3 ms·

I have to say, for the project mentioned, Litestream, which is licensed under Apache-2.0 license thus allows close-source redistribution, "Open-Source, not Open

by nirui 3y ago

I have to say, for the project mentioned, Litestream, which is licensed under Apache-2.0 license thus allows close-source redistribution, "Open-Source, not Open-Contribution" might not be the best combination for it. Because one can simply take the source code, make their own fork and never bother trying to back-contribute now that contribution is extremely hard if still possible at all. It's just not strategically smart. Don't get me wrong, doing so still make sense for this specific case where the author has many important things going on in their life other than the project (I feel it, I don't even want to read email after duty time). But for project like this, maybe one of the GPL is better? Because with GPL, you force other people to open source their forks under the same license, this enables you to cherry-pick the fork you want back to the origin, at the time of your own choose.

stock_toaster 3y ago
It works for sqlite (public domain though, not apache-2.0) https://www.sqlite.org/copyright.html https://www.sqlite.org/copyright.html
- dahart 3y ago
  The reasoning is specific and pretty interesting IMO. Contributions are accepted as long as they stay public domain. “In order to keep SQLite in the public domain and ensure that the code does not become contaminated with proprietary or licensed content, the project does not accept patches from people who have not submitted an affidavit dedicating their contribution into the public domain.” I’d guess this compares to the GPL in interesting ways too (i.e., unlike GPL public domain code can be used/copied/distributed without license, even in proprietary settings and for profit, but attribution, credit & copyright must be waived first).
nunuvit 3y ago
You've completely missed the author's point. The code itself takes negligible time and effort to write himself. Accepting code from someone else takes more time and effort than it saves.

by nirui 3y ago

stock_toaster 3y ago

It works for sqlite (public domain though, not apache-2.0) https://www.sqlite.org/copyright.html https://www.sqlite.org/copyright.html

dahart 3y ago
The reasoning is specific and pretty interesting IMO. Contributions are accepted as long as they stay public domain. “In order to keep SQLite in the public domain and ensure that the code does not become contaminated with proprietary or licensed content, the project does not accept patches from people who have not submitted an affidavit dedicating their contribution into the public domain.” I’d guess this compares to the GPL in interesting ways too (i.e., unlike GPL public domain code can be used/copied/distributed without license, even in proprietary settings and for profit, but attribution, credit & copyright must be waived first).

nunuvit 3y ago

You've completely missed the author's point. The code itself takes negligible time and effort to write himself. Accepting code from someone else takes more time and effort than it saves.