4 ms·

Missing option: don't grant a license to use your code if you'll be upset that people will use your code. Use something like AGPL or don't grant any license at

Missing option: don't grant a license to use your code if you'll be upset that people will use your code. Use something like AGPL or don't grant any license at all. Granting no license means others using your code in any way is copyright infringement, which individuals don't need to care about, but makes it something no business of any significant size will touch.

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
graemep 2y ago
If its FOSS you also have to convince other contributors to work your choice of license. The first example in the article is Wordpress whose developers did not get to chose the license because they forked an existing GPL project. > Granting no license means others using your code in any way is copyright infringement, which individuals don't need to care about, but makes it something no business of any significant size will touch. How do individuals get your code? How do they install it? Copyright matters to most distribution mechanisms. A good many small businesses (not just those of significant size) would be reluctant to breach copyright. I think if you want to do that use a license that allows non-commercial use or use by businesses below a certain size.
- ndriscoll 2y ago
  If you build a business on a fork of someone else's project, you can't really complain. Using GPL was the cost of starting from that base. Individuals get your code from you or each other. I don't doubt that you'd have easy to use packaging if "Source available + All Rights Reserved + casual piracy" caught on as a copyleft "license"; the *arr software sort of demonstrates that already. That it only allows people who are not reluctant to break copyright laws to use your software is exactly the point. It's a proper anarchist's copyleft license.
  - graemep 2y ago
    > If you build a business on a fork of someone else's project, you can't really complain. Using GPL was the cost of starting from that base. I agree - but that is what people like the Wordpress developers are complaining of. > Individuals get your code from you or each other. I don't doubt that you'd have easy to use packaging if "Source available + All Rights Reserved + casual piracy" caught on as a copyleft "license"; the *arr software sort of demonstrates that already. I am very cautious about installing things not from either distro repos (on my desktop) or from a known app store (not necessarily the OS developers) on mobile. How would people know that was your intent? If they get the software from each other, how could they verify it did not have malware inserted. One of the things I like about FOSS is that it can be forked. If the original developer stops working on it (especially if they stop applying security patches), or to take it in a different direction, or if the original developer changes licence for new versions (the equivalent with your idea would be to start enforcing the copyright). > That it only allows people who are not reluctant to break copyright laws to use your software is exactly the point. It's a proper anarchist's copyleft license. Its not copyleft. If people get software from each other how do you ensure that the source gets distributed? Or that people know they can get the source and from where?
    - ndriscoll 2y ago
      > If they get the software from each other, how could they verify it did not have malware inserted. Largely, they don't, just like today's sharing economy. If someone online is giving you something that you can't verify yourself (either because it's a binary or because you don't have the time/ability to understand the source), you rely on trust and reputation. Having a BSD license attached doesn't change this. If you're cautious about installing software directly from its author or from a repository of unlicensed software, then don't do it. My suggestion is to still release the source, so anyone can fork such a project under the same terms they had: any use is piracy. If the author feels someone is abusing the system/trying to restrict user freedoms by distributing only a binary, and the abuser is large enough to warrant it, they can sue them, just like with GPL. But there are no possible loopholes (c.f. tivoization) because there was never a license to distribute the software under any conditions.
RobotToaster 2y ago
> or don't grant any license at all. It wouldn't be open source then?
- ndriscoll 2y ago
  Does it matter whether something adheres to OSI's definition if you just want to participate in a sharing economy, but don't like the idea of some large org "abusing" that sharing? Whether something is Open Source is primarily a concern of large organizations and lawyers. If the source is freely available, it is in practice usable and modifiable by any person regardless of what the law says.
  - AstralStorm 2y ago
    You actually meant "in theory" since in practice you will get found out misusing the licensed software sooner or later, if you are exposed to any scrutiny. Unless your thing isn't used at all, making the point moot.
    - ndriscoll 2y ago
      In practice, people are not exposed to any scrutiny. Tons of people pirate operating systems, image/video editors, CAD software, games, etc. without any issue. It's only large organizations that have that exposure. This is doubly true if you publish the source code to a program you wrote with an "all rights reserved" notice (i.e. you're not really trying to prevent individuals from using your work). If an individual used your program, you'll never know. If a large organization is freeloading off of you, and you learn of it, and you don't like it, then you can go after them. They have no defense because you explicitly told them they may not use it.

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

graemep 2y ago

If its FOSS you also have to convince other contributors to work your choice of license. The first example in the article is Wordpress whose developers did not get to chose the license because they forked an existing GPL project. > Granting no license means others using your code in any way is copyright infringement, which individuals don't need to care about, but makes it something no business of any significant size will touch. How do individuals get your code? How do they install it? Copyright matters to most distribution mechanisms. A good many small businesses (not just those of significant size) would be reluctant to breach copyright. I think if you want to do that use a license that allows non-commercial use or use by businesses below a certain size.

ndriscoll 2y ago
If you build a business on a fork of someone else's project, you can't really complain. Using GPL was the cost of starting from that base. Individuals get your code from you or each other. I don't doubt that you'd have easy to use packaging if "Source available + All Rights Reserved + casual piracy" caught on as a copyleft "license"; the *arr software sort of demonstrates that already. That it only allows people who are not reluctant to break copyright laws to use your software is exactly the point. It's a proper anarchist's copyleft license.
- graemep 2y ago
  > If you build a business on a fork of someone else's project, you can't really complain. Using GPL was the cost of starting from that base. I agree - but that is what people like the Wordpress developers are complaining of. > Individuals get your code from you or each other. I don't doubt that you'd have easy to use packaging if "Source available + All Rights Reserved + casual piracy" caught on as a copyleft "license"; the *arr software sort of demonstrates that already. I am very cautious about installing things not from either distro repos (on my desktop) or from a known app store (not necessarily the OS developers) on mobile. How would people know that was your intent? If they get the software from each other, how could they verify it did not have malware inserted. One of the things I like about FOSS is that it can be forked. If the original developer stops working on it (especially if they stop applying security patches), or to take it in a different direction, or if the original developer changes licence for new versions (the equivalent with your idea would be to start enforcing the copyright). > That it only allows people who are not reluctant to break copyright laws to use your software is exactly the point. It's a proper anarchist's copyleft license. Its not copyleft. If people get software from each other how do you ensure that the source gets distributed? Or that people know they can get the source and from where?
  - ndriscoll 2y ago
    > If they get the software from each other, how could they verify it did not have malware inserted. Largely, they don't, just like today's sharing economy. If someone online is giving you something that you can't verify yourself (either because it's a binary or because you don't have the time/ability to understand the source), you rely on trust and reputation. Having a BSD license attached doesn't change this. If you're cautious about installing software directly from its author or from a repository of unlicensed software, then don't do it. My suggestion is to still release the source, so anyone can fork such a project under the same terms they had: any use is piracy. If the author feels someone is abusing the system/trying to restrict user freedoms by distributing only a binary, and the abuser is large enough to warrant it, they can sue them, just like with GPL. But there are no possible loopholes (c.f. tivoization) because there was never a license to distribute the software under any conditions.

RobotToaster 2y ago

> or don't grant any license at all. It wouldn't be open source then?

ndriscoll 2y ago
Does it matter whether something adheres to OSI's definition if you just want to participate in a sharing economy, but don't like the idea of some large org "abusing" that sharing? Whether something is Open Source is primarily a concern of large organizations and lawyers. If the source is freely available, it is in practice usable and modifiable by any person regardless of what the law says.
- AstralStorm 2y ago
  You actually meant "in theory" since in practice you will get found out misusing the licensed software sooner or later, if you are exposed to any scrutiny. Unless your thing isn't used at all, making the point moot.
  - ndriscoll 2y ago
    In practice, people are not exposed to any scrutiny. Tons of people pirate operating systems, image/video editors, CAD software, games, etc. without any issue. It's only large organizations that have that exposure. This is doubly true if you publish the source code to a program you wrote with an "all rights reserved" notice (i.e. you're not really trying to prevent individuals from using your work). If an individual used your program, you'll never know. If a large organization is freeloading off of you, and you learn of it, and you don't like it, then you can go after them. They have no defense because you explicitly told them they may not use it.