-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 23
License #3
Comments
I have used the Artistic License - I see some people have used the MIT License - do you know what the Thanks, Paul On Thu, Feb 5, 2015 at 10:37 AM, ComFreek notifications@github.com wrote:
|
In a nutshell: http://choosealicense.com/licenses/ MIT/BSD is so popular nowadays because it allows use in commercial products without source disclosure requirement (compared to GPL). Apache is a good choice for a permissive license as well. While Artistic license (which I used too some 12 years ago) is a bit exotic nowadays. |
Artistic LicenseI have never used the Artistic license before, so all the information I currently have is from the German Wikipedia (which states all enforced rules and usage rights contrary to the Enlish version of the article). The Artistic license permits you the distribution if at least one of the following conditions is met:
original source: http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artistic_License I found an interesting comment at Programmers.StackExchange:
source: http://programmers.stackexchange.com/questions/222820/license-for-free-source-redistribution-but-no-distribution-of-modified-execut#comment443296_222820, user: amon from Programmers.SE, license: CC BY-SA 3.0 GPLGPL is AFAIK rather unpopular for products whose authors don't want to exclude commercial companies from using it without releasing their proprietary software products. @trustmaster I didn't know that useful site. Thanks for sharing! |
I notice a reference to binaries, which I assume JS doesn't have... Is there a way to make JSFBP a "black box" vis a vis any commercial products that decide to use it? |
Binares from JS could be produced (embed V8, Node and the code in an executable), but why should they? Do you want to restrict commercial use? PS: On the mailing list I heard that JSFBP could per definition only be executed on the client side. Is that true? I have not read your book, so I may be missing some parts of FBP. |
No, the idea is to restrict users from tinkering with the infrastructure, unless they do a formal fork (if that's the right term). This is standard with other languages that do have binaries. I didn't see the mailing list item, but I think that's backwards - IIUC node.js only runs on the server side, so that applies to JSFBP also. Of course you can also run it in a stand-alone bat file. HTH |
@jpaulm could you explain what you mean by "tinkering the infrastructure"? |
I guess it's an extension of the "black box" concept of FBP. There are obviously different classes of user, but hopefully the majority will be (or should be) people who just use the JSFBP scheduler and our prewritten components. If they can easily make changes to these and still call the result JSFBP, then we can't support them, and we have lost any control of JSFBP that we may have had. I guess if they play by the Github rules, that's OK - I'm just worried about unsophisticated users making uncontrolled change to their own copies of the code. Maybe an old-fashioned view...?! |
If I understood it correctly, all worries are about people making changes to JSFBP in a way that is not welcomed by the authors of JSFBP and then getting in trouble because of their changes and demanding support from JSFBP authors. This is pretty covered by NO WARRANTY clause which is present in most software licenses in the world, including proprietary ones and the 3 open source licenses in question of this thread. But if you'd like to restrict people from making changes in their JSFBP forks that are not officially (in a written form) approved by the authors of JSFBP, that's a different thing. If you want to restrict such deviating forks from using the trademark of JSFBP (r) (tm), then you should choose between Apache and Artistic license. If you want to restrict people from making such forks entirely, then this is not going to be open source. |
http://choosealicense.com/licenses/ states for the Apache license with regard to trademarks:
But are there really people claiming support for their own forks? In addition, I must say that I've never seen people intentionally and abusively taking advantage of the original name in their open source forks. |
I agree we don't want to restrict people from making their own forks, and calling it anything they like (except JSFBP)! I agree the NO WARRANTY clause covers us prretty well. I originally chose Artistic because it says the following (I can't remember seeing this in other licenses):
|
That's in fact a nice "restriction". I can't imagine a Scenario where chariging license fees for an open source product would not be malicious. (BTW, a malicious company can declare a licensing fee as a distributor fee to overcome the license restriction, can't it? However, do malicious companies even read licenses at all? 😄) |
Based on that, let's go with whatever license you guys think will work best! Thanks, Paul
|
I propose MIT, it allows for private companies to use the library in their 2015-02-06 18:26 GMT-03:00 jpaulm notifications@github.com:
|
The MIT license seems to mean that a commercially successful product can be based on Open Source software, with absolutely no remuneration going to the developers of said software! I know we should be doing it for the sheer joy of it... but still! Maybe any other arrangement is unenforceable, but it does seem a shame! Maybe we should try going as http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donationware ! |
Yes, but basically you don't expect any reward from dishonest people and honest people won't hesitate rewarding you if they succeed. This is proven to work by many open source projects, like Node.js itself for instance. I agree with Alfredo and would recommend following the best practices of the open source world by choosing either MIT or Apache. The more limitations are imposed on a project, the less likely it is that people (and companies, which is important) keep contributing to it over time. |
Either one is fine by me. I note Apache grants patent rights - does this make a difference? |
Apache v2 is not compatible with GPLd code, whereas MIT is. It'd be a shame 2015-02-07 11:49 GMT-03:00 jpaulm notifications@github.com:
|
I'm fine with MIT. Thanks to you both for all the research! Regards, Paul On Sat, Feb 7, 2015 at 10:41 AM, alfa256 notifications@github.com wrote:
|
I'm late to the game, but +1 for a permissive license like MIT or Apache. For something as foundational as a FBP runtime I think you want it as widely used as possible. |
Hello Paul,
I have just created a package.json for this project. It includes the
fibers
dependency, so that the installation will become as simple asgit clone ...
andnpm install
in the cloned directory. I plan to submit a PR.Every package.json should include a license field. What is the license for the code in this repo?
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: