28 ms·

Not only is it open source, it's free software! I am very pleasantly surprised to see that the GNU GPLv3 license has been chosen. I've been harsh on Light Table

Not only is it open source, it's free software! I am very pleasantly surprised to see that the GNU GPLv3 license has been chosen. I've been harsh on Light Table because the source was nonfree and the promise to "open source" it eventually didn't look promising or community-friendly. I expected a permissive license or an open-core strategy to monetize proprietary components and not be friendly with the free software community, but that doesn't seem to be the case here. I look forward to seeing where development goes. Happy hacking, Light Table devs.

GhotiFish 13y ago
Yah I don't believe those claims on their face either, but... If I had known it would of actually gone this route, I would of being pitching in bigtime for the kickstarter.
_stephan 13y ago
I expected a permissive license or an open-core strategy to monetize proprietary components and not be friendly with the free software community, but that doesn't seem to be the case here. So you don't consider a permissive license to be friendly with the free software community, or is that a typo?
- yuvadam 13y ago
  Well, yeah. In certain circles, the permissive licenses (MIT/BSD/etc.) are seen as detrimental to the free software movement.
  - misnome 13y ago
    Whereas, in other circles, the GPL is seen as detrimental to the free software movement.
    - davexunit 13y ago
      You will find that those circles are outside of the free software movement.
      - Smudge 13y ago
        No True Scotsman then, eh?
        pessimizer 13y ago
        No. By definition, advocates of free software are advocates of the GPL.
        chc 13y ago
        I don't see why. The "permissive" licenses like BSD and Apache are also free software licenses — they're even certified as such by the FSF.
        stcredzero 13y ago
        The GPL is restrictive. It protects certain freedoms at the expense of others.
        nkuttler 13y ago
        BSD is restrictive. It protects certain freedoms at the expense of others. It all depends on pespective. GPL has more freedom for users, BSD for developers. Both are valid licenses that do different things. Calling one restrictive just shows that you view this from one side only.
        asdasf 13y ago
        >BSD is restrictive. It protects certain freedoms at the expense of others. It is objectively and unequivocally less restrictive than the GPL. All it restricts is your ability to claim it is your own code. The GPL adds several more restrictions. Thus it is more restrictive. Arguing that you think those restrictions serve a purpose does not mean you can claim they are not restrictions. Lame straw man crap like pretending anyone ever said the GPL wasn't "valid" doesn't belong in a reasoned conversation.
    - deleted 13y ago
      [deleted]
    - falcolas 13y ago
      I think you're confusing developers who want to use open source software in closed source applications with the free software movement. To stereotype: GPL == best for users BSD == best for developers
      - btown 13y ago
        However, many (nontechnical) users just want software that's free (as in beer) and works well. Therefore, what's best for developers (i.e. what attracts developers) is also seen as good for these users.
      - sillysaurus2 13y ago
        As a game developer, you're hurting our entire industry by shutting us out of using your software. And in the end, we'll find a way, with or without you. We'd rather stand with you, but we can't go near GPL'd code. You know CodeCombat recently open sourced their game? They're basically the first gamedev company in the history of gamedev to do that -- a non-indie company who open sourced their current-gen tech. It's a good idea, and I hope more companies follow. So, times are changing, but in the meantime your strict adherence to "GPL license == good guys; MIT license == bad guys" is detrimental to pretty much an entire community of programmers. (Programmers with zero options; they're not going to ragequit the gamedev industry just because engines are closed source.)
        _delirium 13y ago
        Why would I want to give free labor to massively wealthy AAA studios who don't want to give back anything? If they want to use my code in their proprietary products, they can pay me to license it, just like they expect others to pay them. I don't see how it's "standing with me" to use my code to make the next Madden, without giving back either code or cash.
        teamonkey 13y ago
        > massively wealthy AAA studios Straw man. > who don't want to give back anything Straw man.
davexunit 13y ago
I should add that I am still a bit skeptical, especially since a nonfree operating system is clearly the favored platform, but I have a lot more hope now.
- cleverjake 13y ago
  skeptical of what?
  - MartinCron 13y ago
    their ideological purity, obviously.
    - cleverjake 13y ago
      It wasn't obvious - hence the question.
- jamii 13y ago
  > a nonfree operating system is clearly the favored platform The build instructions were added in the order that they were tested by volunteers. I wouldn't read too much into it. Fwiw, I wrote and tested the rest of the readme on linux.
  - davexunit 13y ago
    Oh, okay. Well that makes sense then. Thanks for the explanation.
adrianmalacoda 13y ago
A copyleft license is actually more conductive to Open Core development because it allows the copyright holder to reserve the right to create proprietary addons while shutting the community out of that option [1]. Not trying to insinuate that Light Table specifically is going to do this, but the option is still available. [1] http://ebb.org/bkuhn/blog/2009/10/16/open-core-shareware.html http://ebb.org/bkuhn/blog/2009/10/16/open-core-shareware.htm...
- davexunit 13y ago
  You're right. I should've remembered that because I've read the cited article before. Bradley Kuhn's writing is very educational.
cjbprime 13y ago
Yes, wonderful news! A GPLv3 release of all code far surpasses my expectations, and I've griped about the lack of a source release in the past, so I think I owe the devs a public apology here. Sorry for doubting you! I do have a question about the licensing -- will you be requiring copyright on code contributions to be assigned to you? If not, you can't then sell those contributions outside of the terms of GPLv3, because you have to own them before you can relicense them, or obtain the owner's permission. (If so, it's a little distasteful for the people contributing to know that their code is being used to make money for other people and they won't receive any of it.)
- davexunit 13y ago
  I am also interested re: copyright assignment. I think (and hope) that the answer is "no".
- tinco 13y ago
  Is it really that distasteful? I think it's a beautiful scheme, it allows the code to be free and obligatory open source, so a true contribution, whilst the possibility for the project leader to make money remains open. You can always fork the project, put your own branding on it and make money off your contributions still :) It's just not possible to make money under their brand, or in a closed source product.
  - cjbprime 13y ago
    It's a good question. Today, I definitely agree with you that the Light Table team has given far more to the world than the world has given back to them, so it seems like a very fair trade. But in a few years, we could imagine that the majority of contributions come donated for free from volunteers. Would it still be fair then? > You can always fork the project, put your own branding on it and make money off your contributions still :) It's just not possible to make money under their brand. This doesn't sound right. You'd be forbidden from selling non-GPLv3 access to any of the existing code, even under a new brand, and any plugins that you created would either be GPLv3, or not distributable at all.
rmc 13y ago
Not only is it open source, it's free software! In practical terms open source is the same as free software. I think just about any licence that is approved by the Open Source Initative is also approved by the Free Software Foundation.
- davexunit 13y ago
  The issue isn't a practical one, but a philosophical and political one.
- username223 13y ago
  That depends what you mean by "practical terms." It's a bit hyperbolic and long-winded, but this piece describes the difference: http://thebaffler.com/past/the_meme_hustler http://thebaffler.com/past/the_meme_hustler
elwell 13y ago
My favorite license is MIT.
- baldfat 13y ago
  I would they rather use the Apache 2.0 license. Seems safer to the community.
ExpiredLink 13y ago
> it's free software! It's Free software but not free software.
- dllthomas 13y ago
  How is it not free?
  - ExpiredLink 13y ago
    Well, 'Free Software' is the quite restricted GNU license model ('Free as in Stallman'), 'free' is free in the common sense.
    - dllthomas 13y ago
      The GPL is not "quite restricted" - you can basically do anything with it but change the license.
weavejester 13y ago
Isn't the GPL3 somewhat incompatible with the EPL?
- lemming 13y ago
  I was wondering this as well. According to Wikipedia: The EPL 1.0 is not compatible with the GPL, and a work created by combining a work licensed under the GPL with a work licensed under the EPL cannot be lawfully distributed. I haven't looked, but Light Table is using some EPL software for sure, starting with ClojureScript itself.
- sbegaudeau 13y ago
  The Eclipse Foundation and the Free Software Foundation consider that both licenses are incompatible. "The EPL and the GPL are not compatible in any combination where the result would be considered either: (a) a "derivative work" (which Eclipse interprets consistent with the definition of that term in the U.S. Copyright Act ) or (b) a work "based on" the GPL code, as that phrase is used in the GPLv2, GPLv3 or the GPL FAQ as applicable. Further, you may not combine EPL and GPL code in any scenario where source code under those licenses are both the same source code module. Based upon the position of the Free Software Foundation, you may not combine EPL and GPL code in any scenario where linking exists between code made available under those licenses. The above applies to both GPL version 2 and GPL version 3." http://www.eclipse.org/legal/eplfaq.php#GPLCOMPATIBLE http://www.eclipse.org/legal/eplfaq.php#GPLCOMPATIBLE
smrtinsert 13y ago
Agreed this is absolutely great news. Really looking forward to see where LT goes as an alternative to the pay2upgrade hassle of most modern code editors and as an antidote to plain ole text editors.
jwr 13y ago
I'm genuinely curious — if I understand you correctly, you consider a "permissive license" (such as BSD or MIT) to be inferior: less community-friendly, less "free". Why? The reason I ask is because I think the opposite is the case: what you call "permissive licenses" give me freedom to do whatever I want, while GPL, especially v3, is very restrictive as to what it allows me to do. Please, I do not want to discuss the merits of each approach, I would just like to understand the point of view, especially the seemingly conflicting uses of the words "free" and "permissive".
- pc86 13y ago
  I’m not the parent, but is it possible he’s referring to the restrictions on derivative software? If someone develops something amazing based off of LightTable with LightTable on GPL, aren’t they required to release that something on GPL as well? I believe under MIT derivative products can be created for commercial purposes (please correct me if I’m wrong!).
- craigching 13y ago
  I'm sorry, I may be misunderstanding what you're asking, but it seems you're asking about the old GPL vs. BSD/Apache/whatever, free software vs. open source software. If I'm misunderstanding you, I apologize. [1] explains the difference. Why is a BSD license not free but the GPL is? Because a BSD type license allows you to take software and turn it into non-free software. IOW, you could take BSD software, base your new software on that software and not release your changes or your source code. I'm not imparting morality here, just trying to explain to you the difference between BSD and GPL and why some consider BSD to be not free. [1] http://understandinglimited.com/2007/12/13/rms-on-bsd-vs-gpl/ http://understandinglimited.com/2007/12/13/rms-on-bsd-vs-gpl...
  - fotbr 13y ago
    Except you don't "turn it into" anything else ... the original is still out there, and still available to be used as anyone else wishes.
    - 13y ago
coolsunglasses 13y ago
I find it interesting that you think a free license necessarily means the preclusion of "open core". My main interest in AGPLv3 is the release of open core software with paid, proprietary addons.
zb 13y ago
This whole license flame war you've started is entirely unhelpful, and totally orthogonal to what you actually care about. If parts of the code remain proprietary then this is Open Core and if they don't, it isn't. The licence doesn't enter into it. Remember, the copyright holder is not bound by the GPL. And in this case external contributors are required to sign the Apache CLA[1]. So it is a permissive project as far as the original developers are concerned, and copyleft for everyone else. This is exactly the kind of situation that often leads to Open Core-like projects and proprietary vendor forks down the track, and is in no sense better for the user than if the code was permissively licensed for everyone. [1] https://github.com/LightTable/LightTable/blob/master/CONTRIBUTING.md https://github.com/LightTable/LightTable/blob/master/CONTRIB... BTW if the developers are reading, I find that description oversimplistic to the point of dishonesty. It is very unexpected that a GPL project would accept only Apache-licensed contributions, and your summary of the CA offers no hint that the developer is about to agree to it.

GhotiFish 13y ago

Yah I don't believe those claims on their face either, but... If I had known it would of actually gone this route, I would of being pitching in bigtime for the kickstarter.

_stephan 13y ago

I expected a permissive license or an open-core strategy to monetize proprietary components and not be friendly with the free software community, but that doesn't seem to be the case here. So you don't consider a permissive license to be friendly with the free software community, or is that a typo?

yuvadam 13y ago
Well, yeah. In certain circles, the permissive licenses (MIT/BSD/etc.) are seen as detrimental to the free software movement.
- misnome 13y ago
  Whereas, in other circles, the GPL is seen as detrimental to the free software movement.
  - davexunit 13y ago
    You will find that those circles are outside of the free software movement.
    - Smudge 13y ago
      No True Scotsman then, eh?
      - pessimizer 13y ago
        No. By definition, advocates of free software are advocates of the GPL.
        chc 13y ago
        I don't see why. The "permissive" licenses like BSD and Apache are also free software licenses — they're even certified as such by the FSF.
        stcredzero 13y ago
        The GPL is restrictive. It protects certain freedoms at the expense of others.
        nkuttler 13y ago
        BSD is restrictive. It protects certain freedoms at the expense of others. It all depends on pespective. GPL has more freedom for users, BSD for developers. Both are valid licenses that do different things. Calling one restrictive just shows that you view this from one side only.
        asdasf 13y ago
        >BSD is restrictive. It protects certain freedoms at the expense of others. It is objectively and unequivocally less restrictive than the GPL. All it restricts is your ability to claim it is your own code. The GPL adds several more restrictions. Thus it is more restrictive. Arguing that you think those restrictions serve a purpose does not mean you can claim they are not restrictions. Lame straw man crap like pretending anyone ever said the GPL wasn't "valid" doesn't belong in a reasoned conversation.
  - deleted 13y ago
    [deleted]
  - falcolas 13y ago
    I think you're confusing developers who want to use open source software in closed source applications with the free software movement. To stereotype: GPL == best for users BSD == best for developers
    - btown 13y ago
      However, many (nontechnical) users just want software that's free (as in beer) and works well. Therefore, what's best for developers (i.e. what attracts developers) is also seen as good for these users.
    - sillysaurus2 13y ago
      As a game developer, you're hurting our entire industry by shutting us out of using your software. And in the end, we'll find a way, with or without you. We'd rather stand with you, but we can't go near GPL'd code. You know CodeCombat recently open sourced their game? They're basically the first gamedev company in the history of gamedev to do that -- a non-indie company who open sourced their current-gen tech. It's a good idea, and I hope more companies follow. So, times are changing, but in the meantime your strict adherence to "GPL license == good guys; MIT license == bad guys" is detrimental to pretty much an entire community of programmers. (Programmers with zero options; they're not going to ragequit the gamedev industry just because engines are closed source.)
      - _delirium 13y ago
        Why would I want to give free labor to massively wealthy AAA studios who don't want to give back anything? If they want to use my code in their proprietary products, they can pay me to license it, just like they expect others to pay them. I don't see how it's "standing with me" to use my code to make the next Madden, without giving back either code or cash.
        teamonkey 13y ago
        > massively wealthy AAA studios Straw man. > who don't want to give back anything Straw man.

davexunit 13y ago

I should add that I am still a bit skeptical, especially since a nonfree operating system is clearly the favored platform, but I have a lot more hope now.

cleverjake 13y ago
skeptical of what?
- MartinCron 13y ago
  their ideological purity, obviously.
  - cleverjake 13y ago
    It wasn't obvious - hence the question.
jamii 13y ago
> a nonfree operating system is clearly the favored platform The build instructions were added in the order that they were tested by volunteers. I wouldn't read too much into it. Fwiw, I wrote and tested the rest of the readme on linux.
- davexunit 13y ago
  Oh, okay. Well that makes sense then. Thanks for the explanation.

adrianmalacoda 13y ago

A copyleft license is actually more conductive to Open Core development because it allows the copyright holder to reserve the right to create proprietary addons while shutting the community out of that option [1]. Not trying to insinuate that Light Table specifically is going to do this, but the option is still available. [1] http://ebb.org/bkuhn/blog/2009/10/16/open-core-shareware.html http://ebb.org/bkuhn/blog/2009/10/16/open-core-shareware.htm...

davexunit 13y ago
You're right. I should've remembered that because I've read the cited article before. Bradley Kuhn's writing is very educational.

cjbprime 13y ago

Yes, wonderful news! A GPLv3 release of all code far surpasses my expectations, and I've griped about the lack of a source release in the past, so I think I owe the devs a public apology here. Sorry for doubting you! I do have a question about the licensing -- will you be requiring copyright on code contributions to be assigned to you? If not, you can't then sell those contributions outside of the terms of GPLv3, because you have to own them before you can relicense them, or obtain the owner's permission. (If so, it's a little distasteful for the people contributing to know that their code is being used to make money for other people and they won't receive any of it.)

davexunit 13y ago
I am also interested re: copyright assignment. I think (and hope) that the answer is "no".
tinco 13y ago
Is it really that distasteful? I think it's a beautiful scheme, it allows the code to be free and obligatory open source, so a true contribution, whilst the possibility for the project leader to make money remains open. You can always fork the project, put your own branding on it and make money off your contributions still :) It's just not possible to make money under their brand, or in a closed source product.
- cjbprime 13y ago
  It's a good question. Today, I definitely agree with you that the Light Table team has given far more to the world than the world has given back to them, so it seems like a very fair trade. But in a few years, we could imagine that the majority of contributions come donated for free from volunteers. Would it still be fair then? > You can always fork the project, put your own branding on it and make money off your contributions still :) It's just not possible to make money under their brand. This doesn't sound right. You'd be forbidden from selling non-GPLv3 access to any of the existing code, even under a new brand, and any plugins that you created would either be GPLv3, or not distributable at all.

rmc 13y ago

Not only is it open source, it's free software! In practical terms open source is the same as free software. I think just about any licence that is approved by the Open Source Initative is also approved by the Free Software Foundation.

davexunit 13y ago
The issue isn't a practical one, but a philosophical and political one.
username223 13y ago
That depends what you mean by "practical terms." It's a bit hyperbolic and long-winded, but this piece describes the difference: http://thebaffler.com/past/the_meme_hustler http://thebaffler.com/past/the_meme_hustler

elwell 13y ago

My favorite license is MIT.

baldfat 13y ago
I would they rather use the Apache 2.0 license. Seems safer to the community.

ExpiredLink 13y ago

> it's free software! It's Free software but not free software.

dllthomas 13y ago
How is it not free?
- ExpiredLink 13y ago
  Well, 'Free Software' is the quite restricted GNU license model ('Free as in Stallman'), 'free' is free in the common sense.
  - dllthomas 13y ago
    The GPL is not "quite restricted" - you can basically do anything with it but change the license.

weavejester 13y ago

Isn't the GPL3 somewhat incompatible with the EPL?

lemming 13y ago
I was wondering this as well. According to Wikipedia: The EPL 1.0 is not compatible with the GPL, and a work created by combining a work licensed under the GPL with a work licensed under the EPL cannot be lawfully distributed. I haven't looked, but Light Table is using some EPL software for sure, starting with ClojureScript itself.
sbegaudeau 13y ago
The Eclipse Foundation and the Free Software Foundation consider that both licenses are incompatible. "The EPL and the GPL are not compatible in any combination where the result would be considered either: (a) a "derivative work" (which Eclipse interprets consistent with the definition of that term in the U.S. Copyright Act ) or (b) a work "based on" the GPL code, as that phrase is used in the GPLv2, GPLv3 or the GPL FAQ as applicable. Further, you may not combine EPL and GPL code in any scenario where source code under those licenses are both the same source code module. Based upon the position of the Free Software Foundation, you may not combine EPL and GPL code in any scenario where linking exists between code made available under those licenses. The above applies to both GPL version 2 and GPL version 3." http://www.eclipse.org/legal/eplfaq.php#GPLCOMPATIBLE http://www.eclipse.org/legal/eplfaq.php#GPLCOMPATIBLE

smrtinsert 13y ago

Agreed this is absolutely great news. Really looking forward to see where LT goes as an alternative to the pay2upgrade hassle of most modern code editors and as an antidote to plain ole text editors.

jwr 13y ago

I'm genuinely curious — if I understand you correctly, you consider a "permissive license" (such as BSD or MIT) to be inferior: less community-friendly, less "free". Why? The reason I ask is because I think the opposite is the case: what you call "permissive licenses" give me freedom to do whatever I want, while GPL, especially v3, is very restrictive as to what it allows me to do. Please, I do not want to discuss the merits of each approach, I would just like to understand the point of view, especially the seemingly conflicting uses of the words "free" and "permissive".

pc86 13y ago
I’m not the parent, but is it possible he’s referring to the restrictions on derivative software? If someone develops something amazing based off of LightTable with LightTable on GPL, aren’t they required to release that something on GPL as well? I believe under MIT derivative products can be created for commercial purposes (please correct me if I’m wrong!).
craigching 13y ago
I'm sorry, I may be misunderstanding what you're asking, but it seems you're asking about the old GPL vs. BSD/Apache/whatever, free software vs. open source software. If I'm misunderstanding you, I apologize. [1] explains the difference. Why is a BSD license not free but the GPL is? Because a BSD type license allows you to take software and turn it into non-free software. IOW, you could take BSD software, base your new software on that software and not release your changes or your source code. I'm not imparting morality here, just trying to explain to you the difference between BSD and GPL and why some consider BSD to be not free. [1] http://understandinglimited.com/2007/12/13/rms-on-bsd-vs-gpl/ http://understandinglimited.com/2007/12/13/rms-on-bsd-vs-gpl...
- fotbr 13y ago
  Except you don't "turn it into" anything else ... the original is still out there, and still available to be used as anyone else wishes.
  - 13y ago

coolsunglasses 13y ago

I find it interesting that you think a free license necessarily means the preclusion of "open core". My main interest in AGPLv3 is the release of open core software with paid, proprietary addons.

zb 13y ago

This whole license flame war you've started is entirely unhelpful, and totally orthogonal to what you actually care about. If parts of the code remain proprietary then this is Open Core and if they don't, it isn't. The licence doesn't enter into it. Remember, the copyright holder is not bound by the GPL. And in this case external contributors are required to sign the Apache CLA[1]. So it is a permissive project as far as the original developers are concerned, and copyleft for everyone else. This is exactly the kind of situation that often leads to Open Core-like projects and proprietary vendor forks down the track, and is in no sense better for the user than if the code was permissively licensed for everyone. [1] https://github.com/LightTable/LightTable/blob/master/CONTRIBUTING.md https://github.com/LightTable/LightTable/blob/master/CONTRIB... BTW if the developers are reading, I find that description oversimplistic to the point of dishonesty. It is very unexpected that a GPL project would accept only Apache-licensed contributions, and your summary of the CA offers no hint that the developer is about to agree to it.