5 ms·

Every so often I run through the common set of licenses to double-check which one I want to personally use for my projects (both commercial and for fun), and I

by iaaan 2y ago

Every so often I run through the common set of licenses to double-check which one I want to personally use for my projects (both commercial and for fun), and I always end up back at AGPL. For me, it just strikes the right balance between open-source and restricting corporations from disproportionately profiting off of my labor.

aaron695 2y ago
> and restricting corporations from disproportionately profiting off of my labor. This is anti the ethos of GPL [1] And that's fine, you choose a list or rules that fitted with your wants, you don't have to respect A/GPL. But time and time again we see most people on HN not respecting the A/GPL ethos they clam to follow and not understanding what A/GPL will mean in practice. > disproportionately profiting Off Topic to GPL. Corporations have provided more value to the world than any person. Which is almost a tautology since corporations are just groups of people working together. "Disproportionately profiting off of my labor" would mean they are providing amazing resources to people who need them. You sound like you don't want others to succeed. Which is different to you need to make money to live. [1] The legal/logical issues we see with AGPL are from trying to get the license to match the ethos. It's commendable they did stick it out.
- Dylan16807 2y ago
  It can't be anti and off topic at the same time. I think trying to prevent disproportionate profit by big companies is plenty compatible with the ethos. The ethos of GPL is all about the end user, after all. > would mean they are providing amazing resources No it doesn't mean that.
- guappa 2y ago
  > Corporations have provided more value to the world than any person If by value you mean: "have increased gini coefficient", then yes, corporations have done that.
thelastparadise 2y ago
Do you intend for companies to use your software, just not resell it? Or do you not even want them to use it?
pxc 2y ago
> For me, it just strikes the right balance between open-source and restricting corporations from disproportionately profiting off of my labor. A purely F/OSS company could potentially profit way more from your code than you do and still comply with the license. You'd be free to reincorporate their code back into yours, of course. But code isn't money.
- sedansesame 2y ago
  That sounds proportionate to me. They get to make profits, and I get to use their improvements if they also benefit me. This can foster more community than if MIT code were to be taken and locked behind closed doors, for profit and to no benefit for the devs that made it possible.
sneak 2y ago
A gift freely given doesn’t care what the recipient does with the gift. This idea that corporations aren’t legitimate users of GPL software is simply anti-capitalist bitterness. The ability to run a service with GPL software is a feature, not a bug (or “loophole”).

by iaaan 2y ago

aaron695 2y ago

> and restricting corporations from disproportionately profiting off of my labor. This is anti the ethos of GPL [1] And that's fine, you choose a list or rules that fitted with your wants, you don't have to respect A/GPL. But time and time again we see most people on HN not respecting the A/GPL ethos they clam to follow and not understanding what A/GPL will mean in practice. > disproportionately profiting Off Topic to GPL. Corporations have provided more value to the world than any person. Which is almost a tautology since corporations are just groups of people working together. "Disproportionately profiting off of my labor" would mean they are providing amazing resources to people who need them. You sound like you don't want others to succeed. Which is different to you need to make money to live. [1] The legal/logical issues we see with AGPL are from trying to get the license to match the ethos. It's commendable they did stick it out.

Dylan16807 2y ago
It can't be anti and off topic at the same time. I think trying to prevent disproportionate profit by big companies is plenty compatible with the ethos. The ethos of GPL is all about the end user, after all. > would mean they are providing amazing resources No it doesn't mean that.
guappa 2y ago
> Corporations have provided more value to the world than any person If by value you mean: "have increased gini coefficient", then yes, corporations have done that.

thelastparadise 2y ago

Do you intend for companies to use your software, just not resell it? Or do you not even want them to use it?

pxc 2y ago

> For me, it just strikes the right balance between open-source and restricting corporations from disproportionately profiting off of my labor. A purely F/OSS company could potentially profit way more from your code than you do and still comply with the license. You'd be free to reincorporate their code back into yours, of course. But code isn't money.

sedansesame 2y ago
That sounds proportionate to me. They get to make profits, and I get to use their improvements if they also benefit me. This can foster more community than if MIT code were to be taken and locked behind closed doors, for profit and to no benefit for the devs that made it possible.

sneak 2y ago

A gift freely given doesn’t care what the recipient does with the gift. This idea that corporations aren’t legitimate users of GPL software is simply anti-capitalist bitterness. The ability to run a service with GPL software is a feature, not a bug (or “loophole”).