3 ms·
No license is going to prevent you from using your own work. Of course if you accepted external contributions to your code under a copyleft license then you ca
by contravariant 5y ago
No license is going to prevent you from using your own work.
Of course if you accepted external contributions to your code under a copyleft license then you can't use that part freely, but that's kind of the point.
- sangnoir 5y ago> ...you can't use that part freely, but that's kind of the point The irony is that non-copyleft project author/maintainers want to reserve the right to exploit other people's work when they "grow the project into a business", but bellyache when Amazon "exploit" their permissively-licensed work. Freedom for me -- but not for thee.
- nicoburns 5y agoIMO extremely large businesses like Amazon cause quite a bit of harm to modern economies/societies. They reduce the diversity of alternatives, and cause a concentration of wealth. That there is not a good standardised way to give preferential treatment to small companies does not mean it's unreasonable to want to.
- sangnoir 5y ago"Limiting Amazon's harm" is an honorable to put it - one which I do not agree is necessarily true. My cynical view is that Amazon is rich, and can afford to pay more, so a lot of projects are miffed that Amazon is not aiming a firehose of dollars at them for using code that they granted Amazon a license to use, but "not like that".
- nicoburns 5y ago> Of course if you accepted external contributions to your code under a copyleft license then you can't use that part freely, but that's kind of the point. Well yes. But if you: 1. Want to accept external contributions 2. Think you might want to use the entire project (which may still be mostly your own work) in proprietary code in the future. Then a permissive license is a lot easier than the alternatives.