5 ms·

GPL was perfectly fine for a product like Meteor. Unless you plan to modify Meteor, ship your version and not share your changes, there are very few things you

by muyuu 15y ago

GPL was perfectly fine for a product like Meteor. Unless you plan to modify Meteor, ship your version and not share your changes, there are very few things you can do to violate the GPL by using Meteor. Meteor is neither a library nor boilerplate code to add upon. Lots of folks seem to be "hating" on GPL for no good reason, except maybe not knowing it (which is a good reason but it's hardly justifiable at this point).

ig1 15y ago
No. If you use a GPL library all of your code has to be released under a GPL compatible licence. The Meteor framework counts as a library due to the way it interacts with your code. You might be confusing it with the Lesser GPL which allows library code to be incorporated into propriety software (or websites in this case). To understand the difference between the two you should read: http://www.gnu.org/licenses/why-not-lgpl.html http://www.gnu.org/licenses/why-not-lgpl.html
- muyuu 15y ago
  It's not a library. Most users of Meteor won't even ship any code at all, they will expose sites/APIs. There's also a difference between interacting of output code and libraries.
  - ig1 15y ago
    The way Meteor works is that the client side framework is bundled with your code and pushed to the browser of the end user, it's this pushing of the merged framework + your code that counts as distribution under the GPL. The code isn't just run server side. Also you should read the following sections of the GPL faq which should help clarify your understanding of the issues: http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#WhatCaseIsOutputGPL http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#WhatCaseIsOutputGPL (the output of a GPL program is also GPL "when the program copies part of itself into the output.") http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#MereAggregation http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#MereAggregation (linking doesn't have to be in the compiler sense of the term any form of tight coupling between code is covered)
    - muyuu 15y ago
      What I don't understand well yet is the way Meteor works. I'm waiting until they (and firebase) make their final version available, although I've played a bit with them. If it does bundle itself then it could have implications. Maybe LGPL would be more reasonable then.
Egregore 15y ago
Some products offered under GPL license require you to publish your code if you use it as a library.(ExtJs was one example of this) So MIT license for Meteor will help wider adoption.
- muyuu 15y ago
  Why would you want to ship Meteor as a library? Even if you do ship it, if you don't link to it (which I don't even think you will reasonably can) you wouldn't violate GPL.

by muyuu 15y ago

ig1 15y ago

No. If you use a GPL library all of your code has to be released under a GPL compatible licence. The Meteor framework counts as a library due to the way it interacts with your code. You might be confusing it with the Lesser GPL which allows library code to be incorporated into propriety software (or websites in this case). To understand the difference between the two you should read: http://www.gnu.org/licenses/why-not-lgpl.html http://www.gnu.org/licenses/why-not-lgpl.html

muyuu 15y ago
It's not a library. Most users of Meteor won't even ship any code at all, they will expose sites/APIs. There's also a difference between interacting of output code and libraries.
- ig1 15y ago
  The way Meteor works is that the client side framework is bundled with your code and pushed to the browser of the end user, it's this pushing of the merged framework + your code that counts as distribution under the GPL. The code isn't just run server side. Also you should read the following sections of the GPL faq which should help clarify your understanding of the issues: http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#WhatCaseIsOutputGPL http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#WhatCaseIsOutputGPL (the output of a GPL program is also GPL "when the program copies part of itself into the output.") http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#MereAggregation http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#MereAggregation (linking doesn't have to be in the compiler sense of the term any form of tight coupling between code is covered)
  - muyuu 15y ago
    What I don't understand well yet is the way Meteor works. I'm waiting until they (and firebase) make their final version available, although I've played a bit with them. If it does bundle itself then it could have implications. Maybe LGPL would be more reasonable then.

Egregore 15y ago

Some products offered under GPL license require you to publish your code if you use it as a library.(ExtJs was one example of this) So MIT license for Meteor will help wider adoption.

muyuu 15y ago
Why would you want to ship Meteor as a library? Even if you do ship it, if you don't link to it (which I don't even think you will reasonably can) you wouldn't violate GPL.