8 ms·

On Open-Sourcing Libraries

73 points by couac 13y ago

zalew 13y ago
he didn't mention the most important - write the docs http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=KEakc8r4r7M http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=KEakc...
alexchamberlain 13y ago
The most important thing on that list is the Licence. No licence and most people can't use it.
- freework 13y ago
  Its becoming less of an issue as more and more as software migrates to being "as a service". A webapp is not distributed, so the license doesn't matter at all.
  - alexchamberlain 13y ago
    Errrr I present AGPL
- quicksilver03 13y ago
  Serious question, why? Is this true only in lawsuit-happy countries?
  - alexchamberlain 13y ago
    Quite simply it's a copyright violation. The risk is too large for a large firm.
dakimov 13y ago
Platforms.
antoncohen 13y ago
I would like to add that when open sourcing a library, meaning software designed to be included within or used by other applications, please don't license it under the GPL. Of course you can license it under whatever you want, it's your code, but you need to understand the consequences. If the library is GPL it can only be used by other GPL applications (if the application is distributed), which excludes major open source projects like Rails (MIT) and Django (BSD). It seriously limits amount of people that can use your library, and hopefully you are open sourcing a library because you want to help as many people as possible. Even the LGPL doesn't make sense for interpreted languages or compiled languages that don't link like C. The wording of the LGPL is pretty ambiguous when it comes to languages that 'include' libraries into their code instead of linking against complied libraries. FSF argues it's not ambiguous [1], but that fact that they even have to make that argument proves it is. As the original author of Twisted Python wrote "It would be a halfway accurate statement that I selected the LGPL exactly because it doesn't make any sense." [2] Twisted is now MIT licensed [1] https://www.gnu.org/licenses/lgpl-java.html https://www.gnu.org/licenses/lgpl-java.html [2] https://twistedmatrix.com/pipermail/twisted-python/2004-May/007946.html https://twistedmatrix.com/pipermail/twisted-python/2004-May/...
- couac 13y ago
  agreed! I will add a note on this
- saurik 13y ago
  > It seriously limits amount of people that can use your library, and hopefully you are open sourcing a library because you want to help as many people as possible. This statement ignores the myriad alternative reasons, both personal and altruistic, why someone may wish to provide something as open source; in particular, it entirely dismisses as apparently-not-even-worthy-of-thought the actual arguments made those who use GPL-based licenses that concentrating on helping first-order consumers at the expense of those people further down the chain (the potential users of derivative software built by developers who are building on your work; especially and even specifically when your original software offered fairly unique and enabling functionality, as is described by the FSF as the situation where the GPL may be warranted for library use) seems like a strange and self-defeating bet to make about what the influence of your code will be, even when the goal is solely to "help as many people as possible".
_sabe_ 13y ago
I think it's interesting that in this time of fancy collaborative tools like github, the trend no longer seems to be collaboration but to reinvent everything as a "one man show". And it becomes apparent with new technologies like Go and redis where there are like 10 different implementations of the same database libraries at any given time, but they are all gone within a month...
- couac 13y ago
  Yes, because things are easier than ever for people that want to contribute but also for those who want to create new projects. Maybe GitHub could suggest existing projects to contribute on before creating a new repository :)
mwfunk 13y ago
I would add, please use a known and widely-used license (IMO, preferably a 2-clause BSDL variant or LGPLv2, depending on your attitude towards derived works). Don't make up your own or just state that it's public domain. Public domain is actually not a well-defined concept internationally, and means different things in different countries.
- couac 13y ago
  You're right :) I will add a note on this as well
- yoklov 13y ago
  http://creativecommons.org/choose/zero/ http://creativecommons.org/choose/zero/ is a good alternative/method to releasing into the public domain, and is (to my knowledge, IANAL) unambiguous internationally.
  - kibibu 13y ago
    http://www.wtfpl.net/ http://www.wtfpl.net/ is pretty cool too, if only because any court transcripts involving disputes would be pretty hilarious.
jorgecastillo 13y ago
I will make a small off-topic question. I really like the ISC license but for a small snippet of code I think that it's still to big. I choped some parts and got it to this: Copyright (c) 4-digit year, Company or Person's Name Permission to use, copy, modify, and/or distribute this software for any purpose is hereby granted. THE SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED "AS IS" AND THE AUTHOR DISCLAIMS ALL WARRANTIES WITH REGARD TO THIS SOFTWARE. Would this be a valid open source license? I am not using this license for anything big. Most of my code is pretty much useless and for the code I consider more useful I use the ISC license.
- rogerbinns 13y ago
  It is generally a bad idea to make your own, since you won't be aware of international issues. Similarly since your license is non-standard, anyone using the code now has to a do legal review to make sure things are ok, instead of looking in their list of standard approved ones. Pick one from the top of http://opensource.org/licenses http://opensource.org/licenses At the bottom of my LICENSE file I add "Alternatively you may strike the license above and use it under any OSI approved open source license such as those listed at http://opensource.org/licenses/alphabetical" http://opensource.org/licenses/alphabetical" See also http://creativecommons.org/choose/ http://creativecommons.org/choose/ although they are rarely used for code.
eksith 13y ago
I've been racking my brain trying to come up with a basic, concise readme to include with my code as well as a cabin design I've been working on. At first glance, these are wildly differing things, so one license type E.G. creative commons had too many options. Finally, I came up with one single readme file I can include in almost all my work (except where I have to combine other stuff under different licenses). It's basically a variant of the ISC license. Feel free to use this for whatever... Introduction... Things your whatchamacallit does ___________________________________________________________________________ README Important stuff about the project. Requirements, preconditions, defaults etc... ___________________________________________________________________________ CONTACT Twitter : @eksith Website : http://eksith.com Email : Eksith Rodrigo <reksith at gmail dot com> ___________________________________________________________________________ COPYING / LICENSE The contents of this package are licensed under the following unless otherwise noted. Copyright (c) $YEAR, Eksith Rodrigo Sources, libraries, binaries, diagrams and/or images and documentation included with this package are hereby referred to as "materials". Permission to use, copy, modify, and/or distribute these materials for any purpose with or without fee is hereby granted, provided that the above copyright notice and this permission notice be included in all copies in an applicable and appropriate format. THESE MATERIALS ARE PROVIDED "AS IS" AND THE AUTHOR DISCLAIMS ALL WARRANTIES WITH REGARD TO THESE MATERIALS INCLUDING ALL IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE AUTHOR BE LIABLE FOR ANY SPECIAL, DIRECT, INDIRECT, OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES OR ANY DAMAGES WHATSOEVER RESULTING FROM LOSS OF USE, DATA OR PROFITS, WHETHER IN AN ACTION OF CONTRACT, NEGLIGENCE OR OTHER TORTIOUS ACTION, ARISING OUT OF OR IN CONNECTION WITH THE USE OR PERFORMANCE OF THESE MATERIALS. END.

73 points by couac 13y ago

zalew 13y ago

he didn't mention the most important - write the docs http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=KEakc8r4r7M http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=KEakc...

alexchamberlain 13y ago

The most important thing on that list is the Licence. No licence and most people can't use it.

freework 13y ago
Its becoming less of an issue as more and more as software migrates to being "as a service". A webapp is not distributed, so the license doesn't matter at all.
- alexchamberlain 13y ago
  Errrr I present AGPL
quicksilver03 13y ago
Serious question, why? Is this true only in lawsuit-happy countries?
- alexchamberlain 13y ago
  Quite simply it's a copyright violation. The risk is too large for a large firm.

dakimov 13y ago

Platforms.

antoncohen 13y ago

I would like to add that when open sourcing a library, meaning software designed to be included within or used by other applications, please don't license it under the GPL. Of course you can license it under whatever you want, it's your code, but you need to understand the consequences. If the library is GPL it can only be used by other GPL applications (if the application is distributed), which excludes major open source projects like Rails (MIT) and Django (BSD). It seriously limits amount of people that can use your library, and hopefully you are open sourcing a library because you want to help as many people as possible. Even the LGPL doesn't make sense for interpreted languages or compiled languages that don't link like C. The wording of the LGPL is pretty ambiguous when it comes to languages that 'include' libraries into their code instead of linking against complied libraries. FSF argues it's not ambiguous [1], but that fact that they even have to make that argument proves it is. As the original author of Twisted Python wrote "It would be a halfway accurate statement that I selected the LGPL exactly because it doesn't make any sense." [2] Twisted is now MIT licensed [1] https://www.gnu.org/licenses/lgpl-java.html https://www.gnu.org/licenses/lgpl-java.html [2] https://twistedmatrix.com/pipermail/twisted-python/2004-May/007946.html https://twistedmatrix.com/pipermail/twisted-python/2004-May/...

couac 13y ago
agreed! I will add a note on this
saurik 13y ago
> It seriously limits amount of people that can use your library, and hopefully you are open sourcing a library because you want to help as many people as possible. This statement ignores the myriad alternative reasons, both personal and altruistic, why someone may wish to provide something as open source; in particular, it entirely dismisses as apparently-not-even-worthy-of-thought the actual arguments made those who use GPL-based licenses that concentrating on helping first-order consumers at the expense of those people further down the chain (the potential users of derivative software built by developers who are building on your work; especially and even specifically when your original software offered fairly unique and enabling functionality, as is described by the FSF as the situation where the GPL may be warranted for library use) seems like a strange and self-defeating bet to make about what the influence of your code will be, even when the goal is solely to "help as many people as possible".

_sabe_ 13y ago

I think it's interesting that in this time of fancy collaborative tools like github, the trend no longer seems to be collaboration but to reinvent everything as a "one man show". And it becomes apparent with new technologies like Go and redis where there are like 10 different implementations of the same database libraries at any given time, but they are all gone within a month...

couac 13y ago
Yes, because things are easier than ever for people that want to contribute but also for those who want to create new projects. Maybe GitHub could suggest existing projects to contribute on before creating a new repository :)

mwfunk 13y ago

I would add, please use a known and widely-used license (IMO, preferably a 2-clause BSDL variant or LGPLv2, depending on your attitude towards derived works). Don't make up your own or just state that it's public domain. Public domain is actually not a well-defined concept internationally, and means different things in different countries.

couac 13y ago
You're right :) I will add a note on this as well
yoklov 13y ago
http://creativecommons.org/choose/zero/ http://creativecommons.org/choose/zero/ is a good alternative/method to releasing into the public domain, and is (to my knowledge, IANAL) unambiguous internationally.
- kibibu 13y ago
  http://www.wtfpl.net/ http://www.wtfpl.net/ is pretty cool too, if only because any court transcripts involving disputes would be pretty hilarious.

jorgecastillo 13y ago

I will make a small off-topic question. I really like the ISC license but for a small snippet of code I think that it's still to big. I choped some parts and got it to this: Copyright (c) 4-digit year, Company or Person's Name Permission to use, copy, modify, and/or distribute this software for any purpose is hereby granted. THE SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED "AS IS" AND THE AUTHOR DISCLAIMS ALL WARRANTIES WITH REGARD TO THIS SOFTWARE. Would this be a valid open source license? I am not using this license for anything big. Most of my code is pretty much useless and for the code I consider more useful I use the ISC license.

rogerbinns 13y ago
It is generally a bad idea to make your own, since you won't be aware of international issues. Similarly since your license is non-standard, anyone using the code now has to a do legal review to make sure things are ok, instead of looking in their list of standard approved ones. Pick one from the top of http://opensource.org/licenses http://opensource.org/licenses At the bottom of my LICENSE file I add "Alternatively you may strike the license above and use it under any OSI approved open source license such as those listed at http://opensource.org/licenses/alphabetical" http://opensource.org/licenses/alphabetical" See also http://creativecommons.org/choose/ http://creativecommons.org/choose/ although they are rarely used for code.

eksith 13y ago

I've been racking my brain trying to come up with a basic, concise readme to include with my code as well as a cabin design I've been working on. At first glance, these are wildly differing things, so one license type E.G. creative commons had too many options. Finally, I came up with one single readme file I can include in almost all my work (except where I have to combine other stuff under different licenses). It's basically a variant of the ISC license. Feel free to use this for whatever... Introduction... Things your whatchamacallit does ___________________________________________________________________________ README Important stuff about the project. Requirements, preconditions, defaults etc... ___________________________________________________________________________ CONTACT Twitter : @eksith Website : http://eksith.com Email : Eksith Rodrigo <reksith at gmail dot com> ___________________________________________________________________________ COPYING / LICENSE The contents of this package are licensed under the following unless otherwise noted. Copyright (c) $YEAR, Eksith Rodrigo Sources, libraries, binaries, diagrams and/or images and documentation included with this package are hereby referred to as "materials". Permission to use, copy, modify, and/or distribute these materials for any purpose with or without fee is hereby granted, provided that the above copyright notice and this permission notice be included in all copies in an applicable and appropriate format. THESE MATERIALS ARE PROVIDED "AS IS" AND THE AUTHOR DISCLAIMS ALL WARRANTIES WITH REGARD TO THESE MATERIALS INCLUDING ALL IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE AUTHOR BE LIABLE FOR ANY SPECIAL, DIRECT, INDIRECT, OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES OR ANY DAMAGES WHATSOEVER RESULTING FROM LOSS OF USE, DATA OR PROFITS, WHETHER IN AN ACTION OF CONTRACT, NEGLIGENCE OR OTHER TORTIOUS ACTION, ARISING OUT OF OR IN CONNECTION WITH THE USE OR PERFORMANCE OF THESE MATERIALS. END.