4 ms·

My predisposition is that the people hounding open-source devs for unpaid urgent tech support are predominantly commercial users freeloading off the software, w

by kibwen 2y ago

My predisposition is that the people hounding open-source devs for unpaid urgent tech support are predominantly commercial users freeloading off the software, which, amusingly, means that a compelling argument in favor of licensing your software as GPL is to scare away these sorts of users.

codetrotter 2y ago
Or even AGPL just to be sure (Personally I’ll keep licensing my stuff ISC, but I have the luxury of having near zero external attention on any of my open source stuff :p)
jmclnx 2y ago
I would suggest GPL3, that would really scare away commercial users. For example, IBM, the owner of Red Hat, forbids the use of GPL3 software on their equipment by their employees.
- dvfjsdhgfv 2y ago
  > For example, IBM, the owner of Red Hat, forbids the use of GPL3 software on their equipment by their employees. This I can understand. But the fact that they joined the witch-hunt for Stallman after the slandering piece by Selam Gano, who knowingly presented untrue statements as facts, and these were later picked up by mainstream media (some of these lies are still out there uncorrected[0]), that is still beyond me. [0] Google for "Stallman defends Epstein", e.g. https://techcrunch.com/2019/09/16/computer-scientist-richard-stallman-who-defended-jeffrey-epstein-resigns-from-mit-csail-and-the-free-software-foundation/ https://techcrunch.com/2019/09/16/computer-scientist-richard...
- RobotToaster 2y ago
  AGPL for extra garlic.
  - SAI_Peregrinus 2y ago
    I'd love an AGPL-ish license that's more like the LGPL. Only changes to the licensed code need to be opened, not anything linking against it, but they need to be opened even if the only distribution is by network access. And no need to send object files. Just a plain "if you modify my code, you MUST make your modifications publicly available".
  - exe34 2y ago
    I love AGPL, I wish it had taken off more.
    - zaphod420 2y ago
      Link for the lazy: https://www.gnu.org/licenses/why-affero-gpl.en.html https://www.gnu.org/licenses/why-affero-gpl.en.html
      - tzs 2y ago
        That link is OK for the general concepts, but some of the details aren't quite right so read the license text if you are in a situation where the details matter. For example: > The GNU Affero General Public License is a modified version of the ordinary GNU GPL version 3. It has one added requirement: if you run a modified program on a server and let other users communicate with it there, your server must also allow them to download the source code corresponding to the modified version running there. That's an overstatement. The requirement is that you make source available for your program is for "users interacting with it remotely through a computer network". There are plenty of ways that you could let users communicate with a program on your server that do not involve remote communication through a computer network.
        exe34 2y ago
        > There are plenty of ways that you could let users communicate with a program on your server that do not involve remote communication through a computer network. Could you give some examples?
        tzs 2y ago
        There are a couple of categories of ways to communicate that would not involve remote communications through a computer network. One category is communication that is not through a computer network, such as through serial terminals or by voice. Another category would be communication that is not remote. AGPL fails to define what it means by "interacting remotely", but where they use that phrase is in a section titled "Remote Network Interaction" which suggests they are using "remote" the way people generally use it in the context of networks. Remote in that context means generally not on the same LAN. If that's the case then while communication over the LAN would be over a computer network it would not be remote communication.
dmitrygr 2y ago
+1. GPL3 specifically scares them away well
dagmx 2y ago
My experience is that it’s not higher end commercial users who would actually harass the dev, but lower scale commercial users who don’t care and the license wouldn’t scare them off. Any large company that would care about the license, would also have terms on their employees to not directly interact with projects and would likely internally patch it if needed instead.
- skybrian 2y ago
  Your first sentence is a little confusing, but I can confirm that Google, at least, uses lots of open source software, and the build system automatically checks that all the third-party libraries used in an executable have a suitable license. [1] They also vendor everything and will patch security issues locally. It’s been a long time since I worked there, but I don’t know any reason that they wouldn’t send a patch upstream as well. [1] https://docs.bazel.build/versions/0.24.0/be/functions.html#licenses https://docs.bazel.build/versions/0.24.0/be/functions.html#l...
  - JadeNB 2y ago
    > Your first sentence is a little confusing, but I can confirm that Google, at least, uses lots of open source software, and the build system automatically checks that all the third-party libraries used in an executable have a suitable license. [1] They also vendor everything and will patch security issues locally. I think that you and your parent agree, and that inserting an extra comma, marked by [,] below, would show this: > My experience is that it’s not higher end commercial users[,] who would actually check the license, but lower scale commercial users who don’t care and the license wouldn’t scare them off. That is, "higher-end commecial users would actually check the license, and are not engaging in this kind of behavior; lower-scale commercial users don't care about the license, and are engaging in this kind of behavior."
    - dagmx 2y ago
      Yes, you’re correct that’s what I meant. I think I accidentally mixed up two thoughts. Edited it now to clarify.
skybrian 2y ago
I’m generally in favor of not trying very hard to get more users for open source software. More users means more problems. What’s in it for you? The trouble is that many software developers have jobs. It sucks to work on open source software that would be useful, except that you can’t use it at work due to the license. (Possibly at a future job.) If you fully control the software then you can dual-license, but it’s a more difficult negotiation than “it’s yet another npm with a standard license.”
- kibwen 2y ago
  > except that you can’t use it at work due to the license Just to clarify: If you hold the copyright over the code, you can change the license to whatever you want, whenever you want. In other words, if you are the lone dev of a library that has been GPL for 20 years, and then you get hired, and you want to use that library at your job, you can just make a copy of it and say "this copy is yours to do with as you please, have fun". You don't even need to mess around with dual-licensing. Licenses affect only people who aren't the copyright holder.
  - skybrian 2y ago
    That's true, but it sounds rather informal. A risk-adverse company would probably want you to assign copyright formally. They need to know what they own and what they have a license for. Otherwise, the situation will be confusing when someone comes along years later. "Hmm, this code looks familiar. Wait, why do we have a copy of GPL-licensed code in our system, with the licenses removed?"
- dgb23 2y ago
  It depends on why the library is open source. A lot of maintainers do it so they don't have to re-write everything when they change jobs. Those would generally agree with you. Others do it for personal marketing or other economic purposes such as lock-in. Then there are maintainers who just like doing open source work and like providing something useful for many.
snowpid 2y ago
Thanks to CRA they are obliged to pay for such support.

by kibwen 2y ago

codetrotter 2y ago

Or even AGPL just to be sure (Personally I’ll keep licensing my stuff ISC, but I have the luxury of having near zero external attention on any of my open source stuff :p)

jmclnx 2y ago

I would suggest GPL3, that would really scare away commercial users. For example, IBM, the owner of Red Hat, forbids the use of GPL3 software on their equipment by their employees.

dvfjsdhgfv 2y ago
> For example, IBM, the owner of Red Hat, forbids the use of GPL3 software on their equipment by their employees. This I can understand. But the fact that they joined the witch-hunt for Stallman after the slandering piece by Selam Gano, who knowingly presented untrue statements as facts, and these were later picked up by mainstream media (some of these lies are still out there uncorrected[0]), that is still beyond me. [0] Google for "Stallman defends Epstein", e.g. https://techcrunch.com/2019/09/16/computer-scientist-richard-stallman-who-defended-jeffrey-epstein-resigns-from-mit-csail-and-the-free-software-foundation/ https://techcrunch.com/2019/09/16/computer-scientist-richard...
RobotToaster 2y ago
AGPL for extra garlic.
- SAI_Peregrinus 2y ago
  I'd love an AGPL-ish license that's more like the LGPL. Only changes to the licensed code need to be opened, not anything linking against it, but they need to be opened even if the only distribution is by network access. And no need to send object files. Just a plain "if you modify my code, you MUST make your modifications publicly available".
- exe34 2y ago
  I love AGPL, I wish it had taken off more.
  - zaphod420 2y ago
    Link for the lazy: https://www.gnu.org/licenses/why-affero-gpl.en.html https://www.gnu.org/licenses/why-affero-gpl.en.html
    - tzs 2y ago
      That link is OK for the general concepts, but some of the details aren't quite right so read the license text if you are in a situation where the details matter. For example: > The GNU Affero General Public License is a modified version of the ordinary GNU GPL version 3. It has one added requirement: if you run a modified program on a server and let other users communicate with it there, your server must also allow them to download the source code corresponding to the modified version running there. That's an overstatement. The requirement is that you make source available for your program is for "users interacting with it remotely through a computer network". There are plenty of ways that you could let users communicate with a program on your server that do not involve remote communication through a computer network.
      - exe34 2y ago
        > There are plenty of ways that you could let users communicate with a program on your server that do not involve remote communication through a computer network. Could you give some examples?
        tzs 2y ago
        There are a couple of categories of ways to communicate that would not involve remote communications through a computer network. One category is communication that is not through a computer network, such as through serial terminals or by voice. Another category would be communication that is not remote. AGPL fails to define what it means by "interacting remotely", but where they use that phrase is in a section titled "Remote Network Interaction" which suggests they are using "remote" the way people generally use it in the context of networks. Remote in that context means generally not on the same LAN. If that's the case then while communication over the LAN would be over a computer network it would not be remote communication.

dmitrygr 2y ago

+1. GPL3 specifically scares them away well

dagmx 2y ago

My experience is that it’s not higher end commercial users who would actually harass the dev, but lower scale commercial users who don’t care and the license wouldn’t scare them off. Any large company that would care about the license, would also have terms on their employees to not directly interact with projects and would likely internally patch it if needed instead.

skybrian 2y ago
Your first sentence is a little confusing, but I can confirm that Google, at least, uses lots of open source software, and the build system automatically checks that all the third-party libraries used in an executable have a suitable license. [1] They also vendor everything and will patch security issues locally. It’s been a long time since I worked there, but I don’t know any reason that they wouldn’t send a patch upstream as well. [1] https://docs.bazel.build/versions/0.24.0/be/functions.html#licenses https://docs.bazel.build/versions/0.24.0/be/functions.html#l...
- JadeNB 2y ago
  > Your first sentence is a little confusing, but I can confirm that Google, at least, uses lots of open source software, and the build system automatically checks that all the third-party libraries used in an executable have a suitable license. [1] They also vendor everything and will patch security issues locally. I think that you and your parent agree, and that inserting an extra comma, marked by [,] below, would show this: > My experience is that it’s not higher end commercial users[,] who would actually check the license, but lower scale commercial users who don’t care and the license wouldn’t scare them off. That is, "higher-end commecial users would actually check the license, and are not engaging in this kind of behavior; lower-scale commercial users don't care about the license, and are engaging in this kind of behavior."
  - dagmx 2y ago
    Yes, you’re correct that’s what I meant. I think I accidentally mixed up two thoughts. Edited it now to clarify.

skybrian 2y ago

I’m generally in favor of not trying very hard to get more users for open source software. More users means more problems. What’s in it for you? The trouble is that many software developers have jobs. It sucks to work on open source software that would be useful, except that you can’t use it at work due to the license. (Possibly at a future job.) If you fully control the software then you can dual-license, but it’s a more difficult negotiation than “it’s yet another npm with a standard license.”

kibwen 2y ago
> except that you can’t use it at work due to the license Just to clarify: If you hold the copyright over the code, you can change the license to whatever you want, whenever you want. In other words, if you are the lone dev of a library that has been GPL for 20 years, and then you get hired, and you want to use that library at your job, you can just make a copy of it and say "this copy is yours to do with as you please, have fun". You don't even need to mess around with dual-licensing. Licenses affect only people who aren't the copyright holder.
- skybrian 2y ago
  That's true, but it sounds rather informal. A risk-adverse company would probably want you to assign copyright formally. They need to know what they own and what they have a license for. Otherwise, the situation will be confusing when someone comes along years later. "Hmm, this code looks familiar. Wait, why do we have a copy of GPL-licensed code in our system, with the licenses removed?"
dgb23 2y ago
It depends on why the library is open source. A lot of maintainers do it so they don't have to re-write everything when they change jobs. Those would generally agree with you. Others do it for personal marketing or other economic purposes such as lock-in. Then there are maintainers who just like doing open source work and like providing something useful for many.

snowpid 2y ago

Thanks to CRA they are obliged to pay for such support.