3 ms·

So the product will be open source, but you need a license to download it? So its open source, but not "free". Are there any well known licenses that support

So the product will be open source, but you need a license to download it? So its open source, but not "free". Are there any well known licenses that support this? I take it that it also means that the license will not allow for you to copy / redistribute Light Table? Does it still really qualify as open source then? Will they allow for contributors to the core of the product and if so, what rights do contributors need to sign away? That said, I think its an awesome project!

deleted 14y ago
[deleted]
jaredsohn 14y ago
In some ways it sounds like the Microsoft "Shared Source" where you are able to view the code for some of their commercial products for debugging purposes but not redistribute it. One concern is they mention that it will make use of existing open source software; presumably they mean more BSD-style code or LGPL code rather than GPL code since the license they are proposing seems incompatible with the GPL.
cmelbye 14y ago
Atlassian uses a model similar to what you're describing. If you buy a license, you get access to the source code, but you can't redistribute that source code. I don't know if that can really be considered (as the author refers it) "open source" though...
almost 14y ago
This is pretty important to me too. $50 isn't much at all for something as important as an editor but I don't think I'd consider switching if it wasn't GPL or MIT (or similar). But of course it's important that they be able to make money too, I wonder how that could work. Will pledge my $50 later today, I'll probably never switch from Emacs but I do want to see where this goes! Id make it 100 though if they promised to (properly) open source the core and the language plugins. Maybe that could be one of the things promised if they exceed their funding target?

3 ms·

So the product will be open source, but you need a license to download it? So its open source, but not "free". Are there any well known licenses that support

by siganakis 14y ago

deleted 14y ago
[deleted]
jaredsohn 14y ago
In some ways it sounds like the Microsoft "Shared Source" where you are able to view the code for some of their commercial products for debugging purposes but not redistribute it. One concern is they mention that it will make use of existing open source software; presumably they mean more BSD-style code or LGPL code rather than GPL code since the license they are proposing seems incompatible with the GPL.
cmelbye 14y ago
Atlassian uses a model similar to what you're describing. If you buy a license, you get access to the source code, but you can't redistribute that source code. I don't know if that can really be considered (as the author refers it) "open source" though...
almost 14y ago
This is pretty important to me too. $50 isn't much at all for something as important as an editor but I don't think I'd consider switching if it wasn't GPL or MIT (or similar). But of course it's important that they be able to make money too, I wonder how that could work. Will pledge my $50 later today, I'll probably never switch from Emacs but I do want to see where this goes! Id make it 100 though if they promised to (properly) open source the core and the language plugins. Maybe that could be one of the things promised if they exceed their funding target?