News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on Commons Clause. Parent comment

Re:Commons Clause by dragonwriter on Wednesday August 22, 2018 @04:32AM (#17817237)
> There's the reflex (here and elsewhere) to dismiss reciprocal licenses such as GPL, AGPL as "uncool", pretentious, and show-stopping.

They aren't uncool, they just have terms that lots of people have good reasons not to want to deal with, and which many devs don't want to impose on downstream (in part because lots of people don't want to deal with them.)

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Commons Clause by nine_k on Wednesday August 22, 2018 @09:42AM (#17818591)
Who are those people that don't want to deal with a reciprocal license?

Are they paying customers? Good, GPL and commercial dual-licensing is a thing, and thank them for their business!

Are they people who would like to just use the software for their benefit, modify it to their taste and distribute, and keep the improvements concealed from everyone who made it possible? Tough luck, nobody promised them a free ride like that. They're still free to run unmodified GPL'd software.

Is there a third kind that I fail to recognize?

(Edit: added "and distribute".)

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Commons Clause by sangnoir on Wednesday August 22, 2018 @03:11PM (#17821141)
> Who are those people that don't want to deal with a reciprocal license?

My theory is: the HN crowd that hates reciprocal licenses are developers who dislike that they can't easily use that code for work - that is, their employers makes it hard for them to do so vs. BSD-type code. They care more about developer freedom (to integrate various pieces they feel entitled to), more than user freedom (to modify the resulting software).

[ Parent | on HN ]