Why I replaced MIT with copyleft license for Nodemailer

Re:Why I replaced MIT with copyleft license for Nodemailer by true_religion on Thursday February 02, 2017 @06:49PM (#13556200)

At work, if I see a product that offers a commercial licence and an copyleft licence, I immediately buy it.

The licence costs are always trivial compared to the department's revenue and budget, and it completely avoids any hashing over "will we violate copyleft if we do X". Now the answer is always "we bought it, its ours".

At home, I just use the copyleft version. My personal blog engine is open source, and on github Anything else I make, I don't mind open sourcing if it comes to it.

700 Euro a year is trivial. We've spent more money on drinks while talking about licensing our own product.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Why I replaced MIT with copyleft license for Nodemailer by incompatible on Thursday February 02, 2017 @07:13PM (#13556375)

  Now the answer is always "we bought it, its ours".

I didn't realise commercial licenses are always so generous and easy to use.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Why I replaced MIT with copyleft license for Nodemailer by true_religion on Thursday February 02, 2017 @07:19PM (#13556423)

I'll clarify. I mean that software that's dual-licenced, usually grants unlimited usage within the organization. Essentially you bought it, so it's yours to do with as you wish---though you can't duplicate it and give it to others on its own, you have to bundle it with your product.

If the licence is more restrictive than that, then it is likely the business will fail because if we have to jump through hoops, we might as well (a) use another product, cost isn't a factor or (b) use the copyleft licence and hire lawyers.

[ Parent | on HN ]