3 ms·

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

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.

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.