4 ms·

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 so

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.

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.