3 ms·

Campsite team, if you happen to be reading this: consider whether a more permissive license still meeting the FOSS definition, like GPL or AGPL, would better fi

by j5155 2y ago

Campsite team, if you happen to be reading this: consider whether a more permissive license still meeting the FOSS definition, like GPL or AGPL, would better fit your needs. GPL means that anyone who modifies the source code, or integrates it into a larger work, has to release the modified version. So this would ensure that everyone’s contributions continue to help the wider community. As a side effect, it would also prevent anyone from using your work without releasing the source code for their project or product, benefitting open source as a whole. The choice is obviously ultimately yours. I personally didn’t realize the benefits of GPL until recently.

dindresto 2y ago
You may also want to consider the EUPL, which is OSI approved and despite the name not limited to the EU. https://eupl.eu/ https://eupl.eu/ https://discourse.writefreesoftware.org/t/eupl-a-better-choice-for-european-citizens/43 https://discourse.writefreesoftware.org/t/eupl-a-better-choi...
ensignavenger 2y ago
I would prefer a more permissive license, such as MIT or Apache. Zulip is similar software, produced by a commercial company, and it is MIT licensed. The primary reason for this is that it isn't always clear with copyleft licenses where the boundary is between being a new separate work that uses the GPL software API, or when it is a derivative work of the GPL software. Also, as they are shutting down, there isn't really any reason for them to worry about some one else using the code in a permissive way. (That being said, a copyleft license is miles ahead of the CC NC license for software!)
normie3000 2y ago
> GPL means that anyone who modifies the source code, or integrates it into a larger work, has to release the modified version. Is this accurate? I thought GPL only required distributing the source alongside binaries. If you're running GPL code as a web service, I don't think there's a requirement to release the source to your users.
- awkwardpotato 2y ago
  In this case, you would want the Affero General Public License (AGPL) which specifically has a carve-out (in?) for web servers. Section 13, "Remote Network Interaction; Use with the GNU General Public License." [0] [0] "[...] your modified version must prominently offer all users interacting with it remotely through a computer network (...) an opportunity to receive the Corresponding Source of your version"

by j5155 2y ago

dindresto 2y ago

You may also want to consider the EUPL, which is OSI approved and despite the name not limited to the EU. https://eupl.eu/ https://eupl.eu/ https://discourse.writefreesoftware.org/t/eupl-a-better-choice-for-european-citizens/43 https://discourse.writefreesoftware.org/t/eupl-a-better-choi...

ensignavenger 2y ago

I would prefer a more permissive license, such as MIT or Apache. Zulip is similar software, produced by a commercial company, and it is MIT licensed. The primary reason for this is that it isn't always clear with copyleft licenses where the boundary is between being a new separate work that uses the GPL software API, or when it is a derivative work of the GPL software. Also, as they are shutting down, there isn't really any reason for them to worry about some one else using the code in a permissive way. (That being said, a copyleft license is miles ahead of the CC NC license for software!)

normie3000 2y ago

> GPL means that anyone who modifies the source code, or integrates it into a larger work, has to release the modified version. Is this accurate? I thought GPL only required distributing the source alongside binaries. If you're running GPL code as a web service, I don't think there's a requirement to release the source to your users.

awkwardpotato 2y ago
In this case, you would want the Affero General Public License (AGPL) which specifically has a carve-out (in?) for web servers. Section 13, "Remote Network Interaction; Use with the GNU General Public License." [0] [0] "[...] your modified version must prominently offer all users interacting with it remotely through a computer network (...) an opportunity to receive the Corresponding Source of your version"