3 ms·

Superfluous question, perhaps. What licence are you releasing it on? I read Zed Shaw's essays (rants?) on GPL a while ago. Given that your tool occupies the Se

by Surio 14y ago

Superfluous question, perhaps. What licence are you releasing it on? I read Zed Shaw's essays (rants?) on GPL a while ago. Given that your tool occupies the Server space (as did his) I recommend a read^H^H^H^H butchers (keeping with the spirit of things) ;-) http://zedshaw.com/essays/why_i_gpl.html http://zedshaw.com/essays/why_i_gpl.html

stevekemp 14y ago
Either the Perl artistic license, or the GPL. I figure the license doesn't matter too much, so long as I see feedback & patches - as I do - the real utility is the policies you write to control your servers, and I don't expect those to be distributed often. Although mine are, FWIW: https://github.com/skx/slaughter-policies/ https://github.com/skx/slaughter-policies/
- Surio 14y ago
  Okay. > I figure the license doesn't matter too much Read Zed's essay ;-) If nothing else, it reinforces "street cred" :-) >> the real utility is the policies you write to control your servers +1 for that point.... especially in the context of the discussions in the recent thread on HN: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5316093 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5316093 (@robomartin's comments in the beginning)
papsosouid 14y ago
Wow, that is incredibly nonsensical even for Zed. Is he seriously under the impression that the GPL somehow forces venture capitalists to believe his software is as important as he believes it to be?
- Surio 14y ago
  >> GPL somehow forces venture capitalists to believe his software is as important as he believes it to be No, I don't think that is what he says in the essay. Re-Read from the "I Don’t Want To Be Ignored Again" section of the essay for GPL and venture capitalists.
  - papsosouid 14y ago
    I re-read it. I still have no idea what he thinks the GPL would do to solve his "problem". The GPL does not contain a "you have to think Zed is great and hire him" clause.
    - SwellJoe 14y ago
      The GPL does, however, prevent a company from forking your software and releasing closed versions without getting you (the copyright holder) involved. In some cases that simply means the software isn't used by that company. In others, it means they hire the developer or work out a license agreement that allows for software to be released under another license. I've made licensing deals like this in the past for code under the GPL. It's probably better to be the person or company that expands upon the GPL work and monetizes it...but, I definitely understand where Zed is coming from. Licensing under the GPL doesn't guarantee that everyone who uses your code gives you money...it simply helps make sure you don't find yourself developing code for a bunch of companies who aren't sharing their local changes.
      - papsosouid 14y ago
        >The GPL does, however, prevent a company from forking your software and releasing closed versions without getting you (the copyright holder) involved Which is relevant how? Who was releasing closed versions of mongrel again? I know what the GPL does, that's the point. His blathering is entirely unrelated to licensing at all. He is saying "RoR was famous, and mongrel wasn't, and I don't like that", as a reason to use the GPL. Not only is that entirely nonsensical, but RoR is MIT licensed, so it wouldn't even make sense if you did hit your head and somehow think licensing determined whether or not your software was famous.
        Surio 14y ago
        >> Who was releasing closed versions of mongrel again? He is not saying there were closed versions being released. He simply wanted to point that people were using mongrel very blithely, but not crediting the hard-work, effort and innovation of Zed's work, (which they were using for their own monetary gain!). I don't think he was interested in "naming-and-shaming", flame-baiting, etc., (I suppose). >> He is saying "RoR was famous, and mongrel wasn't, and I don't like that", as a reason to use the GPL No. He's not saying that. Here's some paras where the mongrel and ruby discussion takes place. I'll leave it at that. Even though everyone was using my software, the vast majority of firms using Mongrel were startups. The last thing a startup wants to admit is that they don’t own their intellectual property. They want everyone, especially the VCs and investors, to believe that they’re all geniuses who “innovated” everything they run. When I looked around, companies had no problem admitting they used Ruby on Rails, hell that probably got them their funding. What I didn’t see was them saying they used anything else, which meant that when I would try to get work, it was impossible for me to explain the magnitude of Mongrel’s impact. To them it was just some simple web server that their system administrator had to use After Mongrel I almost need companies to have to admit they use my software. I would actually rather nobody use my software than be in a situation where everyone is using my gear and nobody is admitting it. Or worse, everyone is using it, and at the same time saying I can’t code.

by Surio 14y ago

stevekemp 14y ago

Either the Perl artistic license, or the GPL. I figure the license doesn't matter too much, so long as I see feedback & patches - as I do - the real utility is the policies you write to control your servers, and I don't expect those to be distributed often. Although mine are, FWIW: https://github.com/skx/slaughter-policies/ https://github.com/skx/slaughter-policies/

Surio 14y ago
Okay. > I figure the license doesn't matter too much Read Zed's essay ;-) If nothing else, it reinforces "street cred" :-) >> the real utility is the policies you write to control your servers +1 for that point.... especially in the context of the discussions in the recent thread on HN: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5316093 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5316093 (@robomartin's comments in the beginning)

papsosouid 14y ago

Wow, that is incredibly nonsensical even for Zed. Is he seriously under the impression that the GPL somehow forces venture capitalists to believe his software is as important as he believes it to be?

Surio 14y ago
>> GPL somehow forces venture capitalists to believe his software is as important as he believes it to be No, I don't think that is what he says in the essay. Re-Read from the "I Don’t Want To Be Ignored Again" section of the essay for GPL and venture capitalists.
- papsosouid 14y ago
  I re-read it. I still have no idea what he thinks the GPL would do to solve his "problem". The GPL does not contain a "you have to think Zed is great and hire him" clause.
  - SwellJoe 14y ago
    The GPL does, however, prevent a company from forking your software and releasing closed versions without getting you (the copyright holder) involved. In some cases that simply means the software isn't used by that company. In others, it means they hire the developer or work out a license agreement that allows for software to be released under another license. I've made licensing deals like this in the past for code under the GPL. It's probably better to be the person or company that expands upon the GPL work and monetizes it...but, I definitely understand where Zed is coming from. Licensing under the GPL doesn't guarantee that everyone who uses your code gives you money...it simply helps make sure you don't find yourself developing code for a bunch of companies who aren't sharing their local changes.
    - papsosouid 14y ago
      >The GPL does, however, prevent a company from forking your software and releasing closed versions without getting you (the copyright holder) involved Which is relevant how? Who was releasing closed versions of mongrel again? I know what the GPL does, that's the point. His blathering is entirely unrelated to licensing at all. He is saying "RoR was famous, and mongrel wasn't, and I don't like that", as a reason to use the GPL. Not only is that entirely nonsensical, but RoR is MIT licensed, so it wouldn't even make sense if you did hit your head and somehow think licensing determined whether or not your software was famous.
      - Surio 14y ago
        >> Who was releasing closed versions of mongrel again? He is not saying there were closed versions being released. He simply wanted to point that people were using mongrel very blithely, but not crediting the hard-work, effort and innovation of Zed's work, (which they were using for their own monetary gain!). I don't think he was interested in "naming-and-shaming", flame-baiting, etc., (I suppose). >> He is saying "RoR was famous, and mongrel wasn't, and I don't like that", as a reason to use the GPL No. He's not saying that. Here's some paras where the mongrel and ruby discussion takes place. I'll leave it at that. Even though everyone was using my software, the vast majority of firms using Mongrel were startups. The last thing a startup wants to admit is that they don’t own their intellectual property. They want everyone, especially the VCs and investors, to believe that they’re all geniuses who “innovated” everything they run. When I looked around, companies had no problem admitting they used Ruby on Rails, hell that probably got them their funding. What I didn’t see was them saying they used anything else, which meant that when I would try to get work, it was impossible for me to explain the magnitude of Mongrel’s impact. To them it was just some simple web server that their system administrator had to use After Mongrel I almost need companies to have to admit they use my software. I would actually rather nobody use my software than be in a situation where everyone is using my gear and nobody is admitting it. Or worse, everyone is using it, and at the same time saying I can’t code.