5 ms·

If you prevent licensing software to large corporations, small corporations won't use it, either, because small corporations may get acquired by large ones. Suc

If you prevent licensing software to large corporations, small corporations won't use it, either, because small corporations may get acquired by large ones. Such a license would be a "poison pill". I am not a lawyer and this is not legal advice. We picked the Boost license for the D Language Foundation because it is the closest to public domain we could find. Besides, why would "bad guys" be deterred by a license, anyway?

arthurcolle 1y ago
Why isn't there a "if I like you you can use it" I like you @WalterBright you can use any of my stuff even if you get acquired
- WalterBright 1y ago
  Thank you kindly! There's not a whole lot of point to acquiring Boost licensed software. Of course, they could always acquire me and pay me handsomely!
- limagnolia 1y ago
  Umm, there is. Basically, thats the default in most of the world. My recomendation if that is what you want to do, is to put a note in the readme and in LICENSE.txt that says "this project is copyright by me. If you want to use i, reach out to me and if I like you, I will give you a license". Then if you like someone, give them a written statement that you like them, and grant them permission to use your project(s), and under what terms, if any.
  - surgical_fire 1y ago
    I sort of like this. I wonder if it is enforceable. "For my friends everything, for my enemies the law" software license.
    - ethmarks 1y ago
      > I wonder if it is enforceable. I can't imagine that it wouldn't be. If a company has explicit written permission from the copyright owner granting permission to use that copyright, then they can use it. Also, it wouldn't be a special license. If you wanted to do a "For my friends everything, for my enemies the law" thing, you'd just set it as all rights reserved and add special note encouraging people to ask for permission to use it. Plus, copyright enforcement typically goes in the other direction. It's not about who you can sue, it's about who you can't. Licenses are just a way of specifying who you cannot sue. If you want everybody to use your project but don't want to bother with a license, you can make it all rights reserved (the legal default) and just not sue anybody. You could sue them if you wanted to (which is why nobody would ever use your code: because of the risk that you change your mind and sue them), but nobody is forcing you to.
    - MagicMoonlight 1y ago
      Of course it is, that’s literally contract law. You’re agreeing a contract to licence them access with specific terms. The reason they invented the standard licences is to avoid this cost and effort. Do you really want to write a 200 page legal contract for every user for software you’re giving away for free?
      - surgical_fire 1y ago
        Is that the implication? I thought that the legal contract you mentioned was a standard document, basically the same for everyone that was licensed. But I am not s lawyer, and I don't pretend to be one. It would be neat to have this licese codified (Like we have MIT, GPL, etc), with the proper incentives to "ask for open source access, if I lile you, you might get it". And, of course, a "contract" that gave licensees the open source benefits.
        limagnolia 11mo ago
        One of the open source benefits is the ability to distribute the software to others under the open source license. So if you gave your friends an open source license (which you can do) they could then license the software to anyone else they want to under the same license (As that is part of the definition of open source). If you want to restrict them from doing this, you could make your own custom license that restricts this (but it would not be open source).
BrenBarn 1y ago
Such a poison pill could be considered a feature insofar as it discourages consolidation of companies.
- hacym 1y ago
  There are very few, if any, projects big enough to be a consideration to NOT acquire an entire company.
- WalterBright 1y ago
  Big companies can implement economies of scale. This is what makes the country wealthy.
  - WalterBright 1y ago
    Big business drives the economy. Small businesses are the future big businesses. For example, automobiles cannot be made by artisans for anyone but the wealthy.
O_H_E 1y ago
> Besides, why would "bad guys" be deterred by a license, anyway? I imagine because we're talking about a subcategory of "bad guys" who still like to stay within the confines of the law (supposedly at least).
burnt-resistor 1y ago
Exactly. Unreasonable conditions imposed on everyone to "solve" an ideological or societal matter impose externalities on bystanders. It's religious fervor not backed by honest appreciation of human nature or reality. While I don't like end-uses that exploit or harm others, there is no meaningful magic spell that can police usage of code gifts apart from not giving away anything and micromanaging every single invocation for moral purity.
- cindyllm 1y ago
  [dead]
tbrownaw 11mo ago
> If you prevent licensing software to large corporations, small corporations won't use it, either, because small corporations may get acquired by large ones. Such a license would be a "poison pill". Acquisitions already come with a giant laundry list of IT work to bring things into compliance with internal policies and maybe contractual requirements and such. Would one more thing that has to be done sooner rather than later really make that much difference?

arthurcolle 1y ago

Why isn't there a "if I like you you can use it" I like you @WalterBright you can use any of my stuff even if you get acquired

WalterBright 1y ago
Thank you kindly! There's not a whole lot of point to acquiring Boost licensed software. Of course, they could always acquire me and pay me handsomely!
limagnolia 1y ago
Umm, there is. Basically, thats the default in most of the world. My recomendation if that is what you want to do, is to put a note in the readme and in LICENSE.txt that says "this project is copyright by me. If you want to use i, reach out to me and if I like you, I will give you a license". Then if you like someone, give them a written statement that you like them, and grant them permission to use your project(s), and under what terms, if any.
- surgical_fire 1y ago
  I sort of like this. I wonder if it is enforceable. "For my friends everything, for my enemies the law" software license.
  - ethmarks 1y ago
    > I wonder if it is enforceable. I can't imagine that it wouldn't be. If a company has explicit written permission from the copyright owner granting permission to use that copyright, then they can use it. Also, it wouldn't be a special license. If you wanted to do a "For my friends everything, for my enemies the law" thing, you'd just set it as all rights reserved and add special note encouraging people to ask for permission to use it. Plus, copyright enforcement typically goes in the other direction. It's not about who you can sue, it's about who you can't. Licenses are just a way of specifying who you cannot sue. If you want everybody to use your project but don't want to bother with a license, you can make it all rights reserved (the legal default) and just not sue anybody. You could sue them if you wanted to (which is why nobody would ever use your code: because of the risk that you change your mind and sue them), but nobody is forcing you to.
  - MagicMoonlight 1y ago
    Of course it is, that’s literally contract law. You’re agreeing a contract to licence them access with specific terms. The reason they invented the standard licences is to avoid this cost and effort. Do you really want to write a 200 page legal contract for every user for software you’re giving away for free?
    - surgical_fire 1y ago
      Is that the implication? I thought that the legal contract you mentioned was a standard document, basically the same for everyone that was licensed. But I am not s lawyer, and I don't pretend to be one. It would be neat to have this licese codified (Like we have MIT, GPL, etc), with the proper incentives to "ask for open source access, if I lile you, you might get it". And, of course, a "contract" that gave licensees the open source benefits.
      - limagnolia 11mo ago
        One of the open source benefits is the ability to distribute the software to others under the open source license. So if you gave your friends an open source license (which you can do) they could then license the software to anyone else they want to under the same license (As that is part of the definition of open source). If you want to restrict them from doing this, you could make your own custom license that restricts this (but it would not be open source).

BrenBarn 1y ago

Such a poison pill could be considered a feature insofar as it discourages consolidation of companies.

hacym 1y ago
There are very few, if any, projects big enough to be a consideration to NOT acquire an entire company.
WalterBright 1y ago
Big companies can implement economies of scale. This is what makes the country wealthy.
- WalterBright 1y ago
  Big business drives the economy. Small businesses are the future big businesses. For example, automobiles cannot be made by artisans for anyone but the wealthy.

O_H_E 1y ago

> Besides, why would "bad guys" be deterred by a license, anyway? I imagine because we're talking about a subcategory of "bad guys" who still like to stay within the confines of the law (supposedly at least).

burnt-resistor 1y ago

Exactly. Unreasonable conditions imposed on everyone to "solve" an ideological or societal matter impose externalities on bystanders. It's religious fervor not backed by honest appreciation of human nature or reality. While I don't like end-uses that exploit or harm others, there is no meaningful magic spell that can police usage of code gifts apart from not giving away anything and micromanaging every single invocation for moral purity.

cindyllm 1y ago
[dead]

tbrownaw 11mo ago

> If you prevent licensing software to large corporations, small corporations won't use it, either, because small corporations may get acquired by large ones. Such a license would be a "poison pill". Acquisitions already come with a giant laundry list of IT work to bring things into compliance with internal policies and maybe contractual requirements and such. Would one more thing that has to be done sooner rather than later really make that much difference?