6 ms·

> As Emacs and Vim have demonstrated over the past three decades, if you want to build a thriving, long-lasting community around a text editor, it has to be ope

> As Emacs and Vim have demonstrated over the past three decades, if you want to build a thriving, long-lasting community around a text editor, it has to be open source. Using a free software license is a big improvement, but I wish that they used a copyleft license like the GNU GPLv3. Inevitably, we'll see proprietary extensions and "pro" versions. Strong copyleft is important for the freedom of end users.

poolpool 13y ago
God forbid people want to get paid for their hard work and effort bringing something new into the world.
- p8952 13y ago
  I forgot that the first line of the GPL reads "YOU MAY NOT SELL THIS FOR PROFIT". It's a shame there are no billion dollar companies based around the GPL... /s
  - jussij 13y ago
    > It's a shame there are no billion dollar companies based around the GPL... /s There is and it is called Google. It's a champion for Open Source and seems to use Open Source software almost exclusively across their entire organisation.
    - Mikeb85 13y ago
      The /s indicates sarcasm. Of course there is Google, Amazon, Red Hat, SUSE, even IBM uses a lot of GPL software...
      - pjmlp 13y ago
        All server software. No one makes money from FOSS desktop software.
        jbk 13y ago
        Firefox?
        pjmlp 13y ago
        They get paid by Google.
        Mikeb85 13y ago
        Depends what you consider making money to be. Plenty of businesses depend on FOSS desktop software, it makes them money. If I use Linux and tools like Blender, Vim, GCC, etc..., and I sell the resulting product, then I'm making money with FOSS, am I not?
        pjmlp 13y ago
        You are, but the guys coding the software you use are not. So unless you make the effort to contribute back, they will have some issues to pay the rent.
    - WorldWideWayne 13y ago
      Would Google have been able to get there if Linux and most open source software was licensed as GPLv3?
- callahad 13y ago
  A copyleft license would not preclude this, as the Atom authors would still hold copyright, and could freely distribute a "Pro" version under a proprietary license. A copyleft license would prevent someone else, who does not hold copyright on Atom, from doing that.
  - gtirloni 13y ago
    So you're happy that the original authors use copyleft+proprietary instead of allowing anyone else to release a fork (which would also be free software)? How's that better? This is called "open core" strategy and few companies use it correctly because there is so much incentive to focus development on the "pro" version and let the free/open one stagnate (or lack basic features). I wish they had it released under a less restrictive license like BSD or MIT. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_core http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_core
    - stormbrew 13y ago
      Well, it's also very difficult to justify contributing to a project that's open core because it means assigning your copyright to someone who stands to profit from your work while denying you the same right. There have been projects that have managed to still get contributions under this model [1], but they're probably the exception rather than the rule. Of course, then when you don't get any contributions that only feeds the justification for focusing on the paid product, because clearly "the community doesn't care". [1] mysql is the biggest and most obvious example, but it seems like a lot of tension built up over it and that's resulted in several forks existing now. Who presumably accept contributions without attribution to Oracle.
    - nardi 13y ago
      They did release it under MIT. It's right there in the first sentence.
- JetSpiegel 13y ago
  Copyleft licenses just make sure that people that want to get paid for their work (a legitimate venture) don't just piggyback on the collective effort of open source projects.
- mherrmann 13y ago
  Amen.
- pnathan 13y ago
  The GPL does not preclude this in the least.
- vezzy-fnord 13y ago
  You would think people on HN would know better than to repeat such tired canards like this, but evidently not.
CamperBob2 13y ago
Which is a problem because...?
eq- 13y ago
Perhaps we will. I strongly doubt any of those will be even a slight success, unless released by the Atom team (which the copyleft license wouldn't affect).
bryanlarsen 13y ago
The GPL doesn't prevent the proprietary extensions and "pro" versions, it just prevents anybody but the original author from making those pro versions. Therefore companies who want to make their money selling pro versions usually choose the GPL license. So in practice, we see more "commercial/pro" versions of GPL software than we do of MIT/BSD licensed software.
- fab13n 13y ago
  > GPL [...] prevents anybody but the original author from making those pro versions. This is only true as long as they accept no 3rd party contribution. In this case, accepting 3rd party modules is a crucial feature, so GPL+commercial wouldn't fly.
- grayclhn 13y ago
  It prevents the "original" author from making those versions unless he or she requests a transfer of copyright for any outside code. If you have evidence of the second claim, I'd love to see it or see a link. (I mean this as non-confrontationally as possible; I don't have an opinion one way or the other on whether it's true, but now I'm curious.)
  - bryanlarsen 13y ago
    The standard example of this practice is MySQL. If you want some more, Google for "open core". Warning: you'll probably run into many heated arguments.
    - grayclhn 13y ago
      Re: the heated arguments, exactly the reason for my parenthetical comment earlier :). Thanks for the pointer.
- pervycreeper 13y ago
  Yes, but in that case the "pro" versions, at least, are not parasitic on some other author's work
lucian1900 13y ago
That would be very sad. It would preclude using so much code in extensions, for no particularly good reason.
tootie 13y ago
JetBrains would disagree.
thatthatis 13y ago
Well, I'm glad for the closer to public domain MIT licensing. I believe that the ability to sell it if you hit a home run leads to a lot of big ideas getting tried and the base hits making their way back into the open codebase. But I think it is a matter of taste/personal preference. For me, copy middle feels more free.

poolpool 13y ago

God forbid people want to get paid for their hard work and effort bringing something new into the world.

p8952 13y ago
I forgot that the first line of the GPL reads "YOU MAY NOT SELL THIS FOR PROFIT". It's a shame there are no billion dollar companies based around the GPL... /s
- jussij 13y ago
  > It's a shame there are no billion dollar companies based around the GPL... /s There is and it is called Google. It's a champion for Open Source and seems to use Open Source software almost exclusively across their entire organisation.
  - Mikeb85 13y ago
    The /s indicates sarcasm. Of course there is Google, Amazon, Red Hat, SUSE, even IBM uses a lot of GPL software...
    - pjmlp 13y ago
      All server software. No one makes money from FOSS desktop software.
      - jbk 13y ago
        Firefox?
        pjmlp 13y ago
        They get paid by Google.
      - Mikeb85 13y ago
        Depends what you consider making money to be. Plenty of businesses depend on FOSS desktop software, it makes them money. If I use Linux and tools like Blender, Vim, GCC, etc..., and I sell the resulting product, then I'm making money with FOSS, am I not?
        pjmlp 13y ago
        You are, but the guys coding the software you use are not. So unless you make the effort to contribute back, they will have some issues to pay the rent.
  - WorldWideWayne 13y ago
    Would Google have been able to get there if Linux and most open source software was licensed as GPLv3?
callahad 13y ago
A copyleft license would not preclude this, as the Atom authors would still hold copyright, and could freely distribute a "Pro" version under a proprietary license. A copyleft license would prevent someone else, who does not hold copyright on Atom, from doing that.
- gtirloni 13y ago
  So you're happy that the original authors use copyleft+proprietary instead of allowing anyone else to release a fork (which would also be free software)? How's that better? This is called "open core" strategy and few companies use it correctly because there is so much incentive to focus development on the "pro" version and let the free/open one stagnate (or lack basic features). I wish they had it released under a less restrictive license like BSD or MIT. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_core http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_core
  - stormbrew 13y ago
    Well, it's also very difficult to justify contributing to a project that's open core because it means assigning your copyright to someone who stands to profit from your work while denying you the same right. There have been projects that have managed to still get contributions under this model [1], but they're probably the exception rather than the rule. Of course, then when you don't get any contributions that only feeds the justification for focusing on the paid product, because clearly "the community doesn't care". [1] mysql is the biggest and most obvious example, but it seems like a lot of tension built up over it and that's resulted in several forks existing now. Who presumably accept contributions without attribution to Oracle.
  - nardi 13y ago
    They did release it under MIT. It's right there in the first sentence.
JetSpiegel 13y ago
Copyleft licenses just make sure that people that want to get paid for their work (a legitimate venture) don't just piggyback on the collective effort of open source projects.
mherrmann 13y ago
Amen.
pnathan 13y ago
The GPL does not preclude this in the least.
vezzy-fnord 13y ago
You would think people on HN would know better than to repeat such tired canards like this, but evidently not.

CamperBob2 13y ago

Which is a problem because...?

eq- 13y ago

Perhaps we will. I strongly doubt any of those will be even a slight success, unless released by the Atom team (which the copyleft license wouldn't affect).

bryanlarsen 13y ago

The GPL doesn't prevent the proprietary extensions and "pro" versions, it just prevents anybody but the original author from making those pro versions. Therefore companies who want to make their money selling pro versions usually choose the GPL license. So in practice, we see more "commercial/pro" versions of GPL software than we do of MIT/BSD licensed software.

fab13n 13y ago
> GPL [...] prevents anybody but the original author from making those pro versions. This is only true as long as they accept no 3rd party contribution. In this case, accepting 3rd party modules is a crucial feature, so GPL+commercial wouldn't fly.
grayclhn 13y ago
It prevents the "original" author from making those versions unless he or she requests a transfer of copyright for any outside code. If you have evidence of the second claim, I'd love to see it or see a link. (I mean this as non-confrontationally as possible; I don't have an opinion one way or the other on whether it's true, but now I'm curious.)
- bryanlarsen 13y ago
  The standard example of this practice is MySQL. If you want some more, Google for "open core". Warning: you'll probably run into many heated arguments.
  - grayclhn 13y ago
    Re: the heated arguments, exactly the reason for my parenthetical comment earlier :). Thanks for the pointer.
pervycreeper 13y ago
Yes, but in that case the "pro" versions, at least, are not parasitic on some other author's work

lucian1900 13y ago

That would be very sad. It would preclude using so much code in extensions, for no particularly good reason.

tootie 13y ago

JetBrains would disagree.

thatthatis 13y ago

Well, I'm glad for the closer to public domain MIT licensing. I believe that the ability to sell it if you hit a home run leads to a lot of big ideas getting tried and the base hits making their way back into the open codebase. But I think it is a matter of taste/personal preference. For me, copy middle feels more free.