5 ms·

"GitHub must be allowed to use the code commercially without restriction, regardless of the license choosen." I'm not too crazy about this. Contests can be goo

by evdawg 17y ago

"GitHub must be allowed to use the code commercially without restriction, regardless of the license choosen." I'm not too crazy about this. Contests can be good and bad at the same time. "Here guys, solve this very hard problem for us for free and we'll take it off your hands and we'll completely ignore your licensing wishes and use it without any restrictions whatsoever." I envision a lot of "Well if you don't want to participate, DON'T!", but the point of the matter is, I see GitHub as taking advantage of a warm and supportive open-source community. The license of the submitted code should apply to everyone, including GitHub!

defunkt 17y ago
Free? If you win, you get a lifetime GitHub account and a tasty bottle of bourbon. We're trading you the prizes for a commercial license.
- jmtulloss 17y ago
  That's what I was going to say too. If the payout isn't high enough, then don't sell :).
- tsally 17y ago
  What country/state/province law are you using for the age cutoff for the bourbon? :-p
- chaqke 17y ago
  i'd recommend you try rittenhouse's 23-year-old and black maple hill's 21-year-old
  - defunkt 17y ago
    I'm a big Black Maple Hill fan. Will have to try Rittenhouse - thanks!
kiba 17y ago
If a license prohibit commercial usage, then it violated the open source etho of the community.
- jon_dahl 17y ago
  There are two open source ethics. The first (MIT/BSD) says "do whatever you want with it." The second (GNU) says "keep software free." The latter places heavy restrictions on certain ways to commercialize software, e.g. selling it without making the source freely available.
schacon 17y ago
Though much of GitHub is open-sourced, the core app itself is not (yet). We just don't want to not be able to use the winning entry to best improve the site for the 150,000 open source projects we provide free hosting for because the winning code is GPLd or something. We are trying to encourage the development of open source solutions to this problem so everyone can benefit, though - all entries have to be open source at the end of the contest, that is a rule. We want everyone to learn and be able to use the results of this contest. I would encourage the use of more permissive licenses, but I didn't want to enforce it, thus the disclaimer exempting us. Otherwise the 100,000 users we provide free Git hosting for don't get to benefit from the best solution, either.
pssdbt 17y ago
Well it's really a brilliant plan if you ask me... give the winner a bottle of nice bourbon and the concerns about licensing turn into concerns about getting laid and performing random stunts of awesomeness that result in hospital visits. I'm in!
jrockway 17y ago
The license of the submitted code should apply to everyone, including GitHub! Indeed. I'm tempted to try this but keep the code GPL'd. Sure, I don't get any liquor or free disk space, but the amusement almost makes it worthwhile. (I hate proprietary software.)
- defen 17y ago
  You could still get the bourbon and disk space - since you would still theoretically be the sole copyright holder, you could submit your entry with one license (BSD for example) and then publicly release it under another (GPL) Note: I am not a lawyer

by evdawg 17y ago

defunkt 17y ago

Free? If you win, you get a lifetime GitHub account and a tasty bottle of bourbon. We're trading you the prizes for a commercial license.

jmtulloss 17y ago
That's what I was going to say too. If the payout isn't high enough, then don't sell :).
tsally 17y ago
What country/state/province law are you using for the age cutoff for the bourbon? :-p
chaqke 17y ago
i'd recommend you try rittenhouse's 23-year-old and black maple hill's 21-year-old
- defunkt 17y ago
  I'm a big Black Maple Hill fan. Will have to try Rittenhouse - thanks!

kiba 17y ago

If a license prohibit commercial usage, then it violated the open source etho of the community.

jon_dahl 17y ago
There are two open source ethics. The first (MIT/BSD) says "do whatever you want with it." The second (GNU) says "keep software free." The latter places heavy restrictions on certain ways to commercialize software, e.g. selling it without making the source freely available.

schacon 17y ago

Though much of GitHub is open-sourced, the core app itself is not (yet). We just don't want to not be able to use the winning entry to best improve the site for the 150,000 open source projects we provide free hosting for because the winning code is GPLd or something. We are trying to encourage the development of open source solutions to this problem so everyone can benefit, though - all entries have to be open source at the end of the contest, that is a rule. We want everyone to learn and be able to use the results of this contest. I would encourage the use of more permissive licenses, but I didn't want to enforce it, thus the disclaimer exempting us. Otherwise the 100,000 users we provide free Git hosting for don't get to benefit from the best solution, either.

pssdbt 17y ago

Well it's really a brilliant plan if you ask me... give the winner a bottle of nice bourbon and the concerns about licensing turn into concerns about getting laid and performing random stunts of awesomeness that result in hospital visits. I'm in!

jrockway 17y ago

The license of the submitted code should apply to everyone, including GitHub! Indeed. I'm tempted to try this but keep the code GPL'd. Sure, I don't get any liquor or free disk space, but the amusement almost makes it worthwhile. (I hate proprietary software.)

defen 17y ago
You could still get the bourbon and disk space - since you would still theoretically be the sole copyright holder, you could submit your entry with one license (BSD for example) and then publicly release it under another (GPL) Note: I am not a lawyer