

Ask HN: What license do you use for your open-source projects? - indrora

Title says it all.<p>Yes, Beerware, Wtfpl and mspl are valid options. I just want to know why you chose the flavor of choice.<p>I use a 3-clause BSD when I can because it isn't restrictive to the next poor sod that has to use it, just so long as they remember to include that I wrote it.
======
kilian
MIT. It's a nice, small, clear license, and I think slightly clearer than BSD.

I hesitate to use GPL (unless I have to) because I like commercial entities to
use my work as well, and in all the years of me using MIT, code sharing and
patches from third parties keep coming in regardless of whether they have to
or not.

------
aeden
MIT because it's simple and non-viral. I'm pragmatic when it comes to open
source software - I want to use it how I want without being restricted by
others' beliefs.

------
madhouse
I use the GPL, mostly due to its viral nature: if I release something as open
source, I want it to stay that way, and not rely on the good will of whoever
wants to incorporate it into his work, to contribute back.

This certainly makes it harder - or even impossible - to use my projects in
certain settings, but frankly, I'm fine with that. I'm even glad.

~~~
billswift
You say, "I'm even glad." I have seen this sort of comment before, but what I
see when I read them is "I'm petty, really petty."

~~~
madhouse
Perhaps. Yet, I see nothing wrong with remaining in control of my software's
future (at least in some way: I can make sure it remains free). And I see
nothing wrong with having a smile over my face when I see people realize they
can't take that freedom away from others.

My priority is that what I've created to remain free, available to others,
just like the huge amount of software I learned from. If someone wants to take
that freedom away, and can't, I can't help but feel glad that freedom has been
preserved.

~~~
billswift
The problem with your claim is that the software you created is still just as
available to others even if third parties use it in proprietary software. All
you are doing is making it _unavailable_ to those who would otherwise be using
it third-hand in such proprietary packages that can't be made because of
licensing issues. You are not maximizing others' freedom, you are restricting
it.

~~~
_delirium
I don't see this as a decrease in freedom over the default situation, though.
If code is copyrighted, third parties can't use your code in their software,
unless they reach a licensing agreement with you.

I see GPLing my software as making a limited quid-pro-quo exception: you can
use my code for free, _without_ individually negotiating a license, but only
if you do the same with your software. If that situation doesn't apply, then
I'm happy to license the software in the normal manner, as one proprietary
software vendor doing business with another one.

My view is something like: If someone is writing a piece of proprietary
software, they should understand what proprietary software licensing means,
and be prepared to pay for a commercial license if they want to use someone
else's code, just as they'd expect anyone else to pay to use their code.

~~~
madhouse
Well put, thanks for expressing the other half of my thoughts :)

------
cperciva
Most of my open source code is 2-clause BSD, because I want everybody to be
able to use it with as little hassle as possible. (I'd go with public domain
except that there's always someone who points out that legally there's no such
thing as "placing into the public domain".)

------
ra
MIT, because it's the license I prefer to consume in my projects. (Although
BSD is fine too)

------
mindcrime
The vast majority of what I've written and released is under the Apache
License, V2.0. I've also put some stuff out under the LGPLv2. I tend to favor
fairly liberal licenses, but I could see the merits of going GPL at some
point.

What I don't ever intend to use are any "badgeware" licenses (CAPL, I'm
looking at you) or the Affero GPL. The AGPL just seems wrong to me. I get what
they're trying to do, but I just don't see hosting a service running software
"X" as constituting "distributing software X."

~~~
_delirium
I'd use the AGPL if I open-sourced a non-trivial webapp most likely,
especially if it were a business rather than a side project, but probably not
if it were just libraries or something of that sort.

It makes sense to me as a GPL analog in the webapp/SaaS space. I think of the
GPL as informally saying that you can do whatever you want with my code, but
once you ship a derivative work, you have to release source to your
modifications too. In webapp space, what does it mean to "ship" a derivative
app? Seems like "launch a public service" is the way you ship, since nobody is
selling CD-ROMs with thick-client apps on them.

In practical terms, a common alternative to AGPL is just to not release at
all, because many SaaS providers are worried that releasing their code will
make it too easy for someone to set up an improved rival service, beating them
using their own code as a starting point. For example, Gitorious is AGPL, but
Github is closed-source.

~~~
mindcrime
_I'd use the AGPL if I open-sourced a non-trivial webapp most likely,
especially if it were a business rather than a side project, but probably not
if it were just libraries or something of that sort._

Fair enough. I could see how someone in that position would find the AGPL
appealing.

------
metachris
Related: "Why you shouldn't use the Lesser GPL for your next library" -
<http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/why-not-lgpl.html>

The argument is made for using the GPL to give other open source developers an
edge over commercial entities.

------
jasonkester
None.

I put my code out there so that people can use it. If they want to do so, they
can. I don't see any reason to complicate things beyond that.

------
xorglorb
MIT, however sometimes I'll release under the GPL if I feel I could make a
profit off of it in the future by selling commercial licenses.

------
daleharvey
generally the WTFYW license

