3 ms·

> I always interpret new licenses through the lens of Debian's Free Software Guidelines.[0] I don't think this would be accepted as it limits usage. This licen

by jabl 5y ago

> I always interpret new licenses through the lens of Debian's Free Software Guidelines.[0] I don't think this would be accepted as it limits usage. This license doesn't claim it's an open source license. Apples and oranges.

kstrauser 5y ago
Perhaps, but what’s the point of discussing non-open source licenses here? Yet Another Commercial License isn’t interesting, even one that basically works out to be shareware.
- jabl 5y ago
  > Perhaps, but what’s the point of discussing non-open source licenses here? I guess that's up to discussion participants and moderators to decide, not you (or me) individually. If you're not interested, nobody is forcing you to participate in the discussion.
- lupire 5y ago
  This is a software business website, not an open source website.
- tptacek 5y ago
  Because lots of people here run commercial software businesses (our original name was "Startup News"). We discuss this for the same reason we discuss pricing pages and user metrics. Interesting articles about yet another commercial license are per se on topic for HN.
  - kstrauser 5y ago
    It's not that I thought it was off-topic, just that it seemed unusual to me. What's more common is when an existing product changes its license, and then HN is all over discussing the implications.
  - quadrifoliate 5y ago
    Given that this is a website run by a startup accelerator, articles about commercial licenses are arguably more on topic than ones about open source licenses. Successful commercial products with GPLed code are few and far in between.
    - tptacek 5y ago
      Linux, MariaDB, SourceFire, WordPress, Ansible, just off the top of my head. GPL (and, often, AGPL) you can see as sort of the "other" major strategy to running a commercial business on open source: instead of a non-commercial license, you make the free version fastidiously GPL, and charge people to get out from under it.

by jabl 5y ago

kstrauser 5y ago

Perhaps, but what’s the point of discussing non-open source licenses here? Yet Another Commercial License isn’t interesting, even one that basically works out to be shareware.

jabl 5y ago
> Perhaps, but what’s the point of discussing non-open source licenses here? I guess that's up to discussion participants and moderators to decide, not you (or me) individually. If you're not interested, nobody is forcing you to participate in the discussion.
lupire 5y ago
This is a software business website, not an open source website.
tptacek 5y ago
Because lots of people here run commercial software businesses (our original name was "Startup News"). We discuss this for the same reason we discuss pricing pages and user metrics. Interesting articles about yet another commercial license are per se on topic for HN.
- kstrauser 5y ago
  It's not that I thought it was off-topic, just that it seemed unusual to me. What's more common is when an existing product changes its license, and then HN is all over discussing the implications.
- quadrifoliate 5y ago
  Given that this is a website run by a startup accelerator, articles about commercial licenses are arguably more on topic than ones about open source licenses. Successful commercial products with GPLed code are few and far in between.
  - tptacek 5y ago
    Linux, MariaDB, SourceFire, WordPress, Ansible, just off the top of my head. GPL (and, often, AGPL) you can see as sort of the "other" major strategy to running a commercial business on open source: instead of a non-commercial license, you make the free version fastidiously GPL, and charge people to get out from under it.