The GPL will probably be a deal breaker for many people. Especially with backend and frontend code living so close together. I personally would appreciate a MIT/Apache style license and shy away from meteor as it is licensed right now.
I am in the same boat. I don't want to turn this into a political argument but I was wondering if meteor could potentially be used in a non open source web app.
Not to speak on behalf of the maintainers, but they state that they are willing to write a commercial license if the GPL doesn't fit the bill for you on the FAQ: http://www.meteor.com/faq/how-is-meteor-licensed. They're reasons for choosing the GPL are also there.
EDIT: Made the link direct to the relevant section
At least use LGPL, which satisfies the "it requires that any improvements to Meteor be made available to the entire Meteor community" requirement.
I second this guy's suggestion of the MPL: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3827409
The MPL allows covered source code to be mixed with other files under a different, even proprietary license. However, code files licensed under the MPL must remain under the MPL and freely available in source form. This makes the MPL a compromise between the MIT or BSD licenses, which permit all derived works to be relicensed as proprietary, and the GPL, which requires the whole of a derived work, even new components, to remain under the GPL. By allowing proprietary modules in derived projects while requiring core files to remain open source, the MPL is designed to motivate both businesses and the open-source community to help develop core software.
I'd really, really prefer a permissive license (BSD/ISC/...).
+1 for MIT/Apache style
GPL is one of the primary reason I'm excited for this lib. If the GPL stifled innovation in the way that many of these comments seem to suggest there would be a whole lot less open source software out there...
I do not find GPL per se to be problematic, but I'm just not sure whether it is overally a good or a bad decision.
Dependent libraries like node.js, npm, handlebars, etc. have MIT or similar licences. They are hugely popular and I'm sure many changes get committed back to them. I'm just wondering what is so hugely special here that GPL is needed?
I see Derby.js (http://derbyjs.com/) as an alternative to Meteor. Derby is licensed under MIT. The difference in licensing may be the factor behind choosing whether to go for Meteor or Derby.
That being said I'm fully ok with Meteor using GPL. I just wanted to make sure the potential implications are understood. For me it means I won't be able to use meteor for some tasks, which means I'll end up giving Meteor less attention.
@nathanielksmith There is more open source besides the GPL ...which is why I am not sure I can follow your theory.
Trying hard not to turn this into a religious discussion about licensing but this blog post might be worth reading http://blog.lassus.se/2012/04/meteor-meets-nogpl.html
GPL is a fair choice, IMO, if they'd like to generate direct revenue from the product.
It would really help to have clarity on the commercial terms because the uncertainty is problematic. I emailed the devs and received "I don't have pricing yet, but I can say that we're not looking to do anything that would disrupt your model. Stay tuned; we'll have more to say on licensing in a week or two."
That's fair enough - they certainly have a lot on their plate. So, I'm waiting to see.
+1 on MIT
You can safely say this issue is no longer :)
Awesome! @tcurdt please close the issue, meteor is now MIT!
@tcurdt is on vacation until end of next week. He'll have a nice surprise when coming back. Good move, meteorjs guys!
Thanks a lot guys!!!