actually wanted to go with the strictest copyleft license, but there was a discussion earlier about dual-licensing, which left me quite confused. I'm not very knowledgeable at all in these matters and am taking my time to decide.

Taek 6y ago
If you go with copy-left you automatically disqualify some major institutions from using your software. Especially for a community based project, there may be institutions that want to make proprietary extensions so it can integrate better with their existing infrastructure. Generally I think MIT is a good default and you should only use a different license if you have a strong case for why MIT doesn't make sense for your project.
- eeZah7Ux 6y ago
  > you automatically disqualify some major institutions No: it's their choice, and if they choose not to use GPL software it is evidence that they do not care about user and developer software freedom. And that they don't want to contribute back. Also, "some major institutions" is very unclear. Google is ok with GPLv2 but not with GPLv3. Apple has restrictions on their app store. Both companies are extremely unlikely to support decentralized communities anyways - they outright compete against them.
- randmeerkat 6y ago
  MIT licensing is also how entities like Amazon get away with pillaging OSS. I think you have a real product here and would caution you against releasing the source code. If you do want to open source it, I highly recommend GPLv2 or 3.
  - dariusj18 6y ago
    In this case, wouldn't it be great if the big dogs picked up the tech and ran with it?
    - feanaro 6y ago
      The same way Google and Facebook picked up XMPP and ran with it?
      - sodality2 6y ago
        Remember that they failed though.
        etiam 6y ago
        Looks dead enough to me in practice?
      - dariusj18 6y ago
        From my perspective that was a good thing. I still use Pidgin as my google hangouts client.
        feanaro 6y ago
        It was a good thing until they ruined it after increasing their strangle on the userbase. It would be sad to see the existing big guys get involved in Matrix to make it popular, only to corrupt it and close it off once it's served its purpose.
  - southerntofu 6y ago
    > If you do want to open source it, I highly recommend GPLv2 or 3. This is solid advice for client software. However for software to run on the server side, AGPL providers better protections to ensure further developments remain free (copyleft).
    - hda2 6y ago
      While the AGPL would ensure that developments remain free, it will also ensure that most entities (commercial and non-commercial) that need tight integration would not touch it with a 10 foot poll. The choice of license really depends on what the OP aims to achieve with his software.
      - southerntofu 6y ago
        > it will also ensure that most entities That is simply not true. It may be true for huge corporations with legal counsel spreading FUD. But why should we care about these people ruining our lives? They're already destroying the planet and making sure millions of people are enslaved in the mines/factories across the third world, and we should provide free work for them?! Interesting entities (libraries, schools, associations, workers coops) will not care about the software license.
        hda2 6y ago
        Unfortunately, it is. The AGPL exposes licensees to the extraordinary risk of having to disclose any private internal/infra code that integrates with it and, more importantly, the legal and technical costs of doing so. I assure you, even "interesting" entities care about this. Hell, even public institutions I worked for did.
- danbolt 6y ago
  > If you go with copy-left you automatically disqualify some major institutions from using your software. For what it's worth, I think there's reasoning to consider it on a project-by-project basis. An example might be how XMPP more or less became a bunch of walled-garden forks for various messengers like Google Chat and Facebook. I think Linux thrived with the GPLv2's copyleft being a "sweet spot" for them.
- really3452 6y ago
  As the author you can always re-release the code under MIT but once it's released under MIT corporations can whole sale rip your work off for their own profit. If you keep it closed source or GPL it then you maintain some breathing room from another company just swooping in and monetizing you code for their profit.
  - hda2 6y ago
    On the other hand, if you accept contributions while under a strict license like the AGPL but then decide to go MIT, you'll have to ask each contributor to relicense his or her work or remove that work altogether. OP, if you see your project switching licenses down the road, you might as well look into CLAs, a whole other can of worms, or just stick with the least restrictive license that achieves your goals. I'd personally use LGPLv3.
- webmaven 6y ago
  > If you go with copy-left you automatically disqualify some major institutions from using your software. Especially for a community based project, there may be institutions that want to make proprietary extensions so it can integrate better with their existing infrastructure. This is still possible with GPL (and the AGPL, for that matter) by granting an exemption to the license for third-party extension software that is in the form of a plugin using a specific API. It is worth noting that depending on the details of your (and the plugin's) implementation, such an exemption may not even be required. This is probably a good place to start digging in to the topic: https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#GPLAndPlugins https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#GPLAndPlugins But before anyone starts down this rabbit hole (the legal, social, and technical details of which I personally find fascinating, but YMMV), a maintainer should instead think about the things they want to allow, the things they want to forbid, and the things they want to be able to charge for. Also, which of the aforementioned things they want to provide strong guarantees for in the event of a change in ownership and/or a fork (eg. MySQL/Oracle, OpenOffice/LibreOffice, etc.). But whatever the preferences are for a particular project, there almost certainly is a way to set those boundaries using a FLOSS license, and it is probably possible while using the GPL (but if you're leaning toward 'allow individuals and mega corps to do whatever they want', there isn't much sense in using the GPL as a starting point), though it is possible you might need a few additional tools for some scenarios (requiring a Contributor License Agreement or even copyright assignment for contributions, license exemptions for specific APIs, splitting out some shared libraries and releasing those under a different-but-compatible license, dual licensing, separate licensing for non-code assets, a nonprofit foundation, compatibility testing and associated badging & trademarks, etc.). Anyway, there are a lot of tools available, and most of them can be grabbed when and as they're needed, if they ever are. So, start with what you want in terms of permissions and boundaries, then ask for advice on enabling/enforcing that structure with a FLOSS license, and it can probably be done without too much complexity (assuming that it isn't incompatible with FLOSS, like 'This software cannot be used by the military or to support the creation of WMDs').
- tomjen3 6y ago
  No you don't. Some institutions are stupid and have bureaucratic rules, but unless you need them it should not be your concern. I don't know of any copy left license that prevents you from making JSON API calls from any source you want, so you can integrate something like matrix easily enough.
southerntofu 6y ago
It's really a matter of strategy. Do you want the protocol/vocabulary to be used everywhere, but in closed-source implementations with a free/libre ecosystem constantly lagging behind? Or do you want something that will be less friendly to governments and multinationals but will be part of a striving lesser/non-profit ecosystem? XMPP/Matrix went the first way. Matrix ecosystem has one reference client/server with really good features but hardware requirements that place it out of ordinary folks' reach. Similarly, XMPP has some really good apps built on top (eg. Whatsapp) but the free-software clients (not servers) are lagging behind, though catching up quickly in the past years. ActivityPub ecosystem went the other way with AGPL everywhere (Mastodon/Epicyon/Funkwhale/Peertube/PixelFed/Funkwhale/Mobilizon/WriteFreely/Lemmy/Plume) with the notable of bookwyrm who has the Anticapitalist Software license. As a consequence of the ecosystem tailoring to users/non-profits/cooperatives not corporations/governments, it's blooming into this amazing and friendly ecosystem where everybody contributes and interoperates. Hell, who would have thought three years ago selfhosting federated/p2p livestreaming video would be become so easy as Peertube? Personally i'm more on Jabber/XMPP's side (i contribute to joinjabber.org project, and use Jabbber/XMPP daily) mostly for technical reasons (AP/matrix haven't yet caught up with XMPP in many regards) but in my view adopting loose licensing is what almost killed the XMPP ecosystem all these years ago when it had the exact same promises as matrix does today: one universal federated protocol to bridge to all others.
- feanaro 6y ago
  > Matrix ecosystem has one reference client/server with really good features but hardware requirements that place it out of ordinary folks' reach. Define ordinary folks, please. Matrix isn't really that resource intensive for a small homeserver between family and friends.
  - southerntofu 6y ago
    Well client-side there seems to be progress but to my knowledge so far Riot was the only feature-complete client, and it's REALLY heavy/slow especially on high-latency links. Loading app.element.io before logging in is already 9MB. Also element responsiveness in general is really tied to latency and is therefore not pleasant to use on bad connections and/or Tor. Server-side, many smaller hosting coops went into matrix but later dropped it because of synapse using too much resources. I know individual selfhosters who were really sad to drop it because their raspberry pi didn't have enough RAM (512MB-1GB) for selfhosting synapse. However someone said in another thread that synapse resource usage is really better these days. Would you recommend it on such low-end hardware? (ActivityPub/XMPP servers fare really well in such conditions)
jzer0cool 6y ago
could someone share the run downs of open source and the various licenses in a laymen's term way? i never felt quite comfortable when why's of certain licenses.
- kanjus 6y ago
  These might be helpful to you and Hummingbard's creator: https://choosealicense.com/licenses/ https://choosealicense.com/licenses/ provides a concise rundown of a few common ones https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.en.html https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.en.html: a more detailed list https://github.com/plibither8/licensed https://github.com/plibither8/licensed: a CLI tool to help choose licenses (we're on HN).

Taek 6y ago

If you go with copy-left you automatically disqualify some major institutions from using your software. Especially for a community based project, there may be institutions that want to make proprietary extensions so it can integrate better with their existing infrastructure. Generally I think MIT is a good default and you should only use a different license if you have a strong case for why MIT doesn't make sense for your project.

eeZah7Ux 6y ago
> you automatically disqualify some major institutions No: it's their choice, and if they choose not to use GPL software it is evidence that they do not care about user and developer software freedom. And that they don't want to contribute back. Also, "some major institutions" is very unclear. Google is ok with GPLv2 but not with GPLv3. Apple has restrictions on their app store. Both companies are extremely unlikely to support decentralized communities anyways - they outright compete against them.
randmeerkat 6y ago
MIT licensing is also how entities like Amazon get away with pillaging OSS. I think you have a real product here and would caution you against releasing the source code. If you do want to open source it, I highly recommend GPLv2 or 3.
- dariusj18 6y ago
  In this case, wouldn't it be great if the big dogs picked up the tech and ran with it?
  - feanaro 6y ago
    The same way Google and Facebook picked up XMPP and ran with it?
    - sodality2 6y ago
      Remember that they failed though.
      - etiam 6y ago
        Looks dead enough to me in practice?
    - dariusj18 6y ago
      From my perspective that was a good thing. I still use Pidgin as my google hangouts client.
      - feanaro 6y ago
        It was a good thing until they ruined it after increasing their strangle on the userbase. It would be sad to see the existing big guys get involved in Matrix to make it popular, only to corrupt it and close it off once it's served its purpose.
- southerntofu 6y ago
  > If you do want to open source it, I highly recommend GPLv2 or 3. This is solid advice for client software. However for software to run on the server side, AGPL providers better protections to ensure further developments remain free (copyleft).
  - hda2 6y ago
    While the AGPL would ensure that developments remain free, it will also ensure that most entities (commercial and non-commercial) that need tight integration would not touch it with a 10 foot poll. The choice of license really depends on what the OP aims to achieve with his software.
    - southerntofu 6y ago
      > it will also ensure that most entities That is simply not true. It may be true for huge corporations with legal counsel spreading FUD. But why should we care about these people ruining our lives? They're already destroying the planet and making sure millions of people are enslaved in the mines/factories across the third world, and we should provide free work for them?! Interesting entities (libraries, schools, associations, workers coops) will not care about the software license.
      - hda2 6y ago
        Unfortunately, it is. The AGPL exposes licensees to the extraordinary risk of having to disclose any private internal/infra code that integrates with it and, more importantly, the legal and technical costs of doing so. I assure you, even "interesting" entities care about this. Hell, even public institutions I worked for did.
danbolt 6y ago
> If you go with copy-left you automatically disqualify some major institutions from using your software. For what it's worth, I think there's reasoning to consider it on a project-by-project basis. An example might be how XMPP more or less became a bunch of walled-garden forks for various messengers like Google Chat and Facebook. I think Linux thrived with the GPLv2's copyleft being a "sweet spot" for them.
really3452 6y ago
As the author you can always re-release the code under MIT but once it's released under MIT corporations can whole sale rip your work off for their own profit. If you keep it closed source or GPL it then you maintain some breathing room from another company just swooping in and monetizing you code for their profit.
- hda2 6y ago
  On the other hand, if you accept contributions while under a strict license like the AGPL but then decide to go MIT, you'll have to ask each contributor to relicense his or her work or remove that work altogether. OP, if you see your project switching licenses down the road, you might as well look into CLAs, a whole other can of worms, or just stick with the least restrictive license that achieves your goals. I'd personally use LGPLv3.
webmaven 6y ago
> If you go with copy-left you automatically disqualify some major institutions from using your software. Especially for a community based project, there may be institutions that want to make proprietary extensions so it can integrate better with their existing infrastructure. This is still possible with GPL (and the AGPL, for that matter) by granting an exemption to the license for third-party extension software that is in the form of a plugin using a specific API. It is worth noting that depending on the details of your (and the plugin's) implementation, such an exemption may not even be required. This is probably a good place to start digging in to the topic: https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#GPLAndPlugins https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#GPLAndPlugins But before anyone starts down this rabbit hole (the legal, social, and technical details of which I personally find fascinating, but YMMV), a maintainer should instead think about the things they want to allow, the things they want to forbid, and the things they want to be able to charge for. Also, which of the aforementioned things they want to provide strong guarantees for in the event of a change in ownership and/or a fork (eg. MySQL/Oracle, OpenOffice/LibreOffice, etc.). But whatever the preferences are for a particular project, there almost certainly is a way to set those boundaries using a FLOSS license, and it is probably possible while using the GPL (but if you're leaning toward 'allow individuals and mega corps to do whatever they want', there isn't much sense in using the GPL as a starting point), though it is possible you might need a few additional tools for some scenarios (requiring a Contributor License Agreement or even copyright assignment for contributions, license exemptions for specific APIs, splitting out some shared libraries and releasing those under a different-but-compatible license, dual licensing, separate licensing for non-code assets, a nonprofit foundation, compatibility testing and associated badging & trademarks, etc.). Anyway, there are a lot of tools available, and most of them can be grabbed when and as they're needed, if they ever are. So, start with what you want in terms of permissions and boundaries, then ask for advice on enabling/enforcing that structure with a FLOSS license, and it can probably be done without too much complexity (assuming that it isn't incompatible with FLOSS, like 'This software cannot be used by the military or to support the creation of WMDs').
tomjen3 6y ago
No you don't. Some institutions are stupid and have bureaucratic rules, but unless you need them it should not be your concern. I don't know of any copy left license that prevents you from making JSON API calls from any source you want, so you can integrate something like matrix easily enough.

southerntofu 6y ago

It's really a matter of strategy. Do you want the protocol/vocabulary to be used everywhere, but in closed-source implementations with a free/libre ecosystem constantly lagging behind? Or do you want something that will be less friendly to governments and multinationals but will be part of a striving lesser/non-profit ecosystem? XMPP/Matrix went the first way. Matrix ecosystem has one reference client/server with really good features but hardware requirements that place it out of ordinary folks' reach. Similarly, XMPP has some really good apps built on top (eg. Whatsapp) but the free-software clients (not servers) are lagging behind, though catching up quickly in the past years. ActivityPub ecosystem went the other way with AGPL everywhere (Mastodon/Epicyon/Funkwhale/Peertube/PixelFed/Funkwhale/Mobilizon/WriteFreely/Lemmy/Plume) with the notable of bookwyrm who has the Anticapitalist Software license. As a consequence of the ecosystem tailoring to users/non-profits/cooperatives not corporations/governments, it's blooming into this amazing and friendly ecosystem where everybody contributes and interoperates. Hell, who would have thought three years ago selfhosting federated/p2p livestreaming video would be become so easy as Peertube? Personally i'm more on Jabber/XMPP's side (i contribute to joinjabber.org project, and use Jabbber/XMPP daily) mostly for technical reasons (AP/matrix haven't yet caught up with XMPP in many regards) but in my view adopting loose licensing is what almost killed the XMPP ecosystem all these years ago when it had the exact same promises as matrix does today: one universal federated protocol to bridge to all others.

feanaro 6y ago
> Matrix ecosystem has one reference client/server with really good features but hardware requirements that place it out of ordinary folks' reach. Define ordinary folks, please. Matrix isn't really that resource intensive for a small homeserver between family and friends.
- southerntofu 6y ago
  Well client-side there seems to be progress but to my knowledge so far Riot was the only feature-complete client, and it's REALLY heavy/slow especially on high-latency links. Loading app.element.io before logging in is already 9MB. Also element responsiveness in general is really tied to latency and is therefore not pleasant to use on bad connections and/or Tor. Server-side, many smaller hosting coops went into matrix but later dropped it because of synapse using too much resources. I know individual selfhosters who were really sad to drop it because their raspberry pi didn't have enough RAM (512MB-1GB) for selfhosting synapse. However someone said in another thread that synapse resource usage is really better these days. Would you recommend it on such low-end hardware? (ActivityPub/XMPP servers fare really well in such conditions)

jzer0cool 6y ago

could someone share the run downs of open source and the various licenses in a laymen's term way? i never felt quite comfortable when why's of certain licenses.

kanjus 6y ago
These might be helpful to you and Hummingbard's creator: https://choosealicense.com/licenses/ https://choosealicense.com/licenses/ provides a concise rundown of a few common ones https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.en.html https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.en.html: a more detailed list https://github.com/plibither8/licensed https://github.com/plibither8/licensed: a CLI tool to help choose licenses (we're on HN).