4 ms·

do you need to provide a license? who’s your target audience (end users and contributors) and how do you imagine their workflows looking? you hint that maybe y

do you need to provide a license? who’s your target audience (end users and contributors) and how do you imagine their workflows looking? you hint that maybe you don’t want commercial use of this thing: if you expect the person who `git clone`s your repository to be the same person that builds/assembles the product, you might also consider the option of just not providing any license. “code/build plans are freely accessible at some authoritative website/repo” might be license enough for anyone directly consuming the product, and a lack of license may be enough to scare away commercial use by any business which would adhere to your license in the first place. nailing down a license would be most relevant if you want to facilitate some kind of cottage industry, or want to invite collaborators who don’t trust you and might be wary that you’ll turn around and commercialize their contributions against their desires (i find working in low-trust environments to be exhausting, but sometimes the benefits do outweigh the costs there).

pclmulqdq 4y ago
That's a good point. I don't mind transformative commercialization, personally, but I do mind direct resale. The current application space is wide enough that there are a lot of forms of that, and none of the off-the-shelf licenses give that to me. By the way, the application is a custom trusted enclave for the cloud inside an FPGA, which essentially means a bunch of processors with some custom cryptographic accelerators and application-specific programming. I think I'm going to only end up releasing a few packageable subsets of it that do fit well with one of these licenses, like the processor core, for now. I probably won't be accepting contributions either way.