3 ms·

Yes I'd love for a new license to exist and join that, but with 2-3 alterations; a bit like how with copyright you have the CC and multiple alternatives. So fo

Yes I'd love for a new license to exist and join that, but with 2-3 alterations; a bit like how with copyright you have the CC and multiple alternatives. So for all, as the author in this case, limit the ability to just host the project itself and charge for it. People would still be able to modify the software and use that themselves, and share the modified code/fixes, or contribute upstream. I'd argue that this still follows the ideals of open source/free software, just avoiding abuse in 2022. Then for some other projects, just no forks. With this variant, you can only modify it for yourself and cannot publish modified/derivative projects. This is IMHO no longer in the spirit of free software, but users can still read the code, modify it themselves and fix bugs, which is waaay better than current proprietary code. Alt: I believe some people might want to add am ethical clause and a big/small/indie developer clauses.

Uehreka 5y ago
Ooooh boy. Alright let’s go through these (IANAL, but I’ve studied some IP law, others can chime in if I fuck something up): - For the first one, you’re going to need to define “modification”. If someone adds a single new function to the script, is that a modification? Can they now host the modified script? If not, what do you consider to be “modification”? If so, what if the new function is a no-op that was added to take advantage of the license? (Bear in mind that in cases like these, proving the infringing person’s intent is very difficult if not impossible) - Regarding “no forks”: Mayyyybe this would work for some smart home projects? I wouldn’t touch anything with a license like this, too often my side projects become a thing I post on my website or use in a hobby thing that then gets intertwined with a work thing. You may say “fine, then stay away”, but if you want people to use your stuff, then it matters if people are scared of the license - Regarding “ethics”: This just makes the code radioactive. JSLint is famously never used, even though it was written by the author of “JavaScript: The Good Parts” himself, because its license includes a “do no evil” clause. Does Doug Crockford think US Defense Contractors are evil? Will his opinion on them change in the future? - big/small/indie developer clauses: Depending on what’s going on and how it’s defined, this could maybe work (someone who is a lawyer would need to say for sure). I know Unity, Unreal and GitKraken do a pretty good job with licensing terms that allow indies to check them about but then pay when their job makes money. But (with the exception of Unreal) they’re licensing you a product, you can’t see its source. I honestly think if you’re a developer who doesn’t want their work exploited by corporations, do what the Janus team at meetEcho does: AGPL for everyone so no one can build on it without contributing back changes, and if you’re a corporation who wants to use it without the AGPL, prepare to cough up for a commercial license.
- franciscop 5y ago
  I avoided saying just "host" because it's confusing. - You would not be able to host (SaaS style) the modified code either way; you would be able to host (store in your server) the modified code either way. Basically, if you use the project hosting the files and modifying them is fine. In this case, you would be able to modify Hibiki to your liking and _use_ it in your website. If you want to resell the project, that's a no-go either way. In this case, you would not be able to modify (or not!) Hibiki, possibly call it Yamazaki, and make an online editor for others to use. > - Regarding “no forks”: Mayyyybe this would work for some smart home projects? I wouldn’t touch anything with a license like this, too often my side projects become a thing I post on my website or use in a hobby thing that then gets intertwined with a work thing. You may say “fine, then stay away”, but if you want people to use your stuff, then it matters if people are scared of the license And yet people buy and use proprietary software everyday with licenses waaaaay more restrictive than this. Remember I'm not trying to say the "no forks" variant is open source at all, just saying that it should be better for the end user than proprietary since you can still fix your own bugs and make customizations. - Sure the "ethics" and "indie" ones I haven't thought so much of since I'm not personally interested on. > I honestly think if you’re a developer who doesn’t want their work exploited by corporations, do what the Janus team at meetEcho does: AGPL for everyone so no one can build on it without contributing back changes, and if you’re a corporation who wants to use it without the AGPL, prepare to cough up for a commercial license. I really don't like this solution; I've used it in a couple of projects of mine, but it feels the worse of two worlds; individuals won't touch that AGPL, and for corporations it wouldn't matter if it's all just proprietary.
  - rglullis 5y ago
    > individuals won't touch that AGPL Why? If I am working on something with no intent on making a proprietary service out of it, I might as well make my own code GPL. And if I do have the interest in making a business out of it, then I'd inquire about the commercial license.
sangnoir 5y ago
> Yes I'd love for a new license to exist and join that, but with 2-3 alterations; I once worked on a codebase that was "authored" by non-software-engineer founders based on the same principle: an actual SWE wrote the core, but to extend functionality (think adding a route and its handler), they'd copy the example and change a few lines. The result was as horrible and broken as one might expect - I wonder if lawyers will shudder at the brokenness when they look at such franken-licenses. Sure, it works on the happy-path, but the failure modes can be nasty.

Uehreka 5y ago

Ooooh boy. Alright let’s go through these (IANAL, but I’ve studied some IP law, others can chime in if I fuck something up): - For the first one, you’re going to need to define “modification”. If someone adds a single new function to the script, is that a modification? Can they now host the modified script? If not, what do you consider to be “modification”? If so, what if the new function is a no-op that was added to take advantage of the license? (Bear in mind that in cases like these, proving the infringing person’s intent is very difficult if not impossible) - Regarding “no forks”: Mayyyybe this would work for some smart home projects? I wouldn’t touch anything with a license like this, too often my side projects become a thing I post on my website or use in a hobby thing that then gets intertwined with a work thing. You may say “fine, then stay away”, but if you want people to use your stuff, then it matters if people are scared of the license - Regarding “ethics”: This just makes the code radioactive. JSLint is famously never used, even though it was written by the author of “JavaScript: The Good Parts” himself, because its license includes a “do no evil” clause. Does Doug Crockford think US Defense Contractors are evil? Will his opinion on them change in the future? - big/small/indie developer clauses: Depending on what’s going on and how it’s defined, this could maybe work (someone who is a lawyer would need to say for sure). I know Unity, Unreal and GitKraken do a pretty good job with licensing terms that allow indies to check them about but then pay when their job makes money. But (with the exception of Unreal) they’re licensing you a product, you can’t see its source. I honestly think if you’re a developer who doesn’t want their work exploited by corporations, do what the Janus team at meetEcho does: AGPL for everyone so no one can build on it without contributing back changes, and if you’re a corporation who wants to use it without the AGPL, prepare to cough up for a commercial license.

franciscop 5y ago
I avoided saying just "host" because it's confusing. - You would not be able to host (SaaS style) the modified code either way; you would be able to host (store in your server) the modified code either way. Basically, if you use the project hosting the files and modifying them is fine. In this case, you would be able to modify Hibiki to your liking and _use_ it in your website. If you want to resell the project, that's a no-go either way. In this case, you would not be able to modify (or not!) Hibiki, possibly call it Yamazaki, and make an online editor for others to use. > - Regarding “no forks”: Mayyyybe this would work for some smart home projects? I wouldn’t touch anything with a license like this, too often my side projects become a thing I post on my website or use in a hobby thing that then gets intertwined with a work thing. You may say “fine, then stay away”, but if you want people to use your stuff, then it matters if people are scared of the license And yet people buy and use proprietary software everyday with licenses waaaaay more restrictive than this. Remember I'm not trying to say the "no forks" variant is open source at all, just saying that it should be better for the end user than proprietary since you can still fix your own bugs and make customizations. - Sure the "ethics" and "indie" ones I haven't thought so much of since I'm not personally interested on. > I honestly think if you’re a developer who doesn’t want their work exploited by corporations, do what the Janus team at meetEcho does: AGPL for everyone so no one can build on it without contributing back changes, and if you’re a corporation who wants to use it without the AGPL, prepare to cough up for a commercial license. I really don't like this solution; I've used it in a couple of projects of mine, but it feels the worse of two worlds; individuals won't touch that AGPL, and for corporations it wouldn't matter if it's all just proprietary.
- rglullis 5y ago
  > individuals won't touch that AGPL Why? If I am working on something with no intent on making a proprietary service out of it, I might as well make my own code GPL. And if I do have the interest in making a business out of it, then I'd inquire about the commercial license.

sangnoir 5y ago

> Yes I'd love for a new license to exist and join that, but with 2-3 alterations; I once worked on a codebase that was "authored" by non-software-engineer founders based on the same principle: an actual SWE wrote the core, but to extend functionality (think adding a route and its handler), they'd copy the example and change a few lines. The result was as horrible and broken as one might expect - I wonder if lawyers will shudder at the brokenness when they look at such franken-licenses. Sure, it works on the happy-path, but the failure modes can be nasty.