19
Open-source Licensing 101 - alavi.me (alavi.me)
submitted 3 months ago by to c/programming@programming.dev
2 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

The basics about types of open-source software licenses, their differences, how to choose a license etc.

I see a lot of programmers that really don't know much about licensing and just default to MIT.
To be fair to them, it's a pretty boring and headache enducing topic, but I tried to distill it here.

Hope it helps.

all 2 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 5 points 3 months ago (1 child)

I think all you need is a scale from big tech cuck to big tech hater to put the licenses on. MIT all the way on the fuck side and AGPL all the way on the hater side. Would make it pretty easy to choose a license.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] [S] 2 points 3 months ago

    Not really.

    The legal complications and details really matter depending on your usecase, what are you trying to do, which libraries and software are you going to use, how is your product will be used etc.

    It's more than just a matter of taste and personal philosophies.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
    • 6 comments in c/foss@beehaw.org view that post
    [–] 4 points 3 months ago (5 children)

    I use and support FOSS and gpl but this "guide" is poorly written. Use better wording. There are valid reasons to go for MIT.

    The MIT is a very common and lax license today. It is one of the most common licenses for open source projects. Such licenses make exploitation of volunteers by big corporations as easy as taking candy from a child, so they can takeover the FOSS scene and make users pay the price for things that otherwise could be free (both in price and in freedom). That's why all big corporations heavily push permissive licenses.

    If you value freedom of software, don't just use the MIT or other lax licenses, unless you have a good reason to do so.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 5 child comments
    •
  • [–] 6 points 3 months ago (2 children)

    We've managed to convince our workplace to allow us to use MIT on a few projects. We mainly share that code directly with customers, and it's easier to do that with permissively licensed code, plus we can make it public for an extra win (both at work and for the community).

    There are definitely good uses for permissive licenses. In the same way that you should consider not using one, you should also consider whether one meets your specific needs.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] [S] 2 points 3 months ago (1 child)

    Exactly. Everything has it's place.

    Can I ask, what do you mean by "share code with out customers"? They modify this code? They only use this code? How are the dynamics?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 4 points 3 months ago

    We are somewhat similar to contractors and directly help our customers write their code. Usually this means bringing in some kind of starting template, and it's easier to do this with a permissively licensed template than make them sign another legal agreement.

    They own the code once we're done, and they don't need to make it open source (companies naturally don't like to open source their products). Our templates are open source and well-documented, though.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
    • 2 comments in c/opensource@lemmy.ml view that post
    [–] 2 points 3 months ago* (1 child)

    I use mainly and support FOSS and gpl but this "guide" is poorly written. Use better wording. There are valid reasons to go for MIT.

    The MIT is a very common and lax license today. It is one of the most common licenses for open source projects. Such licenses make exploitation of volunteers by big corporations as easy as taking candy from a child, so they can takeover the FOSS scene and make users pay the price for things that otherwise could be free (both in price and in freedom). That's why all big corporations heavily push permissive licenses.

    If you value freedom of software, don't just use the MIT or other lax licenses, unless you have a good reason to do so.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] [S] 4 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

    Unless you have a good reason to do so

    ?

    Of course I have my own opinions and some of them are quite spicy.

    There are good reasons to use lax licenses and I think most of them are stated in that same section you are quoting from.

    How do you think I can improve it?

    EDIT:

    I reworded that part. You were right, it was poorly written. I was very tired. I feel like the phrasing is better now, although my pessimistic stance towards permissive licenses still remains, while pointing out their usecases.

    Thanks for your input! If anything else catches your eye, please let me know.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent