8 ms·

Licenses are a toolbox, like the tech they cover. Wanna stop basically everything commercial related? AGPL Wanna stop tivozation? GPL 3 Wanna allow tivozati

Licenses are a toolbox, like the tech they cover. Wanna stop basically everything commercial related? AGPL Wanna stop tivozation? GPL 3 Wanna allow tivozation? GPL 2 Wanna allow general commercialization? 2-clause BSD EDIT: if anyone remembers the OSS license feature matrix site that's new, plz reply.

dllthomas 13y ago
"Wanna stop basically everything commercial related? AGPL" It stops anyone from using the code (including extensions to the code) as a unique differentiator. In no way does it prevent "everything commercial related". If there are other barriers to entry, you can still perfectly well charge for access to a service running AGPL code.
clarry 13y ago
Wanna combine "free" with another brand or version of "free"? Avoid any "free". Avoid any GPL. Use something that is unquestionably free, with no strings attached.
- icebraining 13y ago
  If you use GPL on your project, you can combine any BSD, MIT, etc and any GPL licensed code. If you use BSD, MIT, etc, you can't combine any GPL licensed code. You have more possibilities of combining code by choosing GPL for your project.
  - clarry 13y ago
    What you're saying makes absolutely no sense. If combine MIT and GPL, you combine MIT and GPL whether you're using MIT or GPL because, wait for it.. you're combining MIT and GPL. You either can combine these or you cannot. You can use both or you cannot. Which is it? There are many projects that combine MIT and GPL code. But GPL is the license that rather explicitly forbids combining with some licenses. EDIT: If you're saying that you cannot combine free with "free" and remain free, then you're right -- you cannot combine MIT with GPL. And you're right in that a nonfree project can incorporate free code into it. So they have more options, but the end result remains nonfree.
    - icebraining 13y ago
      Only code in the public domain or under the WTFPL is categorically freer than the GPL. The MIT and BSD just impose different conditions that you have to follow. So if I'm going to subject myself to licensing restrictions, it's silly to restrict myself to some code.
      - clarry 13y ago
        So despite having fewer restrictions than the GPL, you think the MIT license is incompatible with at least as many licenses as the GPLs are? Care to shed some light on your or your lawyer's interpretation of the license? Can you point out what causes incompatibility?
        icebraining 13y ago
        I said nothing about incompatibility with other licenses. I said that by licensing your code under MIT, you're restricted from using L/GPL code, while the opposite is not true, and if you're going to use code that imposes restrictions anyway (like MIT-licensed code), you're better off allowing yourself to use GPL-licensed code as well.
        clarry 13y ago
        The MIT license does not prohibit using GPL, unless there is a license incompatibility (which I do not see). You can of course prohibit yourself but that has nothing to do with the license. If you release that code, other people can still combine with whatever regardless of what you restrict yourself to. The GPL on the other hand does prohibit many licenses. Whether you want it or not. Or whether the people who use your code want it or not.
        icebraining 13y ago
        A license that you choose personally never prohibits you from doing anything, because you're the copyright holder, so you don't need a license at all. So choosing the GPL for your doesn't prohibit you from doing anything either. What it does is allow you to use someone else's GPL code, which the MIT doesn't.
  - einhverfr 13y ago
    > If you use BSD, MIT, etc, you can't combine any GPL licensed code. In the LedgerSMB project, I have started licensing core framework libraries under the BSD license because that should allow easier bridging to proprietary software. We started doing this with PHP libraries, but then decided that Perl shouldn't be a second-class language integration-wise. There's no reason that GPL code can't depend on BSD code. These licenses can co-exist and one can choose to license some parts of a project under the GPL and others under a BSD license.
icebraining 13y ago
Wanna stop basically everything commercial related? AGPL The whole business of the company I work for, and of the large network of peers around the world, is built around a piece of AGPL licensed software called OpenERP[1]. In other words, my paycheck disagrees with you :) [1] https://www.openerp.com/ https://www.openerp.com/
- joesb 13y ago
  Just to poke a little fun at you, Most ERP softwares are not well-known for being exactly understandable by average developer, and is known to be consultant-based business so much that it is hardly possible to learn it without paying for consultant. It's just another way of being proprietary by obscurity.

dllthomas 13y ago

"Wanna stop basically everything commercial related? AGPL" It stops anyone from using the code (including extensions to the code) as a unique differentiator. In no way does it prevent "everything commercial related". If there are other barriers to entry, you can still perfectly well charge for access to a service running AGPL code.

clarry 13y ago

Wanna combine "free" with another brand or version of "free"? Avoid any "free". Avoid any GPL. Use something that is unquestionably free, with no strings attached.

icebraining 13y ago
If you use GPL on your project, you can combine any BSD, MIT, etc and any GPL licensed code. If you use BSD, MIT, etc, you can't combine any GPL licensed code. You have more possibilities of combining code by choosing GPL for your project.
- clarry 13y ago
  What you're saying makes absolutely no sense. If combine MIT and GPL, you combine MIT and GPL whether you're using MIT or GPL because, wait for it.. you're combining MIT and GPL. You either can combine these or you cannot. You can use both or you cannot. Which is it? There are many projects that combine MIT and GPL code. But GPL is the license that rather explicitly forbids combining with some licenses. EDIT: If you're saying that you cannot combine free with "free" and remain free, then you're right -- you cannot combine MIT with GPL. And you're right in that a nonfree project can incorporate free code into it. So they have more options, but the end result remains nonfree.
  - icebraining 13y ago
    Only code in the public domain or under the WTFPL is categorically freer than the GPL. The MIT and BSD just impose different conditions that you have to follow. So if I'm going to subject myself to licensing restrictions, it's silly to restrict myself to some code.
    - clarry 13y ago
      So despite having fewer restrictions than the GPL, you think the MIT license is incompatible with at least as many licenses as the GPLs are? Care to shed some light on your or your lawyer's interpretation of the license? Can you point out what causes incompatibility?
      - icebraining 13y ago
        I said nothing about incompatibility with other licenses. I said that by licensing your code under MIT, you're restricted from using L/GPL code, while the opposite is not true, and if you're going to use code that imposes restrictions anyway (like MIT-licensed code), you're better off allowing yourself to use GPL-licensed code as well.
        clarry 13y ago
        The MIT license does not prohibit using GPL, unless there is a license incompatibility (which I do not see). You can of course prohibit yourself but that has nothing to do with the license. If you release that code, other people can still combine with whatever regardless of what you restrict yourself to. The GPL on the other hand does prohibit many licenses. Whether you want it or not. Or whether the people who use your code want it or not.
        icebraining 13y ago
        A license that you choose personally never prohibits you from doing anything, because you're the copyright holder, so you don't need a license at all. So choosing the GPL for your doesn't prohibit you from doing anything either. What it does is allow you to use someone else's GPL code, which the MIT doesn't.
- einhverfr 13y ago
  > If you use BSD, MIT, etc, you can't combine any GPL licensed code. In the LedgerSMB project, I have started licensing core framework libraries under the BSD license because that should allow easier bridging to proprietary software. We started doing this with PHP libraries, but then decided that Perl shouldn't be a second-class language integration-wise. There's no reason that GPL code can't depend on BSD code. These licenses can co-exist and one can choose to license some parts of a project under the GPL and others under a BSD license.

icebraining 13y ago

Wanna stop basically everything commercial related? AGPL The whole business of the company I work for, and of the large network of peers around the world, is built around a piece of AGPL licensed software called OpenERP[1]. In other words, my paycheck disagrees with you :) [1] https://www.openerp.com/ https://www.openerp.com/

joesb 13y ago
Just to poke a little fun at you, Most ERP softwares are not well-known for being exactly understandable by average developer, and is known to be consultant-based business so much that it is hardly possible to learn it without paying for consultant. It's just another way of being proprietary by obscurity.