3 ms·

I know this isn't a software licence but this topic has been on my mind recently. One problem that hits software using "novel" licences (and in some cases copyl

I know this isn't a software licence but this topic has been on my mind recently. One problem that hits software using "novel" licences (and in some cases copyleft licences) is that software is multilayered and libraries use libraries that use libraries. If I want to open source my stuff - or use a novel semi-OSS licence and I've picked a different flavour to you then I usually can't touch your stuff. Most non-copyleft licences are broadly compatible leading to a big ecosystem. Once you move off that beaten track things get tricky. I've got less experience of this situation with non-software licences and I suspect it's less of an issue due to less "layering" but I do tend to reuse assets between projects over time and the thought of keeping track of every obscure restriction in every asset has a chilling effect. People - unless you have very strong reasons not to, consider sticking to widely used licences, and ones as liberal in their terms as you can tolerate.

kwhitefoot 5y ago
This isn't a software licence.
- andybak 5y ago
  Yes. I am aware of that. I will clarify that in my comment
- JoshTriplett 5y ago
  Creative works often combine material from different sources. There's substantial value in different ecosystems still using compatible licenses.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
kemitchell 5y ago
GPL was really aggressive from the start. Being "GPL compatible" doesn't really mean "compatible" so much as "gives GPL its way". That became an issue even as we saw more GPL variants, like AGPL. When GPLv3 failed to add network copyleft, GPLv3 and AGPLv3 ended up with awkward, matching compatibility provisions built in, so they wouldn't be incompatible with each other. Non-FSF copyleft licenses, like MPLv2 and now EPLv2, try to reduce the resulting pain by including "yields to GPL" clauses. More recent licenses like [Parity](https://paritylicense.com/versions/7.0.0 https://paritylicense.com/versions/7.0.0) head off many problems by allowing more flexibility on terms, while still requiring release. I'm all for considering all options when it comes to software licensing. But both business models and social causes are tightly coupled to choice of license terms. Telling people to just give their stuff away under permissive terms is in fact telling a lot of people not to worry about money or "software freedom".

kwhitefoot 5y ago

This isn't a software licence.

andybak 5y ago
Yes. I am aware of that. I will clarify that in my comment
JoshTriplett 5y ago
Creative works often combine material from different sources. There's substantial value in different ecosystems still using compatible licenses.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

kemitchell 5y ago

GPL was really aggressive from the start. Being "GPL compatible" doesn't really mean "compatible" so much as "gives GPL its way". That became an issue even as we saw more GPL variants, like AGPL. When GPLv3 failed to add network copyleft, GPLv3 and AGPLv3 ended up with awkward, matching compatibility provisions built in, so they wouldn't be incompatible with each other. Non-FSF copyleft licenses, like MPLv2 and now EPLv2, try to reduce the resulting pain by including "yields to GPL" clauses. More recent licenses like [Parity](https://paritylicense.com/versions/7.0.0 https://paritylicense.com/versions/7.0.0) head off many problems by allowing more flexibility on terms, while still requiring release. I'm all for considering all options when it comes to software licensing. But both business models and social causes are tightly coupled to choice of license terms. Telling people to just give their stuff away under permissive terms is in fact telling a lot of people not to worry about money or "software freedom".