8 ms·

counterpoint: At the end of the day, I just want people to use my stuff. Right now, 99% of what I write ends up MIT because I just want the shortest and most pe

by aliqot 4y ago

counterpoint: At the end of the day, I just want people to use my stuff. Right now, 99% of what I write ends up MIT because I just want the shortest and most permissive license for others to use what I create without bothering me. Not to discount the feelings of others, but in a sense I only wish I could have these problems.

YPPH 4y ago
It possibly depends on your project. If you're running a password manager business, it makes little sense to provide all your source code to a competitor to enable them to build upon your project, make money, and not provide any of the code changes in return.
krageon 4y ago
You will feel different when some giant enterprise takes your shit, locks it up and never contributes any improvements back. Or maybe you would not. I definitely would :)
- bombolo 4y ago
  Besides not contributing, they will start opening bug reports and ask you to fix them ASAP.
  - Aeolun 4y ago
    So they’re contributing bug reports. That’s a win!
    - bombolo 4y ago
      Feature requests aren't "contributions". Also bugs due to "I didn't bother to read the documentation". Also legitimate bugs with the attitude of "my production env is down because of this, so fix it at once". The entitlement is strong.
  - Spivak 4y ago
    And then use your lack of not wanting to prioritize free work for corporate daddy as evidence that the project has stalled and a "community" fork is necessary.
jhasse 4y ago
Have you considered using zlib license instead of MIT? Because if people "just use" MIT licensed stuff, they must include the license code. With the zlib license they only need to do that if they fork the source code.
- markkitti 4y ago
  There may be some confusion about which MIT license we are talking about as there is more than one that originates from MIT or has MIT in the name. When people refer to "MIT License" they usually mean the Expat License: > Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any person obtaining a copy of this software and associated documentation files (the "Software"), to deal in the Software without restriction, including without limitation the rights to use, copy, modify, merge, publish, distribute, sublicense, and/or sell copies of the Software, and to permit persons to whom the Software is furnished to do so, subject to the following conditions: > The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be included in all copies or substantial portions of the Software. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MIT_License?wprov=sfla1 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MIT_License?wprov=sfla1
  - jhasse 4y ago
    > The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be included in all copies or substantial portions of the Software. So ... I must include the license code when I redistribute the binary of the software?
bayindirh 4y ago
counterpoint: At the end of the day, I want people to use my stuff, but not grab and run with it, claiming ownership of it, depriving future users of the freedoms in exchange for improvements. I don't care about monetization or $BIG_CORP's fascination with it. I developed this thing to stay open. It's not up for grabs.
- remix2000 4y ago
  MIT doesn't allow no corporate to claim ownership on your software, much unlike open-core GNU licenses that promote CLA-s and thwart any competition.
  - papruapap 4y ago
    They will do a fancy wrapper and no credits will be given though. Users will never see MyApp only the MyAppFancyCloudVersion
    - remix2000 4y ago
      That would be breaking the terms of the license. Could've as well just taken some AGPL-licensed code and not release the source.
  - bayindirh 4y ago
    The issue is not credits (well, companies tend to forget doing this, too), but contribution of the improvements made to the base. xGPL family of licenses force contribution back of improvements, and rightfully, it's not about developer freedom, but user freedom.
    - pabs3 4y ago
      The copyleft licenses don't require to give anything back, they only require to give source code forward to downstream users, who may or may not contribute back upstream to the original project.
LaGrange 4y ago
[flagged]
- sph 4y ago
  People should be able to do whatever they want with the fruit of their labour, even publish software as public domain and not care if corporations want to make money off it. Who are you to tell them they are acting like a scab? Live and let live.
  - LaGrange 4y ago
    [flagged]
    - dspillett 4y ago
      If we are going to throw words at each other, I could equally throw zealot at you. That sort of attitude tars the rest of us, so you are damaging the reports of the things you seek to protect. I'm a fan of AGPLv3, for the reasons you state, but throwing insults at others for having a different preference just makes you look dickish and by the indirect inference of outsiders makes other AGPL proponents look dickish.
      - LaGrange 4y ago
        [flagged]
        dang 4y ago
        Please stop posting flamewar comments, especially of the ideological sort. You've done it repeatedly in this thread, and in other places recently. We have to ban such accounts, regardless of which ideology they favor. It's not what this site is for, and destroys what it is for. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
      - dang 4y ago
goodpoint 4y ago
> I just want people to use my stuff As a developer and end user I cannot use a lot of software because it's compiled into closed source stuff or in locked down devices, thanks to MIT. On top of that such software and devices are even spying on me. While I'm busy contributing to FOSS for free.
- Aeolun 4y ago
  You feel like you have some inherent right to all the stuff that’s created by commercial entities? Making the code anything but MIT just means it’s not used at all, not that companies will suddenly start publishing their source code.
  - pmontra 4y ago
    Counter examples to the "nobody use X because it's GPLed" argument: the Linux kernel, WordPress, MariaDB.
    - bayindirh 4y ago
      Don't forget NextCloud.
      - nequo 4y ago
        And Emacs, GCC, coreutils, and GNOME.
        bayindirh 4y ago
        I use only GCC, because it's GPLed, and I don't use LLVM toolchain, because it's not GPLed.
  - ilyt 4y ago
    > You feel like you have some inherent right to all the stuff that’s created by commercial entities? The "commercial entities" built 99% on stuff that they got for free ? How about they keep their 1% of the stuff that was made wholly by them, but give back the 1% of the code they changed in 99% they took ?
ilyt 4y ago
I use MIT for "whatever random crap I wrote that someone else might find useful" and GPL/AGPL for "actual software I'm developing for longer time and maybe want contributors to"
gwd 4y ago
I actually find I feel differently for different projects. For smallish things that I made for myself, are useful but not particularly complicated -- things that someone else could easily replicate in less than a day -- I often license them MIT. Partly this has come from using so many other people's permissively-licensed packages in golang. But for larger, more complex projects that have significant skill -- projects that might take man-months to man-years for someone else to replicate -- I tend to want to use copyleft licenses.
sobkas 4y ago
> counterpoint: At the end of the day, I just want people to use my stuff. And its unsustainable model of development. You need contributions and developers willing to help with maintenance and development otherwise your project will stagnate and no one will use it(xfree86). I see only one case for permissive licence use, a reference implementation of something. Where it's purpose is for people to take it and incorporate it into their codebase without any changes(or minimal). It have problems with vendors taking source and extending it with their secret sauce(Unix wars, Kerberos(?)) but advantages are greater than potential abuse. Maybe also a case when you drop code and run in other direction(with no or minimal maintenance). It's not great development process either. >Right now, 99% of what I write ends up MIT because I just want the shortest and most permissive license for others to use what I create without bothering me. You still need a lawyer evaluate any licence even short ones. Short ones have problem that they leave more to interpretation/relie more heavily on copyright law/patent law/their interpretation can widely differ based on jurisdiction etc.. So while they can be shorter, interpretation can be as hard as long ones. Especially if copyright owner is hostile. > Not to discount the feelings of others, but in a sense I only wish I could have these problems. You started comment with desire for others to use your software. But people won't use it if it's stagnating, lacks features or is unreliable. Especially if proprietary fork covers this problems. To stay relevant you need contributions and development time. And getting contributions can be hard if licence doesn't enforces giving back.
- snovv_crash 4y ago
  The issue is that people won't use my stuff because the licence is viral and requires them to relicense just to use my code, even if my code is 1% of their codebase and they spent years of tedious effort making their IP. To me this is an onerous requirement. On the other hand, if they take my code and make some changes to it, and then sell access over a network, I want those changes to be brought back upstream. So to me, something like ALGPL (does that exist?) or A-MPLv2 would be ideal. Then again, I mostly write computer vision pipelines, which are very much on the library side.

by aliqot 4y ago

YPPH 4y ago

It possibly depends on your project. If you're running a password manager business, it makes little sense to provide all your source code to a competitor to enable them to build upon your project, make money, and not provide any of the code changes in return.

krageon 4y ago

You will feel different when some giant enterprise takes your shit, locks it up and never contributes any improvements back. Or maybe you would not. I definitely would :)

bombolo 4y ago
Besides not contributing, they will start opening bug reports and ask you to fix them ASAP.
- Aeolun 4y ago
  So they’re contributing bug reports. That’s a win!
  - bombolo 4y ago
    Feature requests aren't "contributions". Also bugs due to "I didn't bother to read the documentation". Also legitimate bugs with the attitude of "my production env is down because of this, so fix it at once". The entitlement is strong.
- Spivak 4y ago
  And then use your lack of not wanting to prioritize free work for corporate daddy as evidence that the project has stalled and a "community" fork is necessary.

jhasse 4y ago

Have you considered using zlib license instead of MIT? Because if people "just use" MIT licensed stuff, they must include the license code. With the zlib license they only need to do that if they fork the source code.

markkitti 4y ago
There may be some confusion about which MIT license we are talking about as there is more than one that originates from MIT or has MIT in the name. When people refer to "MIT License" they usually mean the Expat License: > Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any person obtaining a copy of this software and associated documentation files (the "Software"), to deal in the Software without restriction, including without limitation the rights to use, copy, modify, merge, publish, distribute, sublicense, and/or sell copies of the Software, and to permit persons to whom the Software is furnished to do so, subject to the following conditions: > The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be included in all copies or substantial portions of the Software. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MIT_License?wprov=sfla1 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MIT_License?wprov=sfla1
- jhasse 4y ago
  > The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be included in all copies or substantial portions of the Software. So ... I must include the license code when I redistribute the binary of the software?

bayindirh 4y ago

counterpoint: At the end of the day, I want people to use my stuff, but not grab and run with it, claiming ownership of it, depriving future users of the freedoms in exchange for improvements. I don't care about monetization or $BIG_CORP's fascination with it. I developed this thing to stay open. It's not up for grabs.

remix2000 4y ago
MIT doesn't allow no corporate to claim ownership on your software, much unlike open-core GNU licenses that promote CLA-s and thwart any competition.
- papruapap 4y ago
  They will do a fancy wrapper and no credits will be given though. Users will never see MyApp only the MyAppFancyCloudVersion
  - remix2000 4y ago
    That would be breaking the terms of the license. Could've as well just taken some AGPL-licensed code and not release the source.
- bayindirh 4y ago
  The issue is not credits (well, companies tend to forget doing this, too), but contribution of the improvements made to the base. xGPL family of licenses force contribution back of improvements, and rightfully, it's not about developer freedom, but user freedom.
  - pabs3 4y ago
    The copyleft licenses don't require to give anything back, they only require to give source code forward to downstream users, who may or may not contribute back upstream to the original project.

LaGrange 4y ago

[flagged]

sph 4y ago
People should be able to do whatever they want with the fruit of their labour, even publish software as public domain and not care if corporations want to make money off it. Who are you to tell them they are acting like a scab? Live and let live.
- LaGrange 4y ago
  [flagged]
  - dspillett 4y ago
    If we are going to throw words at each other, I could equally throw zealot at you. That sort of attitude tars the rest of us, so you are damaging the reports of the things you seek to protect. I'm a fan of AGPLv3, for the reasons you state, but throwing insults at others for having a different preference just makes you look dickish and by the indirect inference of outsiders makes other AGPL proponents look dickish.
    - LaGrange 4y ago
      [flagged]
      - dang 4y ago
        Please stop posting flamewar comments, especially of the ideological sort. You've done it repeatedly in this thread, and in other places recently. We have to ban such accounts, regardless of which ideology they favor. It's not what this site is for, and destroys what it is for. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
    - dang 4y ago

goodpoint 4y ago

> I just want people to use my stuff As a developer and end user I cannot use a lot of software because it's compiled into closed source stuff or in locked down devices, thanks to MIT. On top of that such software and devices are even spying on me. While I'm busy contributing to FOSS for free.

Aeolun 4y ago
You feel like you have some inherent right to all the stuff that’s created by commercial entities? Making the code anything but MIT just means it’s not used at all, not that companies will suddenly start publishing their source code.
- pmontra 4y ago
  Counter examples to the "nobody use X because it's GPLed" argument: the Linux kernel, WordPress, MariaDB.
  - bayindirh 4y ago
    Don't forget NextCloud.
    - nequo 4y ago
      And Emacs, GCC, coreutils, and GNOME.
      - bayindirh 4y ago
        I use only GCC, because it's GPLed, and I don't use LLVM toolchain, because it's not GPLed.
- ilyt 4y ago
  > You feel like you have some inherent right to all the stuff that’s created by commercial entities? The "commercial entities" built 99% on stuff that they got for free ? How about they keep their 1% of the stuff that was made wholly by them, but give back the 1% of the code they changed in 99% they took ?

ilyt 4y ago

I use MIT for "whatever random crap I wrote that someone else might find useful" and GPL/AGPL for "actual software I'm developing for longer time and maybe want contributors to"

gwd 4y ago

I actually find I feel differently for different projects. For smallish things that I made for myself, are useful but not particularly complicated -- things that someone else could easily replicate in less than a day -- I often license them MIT. Partly this has come from using so many other people's permissively-licensed packages in golang. But for larger, more complex projects that have significant skill -- projects that might take man-months to man-years for someone else to replicate -- I tend to want to use copyleft licenses.

sobkas 4y ago

> counterpoint: At the end of the day, I just want people to use my stuff. And its unsustainable model of development. You need contributions and developers willing to help with maintenance and development otherwise your project will stagnate and no one will use it(xfree86). I see only one case for permissive licence use, a reference implementation of something. Where it's purpose is for people to take it and incorporate it into their codebase without any changes(or minimal). It have problems with vendors taking source and extending it with their secret sauce(Unix wars, Kerberos(?)) but advantages are greater than potential abuse. Maybe also a case when you drop code and run in other direction(with no or minimal maintenance). It's not great development process either. >Right now, 99% of what I write ends up MIT because I just want the shortest and most permissive license for others to use what I create without bothering me. You still need a lawyer evaluate any licence even short ones. Short ones have problem that they leave more to interpretation/relie more heavily on copyright law/patent law/their interpretation can widely differ based on jurisdiction etc.. So while they can be shorter, interpretation can be as hard as long ones. Especially if copyright owner is hostile. > Not to discount the feelings of others, but in a sense I only wish I could have these problems. You started comment with desire for others to use your software. But people won't use it if it's stagnating, lacks features or is unreliable. Especially if proprietary fork covers this problems. To stay relevant you need contributions and development time. And getting contributions can be hard if licence doesn't enforces giving back.

snovv_crash 4y ago
The issue is that people won't use my stuff because the licence is viral and requires them to relicense just to use my code, even if my code is 1% of their codebase and they spent years of tedious effort making their IP. To me this is an onerous requirement. On the other hand, if they take my code and make some changes to it, and then sell access over a network, I want those changes to be brought back upstream. So to me, something like ALGPL (does that exist?) or A-MPLv2 would be ideal. Then again, I mostly write computer vision pipelines, which are very much on the library side.