8 ms·

Htmx changes license to Zero-Clause BSD

213 points by jicea 3y ago

samsquire 3y ago
I use the zero clause licence for my all my work because it just removes all the overhead of using my code. I think (please correct my understanding) zero clause BSD can be embedded in a GPL project too, it just becomes one-way included, subsumed into the GPL project and then under the GPL licence. (Relicenced) Could the author of HTMX explain their reasoning for changing the licence? I am curious?
- stavros 3y ago
  IANAL, but yep, that sounds about right, the more restrictive license then applies. Of course, anyone can use the original, BSD copy of the code, without the restrictions.
  - samsquire 3y ago
    I would have hope that anybody who uses your code doesn't want to keep it a secret, because it would be good if people use the same common base code and changes can benefit everyone. Since there's no requirement to credit a zero clause licenced BSD code, someone who receives the BSD code compiled might not know it's included but that's the risk I'm taking.
- recursivedoubts 3y ago
  It was mainly as a joke, but I wanted to remove the attribution clauses, they just seemed dumb for a single-file javascript library that was probably going to be minimized anyway, where are you supposed to stick the license?
  - skybrian 3y ago
    Some companies are careful to include all the libraries' licenses when minimizing JavaScript code. There are tools to do it. But it seems wasteful, so it's great that you removed the requirement.
    - yawaramin 3y ago
      I'll bet $10 that the compressed size shows no discernible difference.
  - zvr 3y ago
    Thank you for this! It lifts a significant burden for people/projects/organizations who want to release software while complying with all license obligations.
recursivedoubts 3y ago
background: - over the weekend I started making the @htmx_org twitter account increasingly corporate looking - started talking a lot about MSFT, implying they were interested in htmx - someone asked if MSFT was going to buy htmx: https://fxtwitter.com/htmx_org/status/1746656784088228204 https://fxtwitter.com/htmx_org/status/1746656784088228204 - i then put up a post about changing the htmx license, implying i was going to restrict it due to MSFT interest: https://fxtwitter.com/htmx_org/status/1746736273728094323 https://fxtwitter.com/htmx_org/status/1746736273728094323 - I then made is 0BSD instead of 2BSD: https://fxtwitter.com/htmx_org/status/1746880860723544211 https://fxtwitter.com/htmx_org/status/1746880860723544211 - I then posted the "offer" i got from MSFT (some credit card thing) https://fxtwitter.com/htmx_org/status/1746895016256328079 https://fxtwitter.com/htmx_org/status/1746895016256328079 - And explained how there were no lies involved in the ruse: https://fxtwitter.com/htmx_org/status/1746924827641102719 https://fxtwitter.com/htmx_org/status/1746924827641102719 the reason i did all this is for the lols
- saghm 3y ago
  > - I then posted the "offer" i got from MSFT (some credit card thing) https://fxtwitter.com/htmx_org/status/1746895016256328079 https://fxtwitter.com/htmx_org/status/1746895016256328079 Know your worth; don't sell out for anything under 20% cash back at Bed, Bath & Beyond!
  - internet101010 3y ago
    Only applicable to private label items.
    - dan15 3y ago
      I used one of their 20% off coupons for a Simplehuman bin a while back (one of the ones with recycling on the left and trash on the right). Having said that, I don't think they actually take coupons any more. It stopped when all the physical stores closed. The offer here is a cash back offer, where you pay the full price then another company (like TopCashback, Rakuten, apparently Microsoft too) gives you 10% cash back.
singron 3y ago
This made me wonder what the shortest open source license is, and it seems to be the Fair License: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_License https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_License > <Copyright Information> > > Usage of the works is permitted provided that this instrument is retained with the works, so that any entity that uses the works is notified of this instrument. > > DISCLAIMER: THE WORKS ARE WITHOUT WARRANTY. EDIT: I would not use this license. I'm not sure how this got approved by the OSI, but I'm not a lawyer. Some of the email threads think the disclaimer is insufficient, and I'm not entirely sure that it confers all the expected rights since it only says "Usage" (copying, modification, distribution).
- kotborealis 3y ago
  "Don't ask me about it License" looks a bit shorter[0]. 0: https://github.com/ErikMcClure/bad-licenses/blob/master/dont-ask-me.md https://github.com/ErikMcClure/bad-licenses/blob/master/dont...
- hiccuphippo 3y ago
  Is License golf a thing? ChatGPT reduces that from 205 to 130 bytes: The works can be used as long as this instrument is kept alongside them to notify users. The works are provided without warranty.
- zvr 3y ago
  If you want statistics about license texts, many years ago I had published a peer-reviewed article: Zavras, Alexios. Twenty-five years of school? Analysis of Free and Open Source software license texts. Journal of Open Law, Technology & Society, [S.l.], v. 8, n. 1, p. 29-44, nov. 2016. ISSN 2666-8106. Available at: <https://www.jolts.world/index.php/jolts/article/view/111 https://www.jolts.world/index.php/jolts/article/view/111>.
saghm 3y ago
Is "zero-clause BSD" a joke, or is it considered a legitimate license? If the latter, does it actually differ from the MIT license in anything other than name?
- sethops1 3y ago
  It is approved by OSI[1] [1] https://opensource.org/license/0bsd/ https://opensource.org/license/0bsd/
- explodingcamera 3y ago
  zero-clause BSD is essentially a modified MIT that doesn't even require attribution, so essentially a "public domain" like license.
- kube-system 3y ago
  Presuming that 'MIT' was a typo: most BSD-licensed software doesn't use the original (4-clause) BSD license, most are under variants: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BSD_licenses https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BSD_licenses
  - saghm 3y ago
    No, it wasn't a typo; the 0-clause BSD looks pretty similar to the MIT license, and from a cursory reading, it appears that the clauses are what makes the BSD license different from the MIT license. I was wondering if my reading is correct or if I've missed something.
    - kube-system 3y ago
      MIT has several (very important) requirements that BSD-0 does not. MIT is more similar to BSD-2-clause. It requires the user to include the copyright notice and disclaimer in any distributions.
- 0x69420 3y ago
  it eschews attribution, making it just about the closest thing to a public-domain dedication that still retains the appropriate verbiage to hold up to legal scrutiny
simonw 3y ago
I hadn't seen Zero-Clause BSD before: https://opensource.org/license/0bsd/ https://opensource.org/license/0bsd/ > Note: Despite its name, Zero-Clause BSD is an alteration of the ISC license, and is not textually derived from licenses in the BSD family. Zero-Clause BSD was originally approved under the name “Free Public License 1.0.0”. Anyone seen a good write-up of the tradeoffs for this license? I like how short and simple it is.
- ameliaquining 3y ago
  It's appropriate for software designed for use cases where an attribution requirement would be inconvenient or otherwise undesirable. For example, https://github.com/microsoft/tslib https://github.com/microsoft/tslib uses it, because that library is automatically included in any TypeScript program that uses downleveling, so if it had an attribution requirement then that requirement would apply to every program written in TypeScript, which nobody wants. (GCC and LLVM do something similar with their special runtime-library exceptions to the GPL and Apache License, respectively, but tslib lives in a separate repository from the rest of TypeScript and so could easily just get a separate license.)
- zvr 3y ago
  It's a nice license when you don't want to burden users of your software with providing attribution. A typical use case is for stuff that will be included in many different projects, while not being a crucial part of it. For example, all the code snippets in the Intel Software Developer Manuals (https://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/developer/articles/technical/intel-sdm.html https://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/developer/articles/t...) are licensed under 0BSD, so that people can easily re-use them (with or without adapting them).
- etoulas 3y ago
  This is handy but might not classify as a "write-up". https://www.tldrlegal.com/ https://www.tldrlegal.com/
theanonymousone 3y ago
Is there a license that requires (or encourages) contributing back the modifications, _but only if the upstream project is open source/non-commercial_?
- zilti 3y ago
  You'd have to dual license your code afaik, the way Qt did/does it
p8donald 3y ago
If I contribute code to an open source project under the BSD 2-Clause license and don't sign any contributor license agreement, can the maintainer relicense the code without getting my permission?
- njharman 3y ago
  Sure, anyone can do anything. It would be up to you (and hopefully a lawyer) to then sue them and let judge/jury decide. Or, convince authorities that some criminal law was violated and they should investigate. Both of which are hard and/or expensive. So most rely on public shame. Out them on social media and foment outrage.
- colejohnson66 3y ago
  In the US, generally no.
- junon 3y ago
  Yes, unless they change the copyright. You own the copyright to your code contribution. The license only states how the copyrighted code can be used.
logicprog 3y ago
The state of software licenses makes me a bit sad. On the one hand we have open source licenses like the MIT and Apache 2.0 licenses that give corporations free reign to enclose and exploit the software commons without any real limit or any requirement to give back to the things they are getting rich off of, and then on the other hand we have the GPL and LGPL licenses which are too aggressive and stringent, while also being somewhat vague — see for instance the almost superstitious fear companies have about using LGPL code even when it would probably be fine — which means that almost no one ends up using those licenses, because companies are too afraid to use software that is licensed under them (and therefore wouldn't be invested in them at all, which means they give back to those projects even less than they do for projects under open source licenses) and because even FLOSS developers just don't want to deal with the dependency headaches of using GPL code. Which in turn ironically means that, despite being designed to very aggressively protect and help the software commons, the GPL and LGPL licenses end up doing worse for the software commons then open source licenses do, in general, because no one uses them or invests in them in the first place, and of course there are going to be fewer contributions to the software commons from a license that is never used or invested in then there are going to be from a license that is widely used and deeply invested in but has fewer requirements, because it's a matter of percentages essentially. So in essence both licenses fail to do what at least I feel like they should ideally do, although for opposite reasons. Ultimately, I think this stems from the fact that Open Source licenses were explicitly created by people who wanted to be friendly to corporations, and the GPL licenses were created by the FSF, who are essentially the vegans of software. So I think in the long run what we need is a free software movement that is detached from both the dogmatism and absolutism of the Free Software Foundation and the desire to suck up with corporations. A movement that perhaps sees itself as being a check on the balance of corporations in the software world, but in a more pragmatic way. I think the sort of license a movement like that might produce might end up looking something like the MPL 2.0: it allows combined works that use the existing code in any way they want, while requiring changes or improvements to the existing code to be shared back to the community, so that there is a clear requirement to give back to the things you benefited from, without trying to also take away the things you or your team wrote themselves. This is similar to the LGPL, but unlike that license the basic unit of separation is clearer: files. Original source code files and any files containing substantial portions of code copied from the original source code are considered part of the original work, and therefore something to which changes must be contributed back to the community, but anything outside those files can stay proprietary. This is a lot clearer and more flexible than the LGPL, meaning developers from FOSS and from corporations can use code under the without headaches, while still not allowing companies to just completely free ride on the things the software community makes, and we get to have both because unlike the LGPL the MPL is willing to sacrifice some stringency and control in return for those benefits. Additionally, and perhaps more importantly, it doesn't have particularly onerous source distribution requirements or requirements to distribute your own application as object code or provide some other way for users to swap out the version of the free software code that's being used, which likewise does sacrifice some FSF purity, but in return for a massive decrease in the complexity, onerousness, and annoyingness of the license requirements as a whole. So yeah, the MPL isn't perfect — maybe the ideal free software license would be the LGPL with just clearer specification of where the boundaries are between the LGPL code and the proprietary code, and no annoying object code or dynamic linking requirements — but it's a lot closer to where I think we need to move with licenses. I don't think zero clause open source licenses are the way.
jbverschoor 3y ago
I'm curious, what exactly would a VC or MSFT want with htmx? Just talent? or the actual product/tech?
- recursivedoubts 3y ago
  I don't think there's much VCs would want w/htmx: it's a really simple concept implemented in a single js file w/no moats or obvious market opportunities as far as i can tell, and I'm a one man shop. I think I got the calls because htmx trended on twitter a couple of times. MSFT might want it because it's gotten a lot of attention lately (finished #2 in https://risingstars.js.org/2023/en#section-framework https://risingstars.js.org/2023/en#section-framework for 2023) and would give them a front-end library in the game w/ React, Vue, Svelte, etc. On the other hand, i've made the social media account pretty toxic/funny (same thing) for a big tech company and now the library is 0BSD, and htmx's agnosticism towards back end tech doesn't really dovetail w/ the Microsoft ethos.
  - gen220 3y ago
    VCs have taken a few positions in FOSS recently [1][2]. I also don't understand the financial reasoning of investing in the companies, for what they are. My guess is that it's an option on having influence on relatively influential developers in the mid-to-later stages of their career. [1]: https://techcrunch.com/2023/02/16/sequoia-backs-open-source-data-validation-framework-pydantic-to-commercialize-with-cloud-services/ https://techcrunch.com/2023/02/16/sequoia-backs-open-source-... [2]: https://www.sequoiacap.com/article/sequoia-open-source-fellowship/ https://www.sequoiacap.com/article/sequoia-open-source-fello...
alberth 3y ago
Public Domain Does this effectively make htmx public domain?
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
sortatired 3y ago
[dead]

213 points by jicea 3y ago

I use the zero clause licence for my all my work because it just removes all the overhead of using my code. I think (please correct my understanding) zero clause BSD can be embedded in a GPL project too, it just becomes one-way included, subsumed into the GPL project and then under the GPL licence. (Relicenced) Could the author of HTMX explain their reasoning for changing the licence? I am curious?

stavros 3y ago
IANAL, but yep, that sounds about right, the more restrictive license then applies. Of course, anyone can use the original, BSD copy of the code, without the restrictions.
- samsquire 3y ago
  I would have hope that anybody who uses your code doesn't want to keep it a secret, because it would be good if people use the same common base code and changes can benefit everyone. Since there's no requirement to credit a zero clause licenced BSD code, someone who receives the BSD code compiled might not know it's included but that's the risk I'm taking.
recursivedoubts 3y ago
It was mainly as a joke, but I wanted to remove the attribution clauses, they just seemed dumb for a single-file javascript library that was probably going to be minimized anyway, where are you supposed to stick the license?
- skybrian 3y ago
  Some companies are careful to include all the libraries' licenses when minimizing JavaScript code. There are tools to do it. But it seems wasteful, so it's great that you removed the requirement.
  - yawaramin 3y ago
    I'll bet $10 that the compressed size shows no discernible difference.
- zvr 3y ago
  Thank you for this! It lifts a significant burden for people/projects/organizations who want to release software while complying with all license obligations.

recursivedoubts 3y ago

background: - over the weekend I started making the @htmx_org twitter account increasingly corporate looking - started talking a lot about MSFT, implying they were interested in htmx - someone asked if MSFT was going to buy htmx: https://fxtwitter.com/htmx_org/status/1746656784088228204 https://fxtwitter.com/htmx_org/status/1746656784088228204 - i then put up a post about changing the htmx license, implying i was going to restrict it due to MSFT interest: https://fxtwitter.com/htmx_org/status/1746736273728094323 https://fxtwitter.com/htmx_org/status/1746736273728094323 - I then made is 0BSD instead of 2BSD: https://fxtwitter.com/htmx_org/status/1746880860723544211 https://fxtwitter.com/htmx_org/status/1746880860723544211 - I then posted the "offer" i got from MSFT (some credit card thing) https://fxtwitter.com/htmx_org/status/1746895016256328079 https://fxtwitter.com/htmx_org/status/1746895016256328079 - And explained how there were no lies involved in the ruse: https://fxtwitter.com/htmx_org/status/1746924827641102719 https://fxtwitter.com/htmx_org/status/1746924827641102719 the reason i did all this is for the lols

saghm 3y ago
> - I then posted the "offer" i got from MSFT (some credit card thing) https://fxtwitter.com/htmx_org/status/1746895016256328079 https://fxtwitter.com/htmx_org/status/1746895016256328079 Know your worth; don't sell out for anything under 20% cash back at Bed, Bath & Beyond!
- internet101010 3y ago
  Only applicable to private label items.
  - dan15 3y ago
    I used one of their 20% off coupons for a Simplehuman bin a while back (one of the ones with recycling on the left and trash on the right). Having said that, I don't think they actually take coupons any more. It stopped when all the physical stores closed. The offer here is a cash back offer, where you pay the full price then another company (like TopCashback, Rakuten, apparently Microsoft too) gives you 10% cash back.

singron 3y ago

This made me wonder what the shortest open source license is, and it seems to be the Fair License: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_License https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_License > <Copyright Information> > > Usage of the works is permitted provided that this instrument is retained with the works, so that any entity that uses the works is notified of this instrument. > > DISCLAIMER: THE WORKS ARE WITHOUT WARRANTY. EDIT: I would not use this license. I'm not sure how this got approved by the OSI, but I'm not a lawyer. Some of the email threads think the disclaimer is insufficient, and I'm not entirely sure that it confers all the expected rights since it only says "Usage" (copying, modification, distribution).

kotborealis 3y ago
"Don't ask me about it License" looks a bit shorter[0]. 0: https://github.com/ErikMcClure/bad-licenses/blob/master/dont-ask-me.md https://github.com/ErikMcClure/bad-licenses/blob/master/dont...
hiccuphippo 3y ago
Is License golf a thing? ChatGPT reduces that from 205 to 130 bytes: The works can be used as long as this instrument is kept alongside them to notify users. The works are provided without warranty.
zvr 3y ago
If you want statistics about license texts, many years ago I had published a peer-reviewed article: Zavras, Alexios. Twenty-five years of school? Analysis of Free and Open Source software license texts. Journal of Open Law, Technology & Society, [S.l.], v. 8, n. 1, p. 29-44, nov. 2016. ISSN 2666-8106. Available at: <https://www.jolts.world/index.php/jolts/article/view/111 https://www.jolts.world/index.php/jolts/article/view/111>.

saghm 3y ago

Is "zero-clause BSD" a joke, or is it considered a legitimate license? If the latter, does it actually differ from the MIT license in anything other than name?

sethops1 3y ago
It is approved by OSI[1] [1] https://opensource.org/license/0bsd/ https://opensource.org/license/0bsd/
explodingcamera 3y ago
zero-clause BSD is essentially a modified MIT that doesn't even require attribution, so essentially a "public domain" like license.
kube-system 3y ago
Presuming that 'MIT' was a typo: most BSD-licensed software doesn't use the original (4-clause) BSD license, most are under variants: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BSD_licenses https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BSD_licenses
- saghm 3y ago
  No, it wasn't a typo; the 0-clause BSD looks pretty similar to the MIT license, and from a cursory reading, it appears that the clauses are what makes the BSD license different from the MIT license. I was wondering if my reading is correct or if I've missed something.
  - kube-system 3y ago
    MIT has several (very important) requirements that BSD-0 does not. MIT is more similar to BSD-2-clause. It requires the user to include the copyright notice and disclaimer in any distributions.
0x69420 3y ago
it eschews attribution, making it just about the closest thing to a public-domain dedication that still retains the appropriate verbiage to hold up to legal scrutiny

simonw 3y ago

I hadn't seen Zero-Clause BSD before: https://opensource.org/license/0bsd/ https://opensource.org/license/0bsd/ > Note: Despite its name, Zero-Clause BSD is an alteration of the ISC license, and is not textually derived from licenses in the BSD family. Zero-Clause BSD was originally approved under the name “Free Public License 1.0.0”. Anyone seen a good write-up of the tradeoffs for this license? I like how short and simple it is.

ameliaquining 3y ago
It's appropriate for software designed for use cases where an attribution requirement would be inconvenient or otherwise undesirable. For example, https://github.com/microsoft/tslib https://github.com/microsoft/tslib uses it, because that library is automatically included in any TypeScript program that uses downleveling, so if it had an attribution requirement then that requirement would apply to every program written in TypeScript, which nobody wants. (GCC and LLVM do something similar with their special runtime-library exceptions to the GPL and Apache License, respectively, but tslib lives in a separate repository from the rest of TypeScript and so could easily just get a separate license.)
zvr 3y ago
It's a nice license when you don't want to burden users of your software with providing attribution. A typical use case is for stuff that will be included in many different projects, while not being a crucial part of it. For example, all the code snippets in the Intel Software Developer Manuals (https://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/developer/articles/technical/intel-sdm.html https://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/developer/articles/t...) are licensed under 0BSD, so that people can easily re-use them (with or without adapting them).
etoulas 3y ago
This is handy but might not classify as a "write-up". https://www.tldrlegal.com/ https://www.tldrlegal.com/

theanonymousone 3y ago

Is there a license that requires (or encourages) contributing back the modifications, _but only if the upstream project is open source/non-commercial_?

zilti 3y ago
You'd have to dual license your code afaik, the way Qt did/does it

p8donald 3y ago

If I contribute code to an open source project under the BSD 2-Clause license and don't sign any contributor license agreement, can the maintainer relicense the code without getting my permission?

njharman 3y ago
Sure, anyone can do anything. It would be up to you (and hopefully a lawyer) to then sue them and let judge/jury decide. Or, convince authorities that some criminal law was violated and they should investigate. Both of which are hard and/or expensive. So most rely on public shame. Out them on social media and foment outrage.
colejohnson66 3y ago
In the US, generally no.
junon 3y ago
Yes, unless they change the copyright. You own the copyright to your code contribution. The license only states how the copyrighted code can be used.

logicprog 3y ago

The state of software licenses makes me a bit sad. On the one hand we have open source licenses like the MIT and Apache 2.0 licenses that give corporations free reign to enclose and exploit the software commons without any real limit or any requirement to give back to the things they are getting rich off of, and then on the other hand we have the GPL and LGPL licenses which are too aggressive and stringent, while also being somewhat vague — see for instance the almost superstitious fear companies have about using LGPL code even when it would probably be fine — which means that almost no one ends up using those licenses, because companies are too afraid to use software that is licensed under them (and therefore wouldn't be invested in them at all, which means they give back to those projects even less than they do for projects under open source licenses) and because even FLOSS developers just don't want to deal with the dependency headaches of using GPL code. Which in turn ironically means that, despite being designed to very aggressively protect and help the software commons, the GPL and LGPL licenses end up doing worse for the software commons then open source licenses do, in general, because no one uses them or invests in them in the first place, and of course there are going to be fewer contributions to the software commons from a license that is never used or invested in then there are going to be from a license that is widely used and deeply invested in but has fewer requirements, because it's a matter of percentages essentially. So in essence both licenses fail to do what at least I feel like they should ideally do, although for opposite reasons. Ultimately, I think this stems from the fact that Open Source licenses were explicitly created by people who wanted to be friendly to corporations, and the GPL licenses were created by the FSF, who are essentially the vegans of software. So I think in the long run what we need is a free software movement that is detached from both the dogmatism and absolutism of the Free Software Foundation and the desire to suck up with corporations. A movement that perhaps sees itself as being a check on the balance of corporations in the software world, but in a more pragmatic way. I think the sort of license a movement like that might produce might end up looking something like the MPL 2.0: it allows combined works that use the existing code in any way they want, while requiring changes or improvements to the existing code to be shared back to the community, so that there is a clear requirement to give back to the things you benefited from, without trying to also take away the things you or your team wrote themselves. This is similar to the LGPL, but unlike that license the basic unit of separation is clearer: files. Original source code files and any files containing substantial portions of code copied from the original source code are considered part of the original work, and therefore something to which changes must be contributed back to the community, but anything outside those files can stay proprietary. This is a lot clearer and more flexible than the LGPL, meaning developers from FOSS and from corporations can use code under the without headaches, while still not allowing companies to just completely free ride on the things the software community makes, and we get to have both because unlike the LGPL the MPL is willing to sacrifice some stringency and control in return for those benefits. Additionally, and perhaps more importantly, it doesn't have particularly onerous source distribution requirements or requirements to distribute your own application as object code or provide some other way for users to swap out the version of the free software code that's being used, which likewise does sacrifice some FSF purity, but in return for a massive decrease in the complexity, onerousness, and annoyingness of the license requirements as a whole. So yeah, the MPL isn't perfect — maybe the ideal free software license would be the LGPL with just clearer specification of where the boundaries are between the LGPL code and the proprietary code, and no annoying object code or dynamic linking requirements — but it's a lot closer to where I think we need to move with licenses. I don't think zero clause open source licenses are the way.

jbverschoor 3y ago

I'm curious, what exactly would a VC or MSFT want with htmx? Just talent? or the actual product/tech?

recursivedoubts 3y ago
I don't think there's much VCs would want w/htmx: it's a really simple concept implemented in a single js file w/no moats or obvious market opportunities as far as i can tell, and I'm a one man shop. I think I got the calls because htmx trended on twitter a couple of times. MSFT might want it because it's gotten a lot of attention lately (finished #2 in https://risingstars.js.org/2023/en#section-framework https://risingstars.js.org/2023/en#section-framework for 2023) and would give them a front-end library in the game w/ React, Vue, Svelte, etc. On the other hand, i've made the social media account pretty toxic/funny (same thing) for a big tech company and now the library is 0BSD, and htmx's agnosticism towards back end tech doesn't really dovetail w/ the Microsoft ethos.
- gen220 3y ago
  VCs have taken a few positions in FOSS recently [1][2]. I also don't understand the financial reasoning of investing in the companies, for what they are. My guess is that it's an option on having influence on relatively influential developers in the mid-to-later stages of their career. [1]: https://techcrunch.com/2023/02/16/sequoia-backs-open-source-data-validation-framework-pydantic-to-commercialize-with-cloud-services/ https://techcrunch.com/2023/02/16/sequoia-backs-open-source-... [2]: https://www.sequoiacap.com/article/sequoia-open-source-fellowship/ https://www.sequoiacap.com/article/sequoia-open-source-fello...

alberth 3y ago

Public Domain Does this effectively make htmx public domain?

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]

sortatired 3y ago

[dead]