4 ms·

No way. GPL or LGPL every time IMHO. It protects your work from proprietary embrace and extend methods. That in turn helps keep it free for all to use and modif

No way. GPL or LGPL every time IMHO. It protects your work from proprietary embrace and extend methods. That in turn helps keep it free for all to use and modify. Commercial licenses can still be compatible with the LGPL and GPL if done properly by the copyright owners of the code. For an example of embrace and extend look at some of the libraries usurped by Microsoft such as Kerberos. I bet they wish they'd have used the GPL.

steveklabnik 13y ago
Cynical comment: do you really expect that on a startup forum, where people are explicitly trying to make businesses on a shoestring, people will advocate for not allowing proprietary embrace and extend methods? Open Source is free labor, but only if you MIT.
pbiggar 13y ago
So you're someone who clearly has spent a bit of time thinking through all the licenses, and has a good philosophical position on them. However, if you haven't done all that research, and just need a license right now, I think it's not wise to tell people to use the GPL, as it will have side-effects they don't intend, for features they're not interested in (perhaps, not interested in _yet_, of course).
- ianstallings 13y ago
  This is a big decision. What is so bad about taking an hour or two to read about the differences? I know a lot about the different licenses because I went through this same decision when I decided to release a library I built under LGPL: http://sourceforge.net/projects/opensmtp-net/ http://sourceforge.net/projects/opensmtp-net/ I spent a little time and made a decision. I think everyone should do the same. Don't let someone embrace and extend your work unless you want them to.
  - pbiggar 13y ago
    An hour or two is a serious underestimate. I spent literally years reading about licenses before I came to my eventual conclusion.
    - ianstallings 13y ago
      So you're saying that a quick decision can't be made? I agree. A couple of hours is the bare minimum to at least try to discover them. But I still think people should try and understand the differences. I feel that the GPL is very important to OSS.
      - pbiggar 13y ago
        Totally agree, I just wouldn't want someone to have to have more friction when they're trying to do OSS for the first time.
- pseut 13y ago
  Probably true. I'd bet it's also unlikely that someone so new to free software will attract many collaborators. So they'll be likely to own the copyright anyway (for at least the vast majority of the project) and can relicense it later. But, yes, if they're hell bent on not learning about the differences between the licenses, they probably don't want the GPL.
  - steveklabnik 13y ago
    That's a big probably. I could just as easily say that people would probably be surprised that someone could not contribute back. After all, it's sharing code!
    - pbiggar 13y ago
      I think I don't know what you mean? Why wouldn't someone be able to contribute back?
      - steveklabnik 13y ago
        Sorry, I meant "weren't required to contribute back."
        pbiggar 13y ago
        Ah. I've never had a problem in practice. My personal view is that I should optimize for people getting involved. If it gets so successful that a company wants to use it without contributing back, its a nice problem to have (and it doesn't particularly bother me). I know you have a lot more in OSS than I. Has this affected you much? Would love to hear any experiences - it seems you're sour on it and there might be a story there?
        steveklabnik 13y ago
        I'm planning on writing a blog post, but the tl;dr is that I'm not sure it's sustainable, because there's a whole lot of take, and very little give.
wes-exp 13y ago
It depends what you want, though. Many developers are more interested in maximizing the popularity of their code rather than making sure it is always available under OSS terms. In this case, MIT is a much better choice.
tzs 13y ago
> For an example of embrace and extend look at some of the libraries usurped by Microsoft such as Kerberos Unless Microsoft tracked down and managed to wipe out all places that were distributing the code that Microsoft started from, they did not "usurp" the code. Anyone is still free to start with the same code Microsoft started with.
- ianstallings 13y ago
  Yes one could do the same and create a new kerberos library that is slightly incompatible with the other library as Microsoft did. That, IMHO, was trying to usurp the kerberos project in the sense that it wanted to be the new standard. I don't see how that's off.
radm 13y ago
From my point of view, your free software license represents a marketing effort. But it's a highly specialized kind of marketing - it's your marketing to development communities. From another point of view (also one of mine), your license says something about the kind of community you see yourself being a part of. And, when you make this choice, you are excluding certain kinds of participants and inviting others. But community is not just a license, it's also how you treat others, how you see them, and how they see you, and the kinds of activities they find interesting (and/or sustainable - sometimes but not often the same thing). A license is also a cost. For some people this will be a moral or ethical cost. The more desperate the startup the bigger an issue cost starts to become. Related is whatever small bit of return the startup can get - this is the babyfood that it will need to survive and grow. Ultimately, I think our systems of economics (and if you pretend we only have one you are fooling yourself) demand diversity. There cannot be only one good choice when talking about all startups. There can be one good choice when talking about a specific startup (but for a few, multiple licenses might be a good thing). Not that I have ever spent any time thinking about these kinds of issues... Finally, note that while what I am saying here is so overly general as to be entirely useless, there are other [almost conflicting] ways of thinking about these issues which can also have value for a startup. Carry on...

steveklabnik 13y ago

Cynical comment: do you really expect that on a startup forum, where people are explicitly trying to make businesses on a shoestring, people will advocate for not allowing proprietary embrace and extend methods? Open Source is free labor, but only if you MIT.

pbiggar 13y ago

So you're someone who clearly has spent a bit of time thinking through all the licenses, and has a good philosophical position on them. However, if you haven't done all that research, and just need a license right now, I think it's not wise to tell people to use the GPL, as it will have side-effects they don't intend, for features they're not interested in (perhaps, not interested in _yet_, of course).

ianstallings 13y ago
This is a big decision. What is so bad about taking an hour or two to read about the differences? I know a lot about the different licenses because I went through this same decision when I decided to release a library I built under LGPL: http://sourceforge.net/projects/opensmtp-net/ http://sourceforge.net/projects/opensmtp-net/ I spent a little time and made a decision. I think everyone should do the same. Don't let someone embrace and extend your work unless you want them to.
- pbiggar 13y ago
  An hour or two is a serious underestimate. I spent literally years reading about licenses before I came to my eventual conclusion.
  - ianstallings 13y ago
    So you're saying that a quick decision can't be made? I agree. A couple of hours is the bare minimum to at least try to discover them. But I still think people should try and understand the differences. I feel that the GPL is very important to OSS.
    - pbiggar 13y ago
      Totally agree, I just wouldn't want someone to have to have more friction when they're trying to do OSS for the first time.
pseut 13y ago
Probably true. I'd bet it's also unlikely that someone so new to free software will attract many collaborators. So they'll be likely to own the copyright anyway (for at least the vast majority of the project) and can relicense it later. But, yes, if they're hell bent on not learning about the differences between the licenses, they probably don't want the GPL.
- steveklabnik 13y ago
  That's a big probably. I could just as easily say that people would probably be surprised that someone could not contribute back. After all, it's sharing code!
  - pbiggar 13y ago
    I think I don't know what you mean? Why wouldn't someone be able to contribute back?
    - steveklabnik 13y ago
      Sorry, I meant "weren't required to contribute back."
      - pbiggar 13y ago
        Ah. I've never had a problem in practice. My personal view is that I should optimize for people getting involved. If it gets so successful that a company wants to use it without contributing back, its a nice problem to have (and it doesn't particularly bother me). I know you have a lot more in OSS than I. Has this affected you much? Would love to hear any experiences - it seems you're sour on it and there might be a story there?
        steveklabnik 13y ago
        I'm planning on writing a blog post, but the tl;dr is that I'm not sure it's sustainable, because there's a whole lot of take, and very little give.

wes-exp 13y ago

It depends what you want, though. Many developers are more interested in maximizing the popularity of their code rather than making sure it is always available under OSS terms. In this case, MIT is a much better choice.

tzs 13y ago

> For an example of embrace and extend look at some of the libraries usurped by Microsoft such as Kerberos Unless Microsoft tracked down and managed to wipe out all places that were distributing the code that Microsoft started from, they did not "usurp" the code. Anyone is still free to start with the same code Microsoft started with.

ianstallings 13y ago
Yes one could do the same and create a new kerberos library that is slightly incompatible with the other library as Microsoft did. That, IMHO, was trying to usurp the kerberos project in the sense that it wanted to be the new standard. I don't see how that's off.

radm 13y ago

From my point of view, your free software license represents a marketing effort. But it's a highly specialized kind of marketing - it's your marketing to development communities. From another point of view (also one of mine), your license says something about the kind of community you see yourself being a part of. And, when you make this choice, you are excluding certain kinds of participants and inviting others. But community is not just a license, it's also how you treat others, how you see them, and how they see you, and the kinds of activities they find interesting (and/or sustainable - sometimes but not often the same thing). A license is also a cost. For some people this will be a moral or ethical cost. The more desperate the startup the bigger an issue cost starts to become. Related is whatever small bit of return the startup can get - this is the babyfood that it will need to survive and grow. Ultimately, I think our systems of economics (and if you pretend we only have one you are fooling yourself) demand diversity. There cannot be only one good choice when talking about all startups. There can be one good choice when talking about a specific startup (but for a few, multiple licenses might be a good thing). Not that I have ever spent any time thinking about these kinds of issues... Finally, note that while what I am saying here is so overly general as to be entirely useless, there are other [almost conflicting] ways of thinking about these issues which can also have value for a startup. Carry on...