5 ms·
Note that Paul did not say that Arc will be open-sourced this Winter, just that he hopes it will. That's a big difference. So much of a difference that this h
by palish 19y ago
Note that Paul did not say that Arc will be open-sourced this Winter, just that he hopes it will. That's a big difference. So much of a difference that this headline seems Reddit-ready.
- kirubakaran 19y agoCome on... I phrased it: "Likely", didn't I? :-)
- reitzensteinm 19y agoEr... yes you did. A Reddit worthy headline would have been "Paul Graham Exposed! Fundamentalist Christian plans to finish an arc before 'Judgement Day'"
- mechanical_fish 19y ago"Arc Doesn't Scale, You Should Use PHP"
- pius 19y agoI think you mean "Ron Paul Graham."
- pg 19y agoI meant I was planning to, unless there's some disaster. I'm working on it now. Anyone have any preference for licenses? BSD? Or should I not have asked that...
- doktryner 19y agopg: It should be Affero GPL. You won't overthrow Java et al anyway, but if Arc is as good as we all anticipate, choosing AGPL may really help the free software.
- staunch 19y agoI think there's a rule that when you create a new language you also have to create a new open source compatible license. I look forward to releasing code under The Arc License.
- dmoney 19y agoDouble points if the license is written in Arc itself.
- jey 19y agoI like the MIT license (aka X11 license). It's simple, understandable, and permissive.
- coffeeaddicted 19y agoI prefer zlib or boost licenses which make a distinction for binaries. You don't have to attach the license for binary-only applications which makes it more suited in some cases (like embedded development).
- viergroupie 19y agoI second zlib. It's slightly more restrictive than MIT, but in a very sensible way. I don't think preventing modified sources from masquerading as the original Arc, or maintaining author attribution will impede adoption overly much.
- ericb 19y agoPardon my naivete, but are masquerading languages a common problem? Choosing a license to fight imagined evils seems like the short route to a DRM'd license.
- icky 19y agoSeconded. If you really want a 100-year language, then your chief concern is getting it widely-adopted, and a permissive license like MIT is just the ticket.
- big-j 19y agoI'm not so sure that liberal licensing leads to popularity. One obvious counter-example of your supposition is GNU/Linux vs. BSD. Incidentally, the last thing the FSF is worried about is popularity, yet look at how popular GCC, Emacs, bash, and other GPL'd software is. Licensing your software with a very liberal license may help make your software more popular with some large companies who are in a position to take advantage of it (and I suspect timing is important here as well), but I'm not so sure it makes your software popular with the developer community.
- rkts 19y agoThe ISC license seems to fit your style.
- irrelative 19y agoi'll take the bait :-) why not just public domain it?
- kirubakaran 19y agoSomeone IANALed in Reddit that 'Do Whatever Fuck You Want With It' license is not legally enforcable or something. So I'll take 'Public Domain'.
- deleted 19y ago[deleted]
- sbraford 19y agocurious: is there any difference between public domain and MIT? they seem like ostensibly the same thing.
- viergroupie 19y agoThere is no such thing as public domain for software. If you simply give your software away, it's still your copyrighted work...just without a license for other people to use it. http://www.linuxjournal.com/article/6225 http://www.linuxjournal.com/article/6225
- coffeeaddicted 19y agoPublic domain is not enforcable in some countries. You can't give up your copyright as author for example in germany. So a license defining the rights of the users will work better.
- pg 19y agoIf someone publishes a bug fix, or finds a cleaner way of doing something, I'd like to be able to incorporate it without being accused of having stolen their IP. That's the main thing.
- soundsop 19y ago
- soundsop 19y agoSince you asked, my preference is GPL. I prefer GPL over BSD strictly for the reason that if someone makes a modified version of Arc publicly available, then we all get to see (and maybe use) the modifications.
- symlink 19y agoDon't do it. GPL means unnecessary issues with some of the enterprise companies trying to adopt your product.
- doktryner 19y agosymlink: Like they would anyway. Ha ha bloody ha. The license should be Affero GPL.
- noblethrasher 19y agoWhat about having an open source friendly license as well as one for enterprises IT and software vendors ala MySql?
- davidw 19y agoMysql's license is all about trying to make money from Mysql. My guess is that pg would prefer wider adoption to trying to make money. At least, initially.
- nickb 19y agoMy favorite license is MIT. BSD ain't bad but MIT makes so much more sense for a programming language.
- big-j 19y ago> Anyone have any preference for licenses? From what I've seen, projects that go GPL tend to be more community-focused, and seem to more readily gather a contributor community around them. I think contributors tend to like the idea of their contribution being free in perpetuity. MIT-licensed projects, OTOH, tend to be mostly worked-on by their creator (again, FWICT). That is, there are fewer individuals willing to contribute code to a project which could simply be scooped up and put into some company's closed-source product. I get the impression that MIT-licensed projects are always looking to be popular, and feel entitled to be so, since users can basically do whatever they want with the code. A lot of careful thought by lawyers, the community, and the FSF has gone into the most current GPL. I'd suggest that it's worth considering.
- edu 19y agoWell, it is a hard question. And the best person to answer it are you. I like simple licenses (BSD[1], MIT[2]...), but only if you don't mind people making closed version of it. Being Arc a language, I think you would like to remain the head of its development, so maybe the Artistic License [3][4]would be right. Like Perl does. It's far more complicated than the simple ones, but it would make easier to differentiate between the Vanilla Arc and the Straciatella Arc. For the GPL[5], I think it is better suited for programs than for languages. [0] http://www.opensource.org/licenses/category http://www.opensource.org/licenses/category [1] http://www.opensource.org/licenses/bsd-license.php http://www.opensource.org/licenses/bsd-license.php [2] http://www.opensource.org/licenses/mit-license.php http://www.opensource.org/licenses/mit-license.php [3] http://www.opensource.org/licenses/artistic-license.php http://www.opensource.org/licenses/artistic-license.php [4] http://www.opensource.org/licenses/artistic-license-2.0.php http://www.opensource.org/licenses/artistic-license-2.0.php [5] http://www.opensource.org/licenses/gpl-license.php http://www.opensource.org/licenses/gpl-license.php
- symlink 19y agoApache.
- lkozma 19y agoWhat about the WTFPL license? "Do What The Fuck You Want To Public License" It's actually not a joke: http://sam.zoy.org/wtfpl/ http://sam.zoy.org/wtfpl/
- ks 19y agoThe license should cover patents. If a company adds to the code using patented algorithms, they could perhaps block further development since nobody could use the code? I'm not a lawyer, so perhaps it's not a problem anyway.
- stevecooperorg 19y agoI'd like to be able to embed it in apps. Any license that allows that is OK by me. Some ideas I've got floating around are to use it for scripting (instead of, say, LUA or XSLT) and for config files (instead of XML) in existing apps. Also, lisp seems fantastically placed for HTML generation, so if I embed it in an IIS or Apache site, then great!