

Meteor is now MIT licensed - nim
http://meteor.com/faq/how-is-meteor-licensed

======
Lazare
When Meteor first launched, I was one of the very very many people who said
that Meteor looked amazing, but was afraid that their license would hamper
adoption.

With the change in license, I think the only major hurdle has been removed.
The fundamental idea is good, their current execution is extremely slick, and
their immediate plans[1] look achievable. I have very high hopes for the
project.

If you haven't checked out Meteor yet, at least watch the screencast:
<http://meteor.com/screencast>

[1]: I originally said roadmap; as mcrider rightly points out Meteor does not
have one. There is some info floating around about current development goals
(notably related to adding authentication), which is what I was thinking of.

~~~
muyuu
GPL was perfectly fine for a product like Meteor.

Unless you plan to modify Meteor, ship your version and not share your
changes, there are very few things you can do to violate the GPL by using
Meteor.

Meteor is neither a library nor boilerplate code to add upon. Lots of folks
seem to be "hating" on GPL for no good reason, except maybe not knowing it
(which is a good reason but it's hardly justifiable at this point).

~~~
ig1
No.

If you use a GPL library all of your code has to be released under a GPL
compatible licence. The Meteor framework counts as a library due to the way it
interacts with your code.

You might be confusing it with the Lesser GPL which allows library code to be
incorporated into propriety software (or websites in this case).

To understand the difference between the two you should read:
<http://www.gnu.org/licenses/why-not-lgpl.html>

~~~
muyuu
It's not a library.

Most users of Meteor won't even ship any code at all, they will expose
sites/APIs.

There's also a difference between interacting of output code and libraries.

~~~
ig1
The way Meteor works is that the client side framework is bundled with your
code and pushed to the browser of the end user, it's this pushing of the
merged framework + your code that counts as distribution under the GPL.

The code isn't just run server side.

Also you should read the following sections of the GPL faq which should help
clarify your understanding of the issues:

<http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#WhatCaseIsOutputGPL> (the output of
a GPL program is also GPL "when the program copies part of itself into the
output.")

<http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#MereAggregation> (linking doesn't
have to be in the compiler sense of the term any form of tight coupling
between code is covered)

~~~
muyuu
What I don't understand well yet is the way Meteor works. I'm waiting until
they (and firebase) make their final version available, although I've played a
bit with them.

If it does bundle itself then it could have implications. Maybe LGPL would be
more reasonable then.

------
guelo
I feel it is sad that so few HN hackers seem to appreciate the vision of the
GPL. GPL needs more indispensable software like this for it to thrive and
protect us all from a future of completely locked down computers.

~~~
geon
From a user perspective, GPL offers _in theory_ more freedom, since new
products built on codebase X will also be free.

It is debatable if this is true in practice. If less software gets built as a
result of the license restriction, the GPL _takes away_ freedom. Even closed
source software adds some freedom - the freedom of choice.

From a developer perspective, there is no question which one is more free. We
often do not have the choice to release our software as open source, and when
we do, an invasive license like the GPL is still a headache. If I can pick up
a library or framework and _just use it_ , that's the one I will pick.

~~~
pornel
"GPL takes away freedom" is a very developer-centric point of view. From user
point of view _GPL gives freedoms_ that MIT/BSD don't give.

Where freedoms of developers and users conflict, GPL sides with users.

In other words, GPL only takes away your freedom to take freedom away from
others. If you don't intend to restrict others' freedoms, GPL shouldn't get in
your way.

~~~
ubernostrum
The GPL actually trades off freedom over time. Specifically, it trades away
actual freedom right now for the person who currently has a copy of the code,
in an attempt to secure potential freedom later for people who do not yet but
might someday have copies of the code or of code derived from it.

As such, the GPL is always, in the "now", a license which grants less freedom
than, say, the BSD or MIT licenses. Most objections to the GPL, including my
own, come from a position of cost/benefit on the trade it wants to make, and
of disagreeing that that trade is worth making.

~~~
yummyfajitas
_Specifically, it trades away actual freedom right now for the person who
currently has a copy of the code..._

How so? As far as I know, if I have GPL code, I can do whatever I want with
it. Could you tell me any action I might want to take that the GPL prevents?

The only "freedom" the GPL removes is the freedom to restrict the actions of
others. To me, that seems like a rather odd sort of freedom.

~~~
gcr
Link BSD software with the GPL code. I go out of my way to avoid or rewrite
the GPL libraries I need because of this restriction.

~~~
yummyfajitas
The GPL doesn't prevent you from linking to BSD software.

All it does is prevents you from redistributing the resulting binary under a
license that could result in the user's freedom being restricted. I.e., the
only thing that is prevented is (BSD, GPL) -> BSD, since the next step might
be BSD -> Proprietary.

~~~
gcr
Right. I want to give others the freedom to use my software in propietary
ways, so I put my software under a BSD license. This means I can't use GPL-
licensed libraries.

------
mwill
Maybe I'm just not the audience for Meteor, because while it looks like a
great project but as a nodejs guy, the fact that it hides itself away from the
platform and turned away from the fantastic npm makes me sort of weary about
it as a whole.

But I imagine people coming from rails or whatever don't find this a problem
at all.

~~~
tbergeron
I thought exactly the same, I really like the reactive programming principles
they've brought. But without npm it's useless.

~~~
bricestacey
Agreed. For this very reason, after watching the Meteor screencast, I
immediately looked into alternatives such as derby.

------
architgupta
I think this is a great move. Longer term it'll be better for Meteor, the team
and the community.

Ruby on Rails would be fine as an analogy here. The monetization model might
be different from directly licensing and selling the framework, but these guys
are smart, they'll figure it out.

I am quite impressed by this. The team listened to the feedback from the
community. They weren't obligated to do so :-)

~~~
debergalis
We got some amazingly specific and valuable feedback -- check some of the
Meteor HN threads. MIT is going to be a big part of making Meteor available
everywhere.

~~~
architgupta
Doing that now. That gets me thinking. I'll deploy a weekend app with meteor.

------
zmmmmm
Awesome - I was one of those highly critical of the original license, so let
me be among the first in congratulating them on making this (quite major)
change so quickly.

~~~
koko775
I was also critical, and agreed, this is a fantastic change!

------
ashleyw
Oh, wow! I'd been working on what appears to be a Meteor-like framework with
the very premise of "All the same APIs are available on the client and the
server — including database APIs!" for the past few days. It came from my
frustration of having to duplicate JS code on both the server and client which
just seems stupid when you can provide the same API but with different end-
points for each side (i.e. client -> API, server -> DB.)

------
sharjeel
[Checked] Fix License [TODO] DB Security/Authorization

~~~
geoffschmidt
Yep, that's what's on the whiteboard :)

------
soapdog
Isn't it a security risk to allow arbitrary mongodb (or minimongodb) commands
in the client side? In their demo, they show a client deleting data from a js
console. If that is possible, what prevents an evil user from doing the same
to my deployed meteor app?

------
js4all
This is awesome news. There are currently 3 competing frameworks: Meteor,
Firebase and Derby, all discussed on HN last week. I guess the new license
gives Meteor a big plus.

I am glad they changed their minds.

------
chrisrogers
This is great to hear. This issue was one of my great qualms with the
platform, and the biggest argument for creating a copycat platform. Now to
address the auth/permissions!

~~~
debergalis
Thanks! auth is next. But check out the madewith.meteor.com source for a good
example of how you can lock down an app today.

~~~
andrelewis
Just a random thought but perhaps you should put up a honeypot version on it's
own server to see where the weak spots in security are. Then invite the
community to find the holes, or actually ask the hacking communities to help
identify gaps in security? Honeypot in this instance meaning a machine
dedicated to pulling in attacks (Like flies to honey) to help you identify
weak areas of your framework.

------
clavalle
Fantastic!

I think the sky is the limit with this framework.

If these guys can stick to the spirit of the project, add what can truly help
push the system forward while ignoring the multitudes of one offs that will
try to chip away the utility, this really has a shot of not only being a game
changer but helping define the game for years to come.

Great work!

------
olov
That is very generous. I hope that this is a win-win situation for the
ecosystem _and_ their business.

~~~
Estragon
I'm curious about what the new business model is going to be.

------
SeanLuke
Let's hope there's nothing patentable in that project.

------
haraball
It would be interesting to see some statistics before and after this
announcement, even if it's still a young framework.

------
richcollins
While reactivity is an interesting idea and possible incremental improvement,
the huge win is in saving us from building UI. Why aren't there more
frameworks like Cappuccino but with built in bindings to the DB?

------
meta8609
Why is this framework better than things like ember.js, especially if ember
has something like this <https://github.com/tchak/colors-demo>

~~~
htilford
I don't think 'better' is the right question. Their's room for multiple
frameworks. To answer the question I think Meteor's strong suit is live coding
for rapid prototyping.

------
blhack
I think we all sortof knew this was what it was going to be.

~~~
bmelton
Honestly, I'm surprised.

You've got a team of cracker jack developers who introduce a product that,
frankly, isn't ready for prime time by any sane person's definition with the
goal of targeting the majority of developers (e.g., not the most experienced,
and not the ones operating at the top end of scale), with no real mention of
license?

I expected it to be a commercially licensed language, and honestly, was
perfectly happy with that. This is of course better, but leaves me wondering
just a little more what the business model is. Not that it's going to stop me
toying with it -- I think Meteor is the best JS framework I've seen for ease
of use.

~~~
andrelewis
I would suspect the business model will be support and feature development. In
a widely used framework, there will always be people who need it customized,
or need to integrate it in new and interesting ways, or require some sort of
commercial support contract in order to use it. If they make these options
available early on, they will make money.

------
jamesmanning
What's up with all the trolls on this thread?

------
pixie_
is there an open source license that says says free to use for people etc..
but if you have a company larger than x then you must support the project with
$$$ ?

~~~
tikhonj
I don't know of any projects that do exactly this, but there are projects that
are dual-licensed. You can either use the code under the GPL or buy a
commercial license and use it in your proprietary code.

ExtJS is a great example of this sort of dual-licensing, and I've seen it on
other projects as well.

------
NanoWar
(whoa the background needs a <fixed> attribute...)

------
heretohelp
More importantly, how do I keep clients from fucking up my database? How is
security being done?

Seriously, if I'm not capable of baking limitations into data
persistence/logic at the server level then this entire framework is worthless
except for building up a portfolio of cute demos that can't be used for any
real work.

~~~
dmix
As this question comes up every single time Meteor or Firebase is brought up,
I think its fair to say that "we're working on it" wasn't and isn't a good
enough answer.

~~~
hbbio
You should also have a quick look there:
<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3858838>

------
wavephorm
I think they should've tried to commercialize it. There is a real lack of
good, new development systems these days. If you completely open source a new
system, developers will just rip it off, contribute nothing, and it will go
nowhere. So where's the incentive to continue making it better?

Developers need to wake up, and realize that new, and substantially better
systems can be built if they are willing to pay for them. Unfortunately the
FOSS community has burned into developers' consciousness to never pay for
anything, ever, which produces and environment of extreme lack of innovation.

Our development tools completely fucking suck precisely because developers are
no longer willing to buy quality development tools.

~~~
tikhonj
I think that's demonstrably false given how _good_ development tools actually
are, particularly open source ones. If anything, _too_ much work goes into
open source development tools--certainly much more than in any other category!

Just look at how much is accomplished--and how is easily--by various start-ups
using open source technology. There are great web servers, web frameworks,
libraries, programming languages, text editors and all sorts of other stuff
(that I don't use much so can't comment on).

Also, plenty of people contribute to (popular) open source libraries and
frameworks. Even less popular projects get a good amount of contribution--I'm
following a couple of emacs modes (a fork of JS-2 and Haskell-mode) as well as
some tools (like DoctorJS) on GitHub and all of these get pull requests
surprisingly often. I suspect the ratio of contributors to users is pretty
high.

In short, open source as a model works if your only goal is quality software.
Making a framework open source is a good course of action and we should
encourage it.

~~~
wavephorm

      I think that's demonstrably false given how good development tools actually are
    

No. Development tools seriously suck. Show me an IDE that can debug multi-
client websocket code. Good luck. Every open source IDE's like Eclipse are
useless these days because they can no longer keep up with the new problems
being introduced.

Light Table is maybe the first genuinely new, commercial, development
environment to be introduced. People are gushing over the possibilities. All
of a sudden people might, for the first time in 15 years, be willing to pay
real money to make their lives easier.

The open source model is a socialist model that has failed to keep up with the
pace of technological change, and encourages developers to not purchase
development tools which slows innovation in development technologies. FOSS
ultimately holds back innovation.

~~~
prezjordan
You seem to ignore the fact that open-source allows more people to use a
product. When more people use it, more activity happens - which leads to
evolution.

Not sure how you can ignore the open-source software that rules the software
development world.

~~~
wavephorm
More people using a product does not lead to innovation. It leads to more
people using the same free product and not realizing how much better their
tools could be if they were willing to pay for them.

Open source tools rule the world simply because they are free, and developers
everywhere are unwilling to pay for better tools, which hold back innovation
of better tools. Why would anyone build a substantially better development
tool if nobody will buy it?

------
zobzu
Cool I can now use this in my closed source project without ever giving any
change back! Hate this GPL that requires you to give back anything if you let
others get your product.

~~~
callumjones
Maybe you should check out other MIT licensed frameworks and assess whether
they have fostered a closed or open community.

Rails is MIT licensed and as a result we have seen a lot of companies build
their web applications on Rails and build very successful businesses, but we
have also seen a range of opens source plugins/gems and applications
themselves built around Rails which have resulted in a better web community.

This is 2012, developers who care about something like Meteor also care enough
about open source to give back. We don't want developers to be forced to make
their products open source, they should feel compelled by the enjoy of helping
others.

