GPL #17

Closed
tcurdt opened this Issue Apr 11, 2012 · 23 comments

Comments

Projects
None yet
@tcurdt

tcurdt commented Apr 11, 2012

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.

@oscardelben

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@oscardelben

oscardelben Apr 11, 2012

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.

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.

@jsalonen

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@jsalonen

jsalonen Apr 11, 2012

+1

+1

@timraymond

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@timraymond

timraymond Apr 11, 2012

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

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

@tlrobinson

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@tlrobinson

tlrobinson Apr 12, 2012

+1

At least use LGPL, which satisfies the "it requires that any improvements to Meteor be made available to the entire Meteor community" requirement.

+1

At least use LGPL, which satisfies the "it requires that any improvements to Meteor be made available to the entire Meteor community" requirement.

@paulbaumgart

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@paulbaumgart

paulbaumgart Apr 12, 2012

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.[6] 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 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.[6] 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.
@lvh

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@lvh

lvh Apr 12, 2012

I'd really, really prefer a permissive license (BSD/ISC/...).

  1. I don't think contributions should be forced -- the whole point of open source is that people will contribute and don't need a gun held to their heads in order to do so
  2. GPL means that a lot of shops (from tiny ones to mega-market-cap ones) simply won't touch it, therefore guaranteeing no contributions ever

lvh commented Apr 12, 2012

I'd really, really prefer a permissive license (BSD/ISC/...).

  1. I don't think contributions should be forced -- the whole point of open source is that people will contribute and don't need a gun held to their heads in order to do so
  2. GPL means that a lot of shops (from tiny ones to mega-market-cap ones) simply won't touch it, therefore guaranteeing no contributions ever
@fpauser

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@fpauser

fpauser Apr 13, 2012

+1 for MIT/Apache style

fpauser commented Apr 13, 2012

+1 for MIT/Apache style

@swallez

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@swallez

swallez Apr 13, 2012

+1!

swallez commented Apr 13, 2012

+1!

@ErikAbele

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@ErikAbele

ErikAbele Apr 13, 2012

+1!

+1!

@vilmibm

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@vilmibm

vilmibm Apr 13, 2012

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...

vilmibm commented Apr 13, 2012

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...

@jsalonen

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@jsalonen

jsalonen Apr 13, 2012

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.

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.

@tcurdt

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@tcurdt

tcurdt Apr 13, 2012

@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

tcurdt commented Apr 13, 2012

@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

@jesseh

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@jesseh

jesseh Apr 14, 2012

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.

jesseh commented Apr 14, 2012

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.

@aronwoost

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@aronwoost

aronwoost Apr 16, 2012

+1 on MIT

+1 on MIT

@mikesherov

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@mikesherov

mikesherov Apr 19, 2012

+9001

+9001

@badslug

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@badslug

badslug Apr 20, 2012

+1

badslug commented Apr 20, 2012

+1

@jonathanKingston

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@jonathanKingston

jonathanKingston Apr 21, 2012

Contributor

You can safely say this issue is no longer :)

Contributor

jonathanKingston commented Apr 21, 2012

You can safely say this issue is no longer :)

@oscardelben

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@oscardelben

oscardelben Apr 21, 2012

Awesome! @tcurdt please close the issue, meteor is now MIT!

Awesome! @tcurdt please close the issue, meteor is now MIT!

@aronwoost

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@aronwoost

aronwoost Apr 21, 2012

Yeah!

On Saturday, 21. April 2012 at 09:44, Oscar Del Ben wrote:

Awesome! @tcurdt please close the issue, meteor is now MIT!


Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
#17 (comment)

Yeah!

On Saturday, 21. April 2012 at 09:44, Oscar Del Ben wrote:

Awesome! @tcurdt please close the issue, meteor is now MIT!


Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
#17 (comment)

@swallez

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@swallez

swallez Apr 21, 2012

@tcurdt is on vacation until end of next week. He'll have a nice surprise when coming back. Good move, meteorjs guys!

swallez commented Apr 21, 2012

@tcurdt is on vacation until end of next week. He'll have a nice surprise when coming back. Good move, meteorjs guys!

@jsalonen

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@jsalonen

jsalonen Apr 21, 2012

Thanks a lot guys!!!

Thanks a lot guys!!!

@ErikAbele

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@ErikAbele

ErikAbele Apr 21, 2012

Sweet!

Sweet!

@debergalis debergalis closed this Apr 24, 2012

@tcurdt

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@tcurdt

tcurdt May 1, 2012

great news!

tcurdt commented May 1, 2012

great news!

@Nemo64 Nemo64 referenced this issue in gadicc/meteor-headers Mar 18, 2014

Closed

missing license #21

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment