On Tuesday, May 7, 2013 3:02:51 PM UTC-4, Isaac Schlueter wrote:
>
> I've often thought it would be worthwhile to have some kind of "free
> once I make some money" license. Like, if you're a not-for-profit
> entity, you can use this code under BSD today. If you are a
> for-profit enterprise,
On Wed, May 8, 2013 at 12:00 PM, Matt wrote:
> I've done both, and the unfortunate reality of it is that making money off
> open source is significantly more work than making money off commercial
> projects.
>
Do whatever you like more. :)
--
--
Job Board: http://jobs.nodejs.org/
Posting guid
On Wed, May 8, 2013 at 10:38 AM, Tim Caswell wrote:
> But I like to experiment and do my own thing, so my latest strategy is to
> become an open source mercenary. I'll spend all day writing open source
> projects that interest me, but allow people to sponsor various projects
> that they want me
I've thought about this topic for years. The conclusion that I've come to
is I never want to charge royalties for software I write. It's a terrible
way to make money off software given the nature of open-source and how
open-source markets work.
As the OP has stated, the common ways of making mon
You can write any license you want. The different phases of licensing
would all be described in one license.
However, you would have to use definitions for the different phase that are
totally unambiguous. Using terms like "making $100,000" would be
ambiguous. Using a period of time wouldn't be
Tern.js and some other projects I've seen was crow-founded in a similar way
http://www.indiegogo.com/projects/tern-intelligent-javascript-editing
The author says "I am going to do this anyway, but if I reach X amount
before some date it will be opensource, otherwise will be a paid-product
forever"
(IANAL. I'm fantasizing. Please ignore.)
I've often thought it would be worthwhile to have some kind of "free
once I make some money" license. Like, if you're a not-for-profit
entity, you can use this code under BSD today. If you are a
for-profit enterprise, you can use this code freely for pr
On Tue, May 7, 2013 at 8:39 AM, Alex Kocharin wrote:
>
> You can use dual-licensing. Let people choose GPL or commercial license,
> so anyone who can't use infectious type will be forced to pay...
>
... or simply choose a different package. It's open source; if people don't
like the terms, and t
You can use dual-licensing. Let people choose GPL or commercial license, so anyone who can't use infectious type will be forced to pay... -- // alex 07.05.2013, 16:51, "Saleem Abdul Hamid" :Is there a license that says most people can do whatever you want with my stuff but if Microsoft (example)
There are two traditional ways of making money on MIT, etc. licensed
software, it seems. The first is paid support, the second is getting famous
enough from it that it becomes your résumé and you get higher paying
regular jobs because of it.
But it's silly to assume that these two scenarios fit
God, you either doing it for free or not. There's always an opportunity to
make money on your thing by doing paid support for it, and that's how many
opensource devs are receiving money for it.
Cheers,
Fedor.
On Tue, May 7, 2013 at 5:28 PM, Jérémy Lal wrote:
> Maybe CC-BY-NC-3.0
> http://creat
Maybe CC-BY-NC-3.0
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/
Mind that it is not a free software license.
Jérémy.
On 07/05/2013 14:51, Saleem Abdul Hamid wrote:
> Is there a license that says most people can do whatever you want with my
> stuff but if Microsoft (example) uses it to make 10
I think there isn't a license like that and I am not a law expert (as most
of you), but I'd like to put my opinion:
- "really rich" seems very subjective.
- what is the role your library have in the final product? and what is
fair?. If you have a library like let's say "node-redis" and someone mak
Is there a license that says most people can do whatever you want with my
stuff but if Microsoft (example) uses it to make 100 million dollars, I
want to negotiate for a piece of it? That's really the question everyone is
asking, although they're too shy to say it, because wanting to make money
Sorry, that's slightly more confrontational than I intended.
What I mean is: All of us are probably not lawyers, and certainly not
endowed with the legal specialization that goes into IP law. If we
were, we'd be busy doing that instead of writing software.
The law is extremely complicated, with
Austin,
Cool story. Where'd you go to law school?
On Tue, Dec 18, 2012 at 3:55 PM, Austin William Wright
wrote:
> It is a clear-cut thing: "Linking" in the context of copyright means to
> embed another program (compiled or otherwise) inside your program and
> distribute it.
>
> The GPL does not
It is a clear-cut thing: "Linking" in the context of copyright means to
embed another program (compiled or otherwise) inside your program
*and*distribute it.
The GPL does not decide when it gets to be applicable, all it gets to do is
decide when to grant permission to distribute. If you're not
The CLA is already unnecessary. No court has ruled otherwise when it comes
to derivative works.
On Saturday, December 15, 2012 12:51:40 PM UTC-7, Ben Noordhuis wrote:
>
> On Sat, Dec 15, 2012 at 6:48 PM, Isaac Schlueter >
> wrote:
> > Apache2 has much more thorough coverage of patents and other
PL; GPL can infect other applications
> that use your module.
>
>
>
> -Chad
>
>
>
> *From:* nodejs@googlegroups.com [mailto:nodejs@googlegroups.com] *On
> Behalf Of *David Herron
> *Sent:* Friday, December 14, 2012 10:29 PM
> *To:* nodejs@googlegroups.com
> *Subje
, 2012 10:29 PMTo: nodejs@googlegroups.comSubject: [nodejs] preferred license for node modules? I'm curious about the preferred license for modules that are distributed through the npmjs.org repository In particular is there any legal barrier to using GPL in such modules? As far as I understand it, the le
license for node modules?
I'm curious about the preferred license for modules that are distributed
through the npmjs.org repository
In particular is there any legal barrier to using GPL in such modules?
As far as I understand it, the legal barrier would be whether a module
which uses a
On Sat, Dec 15, 2012 at 4:47 PM, David Herron wrote:
> On Sat, Dec 15, 2012 at 1:16 PM, Jake Verbaten wrote:
>
>> > The virality of *GPL licenses as node modules has never been tested in
>> court, so it's unclear what the ramifications are.
>>
>> To clarify, if I were to release a MIT module ont
On Sat, Dec 15, 2012 at 1:16 PM, Jake Verbaten wrote:
> > The virality of *GPL licenses as node modules has never been tested in
> court, so it's unclear what the ramifications are.
>
> To clarify, if I were to release a MIT module onto github or npm or some
> other distribution channel which has
> The virality of *GPL licenses as node modules has never been tested in
court, so it's unclear what the ramifications are.
To clarify, if I were to release a MIT module onto github or npm or some
other distribution channel which has a dependency on an GPL module checked
into node_modules into git
On Sat, Dec 15, 2012 at 6:48 PM, Isaac Schlueter wrote:
> Apache2 has much more thorough coverage of patents and other IP stuff,
> but I dislike it because it's so long and tedious, and I distrust long
> legal documents for the same reason that I distrust large programs.
> You should use it if you
On Sat, Dec 15, 2012 at 10:55 AM, Mark Hahn wrote:
>> but I live near Berkeley, so that's why I use BSD instead of MIT.
>
> A joke, right?
Nope. They're basically the same license, functionally speaking, so
you may as well just pick one for any old arbitrary reason.
--
Job Board: http://jobs.n
> but I live near Berkeley, so that's why I use BSD instead of MIT.
A joke, right?
On Sat, Dec 15, 2012 at 9:48 AM, Isaac Schlueter wrote:
> but I live near Berkeley, so
> that's why I use BSD instead of MIT.
--
Job Board: http://jobs.nodejs.org/
Posting guidelines:
https://github.com/joyent/
>From the point of view of npm, you can use whatever license you like.
The virality of *GPL licenses as node modules has never been tested in
court, so it's unclear what the ramifications are. But you can even
publish stuff to npm with a license that says "You may not use this
for any purpose unle
What if all the top 100 npm maintainers changed everything in npm to gpl?
Would it still be poison then?
Its their work, they dedicated to it. You are using it, for free. Yes, some
modules are interchangeable but not all, And normally they were a lot of work
to write. Finishing your program wou
On Saturday, December 15, 2012 12:36:16 AM UTC-7, Jonathan Dickinson wrote:
> On Saturday, 15 December 2012 06:38:14 UTC+2, Raynos wrote:
>
>> I have zero dependencies on GPL modules for that reason and won't use any
>> npm modules that are under the GPL licence.
>>
>>
> This brings up a good poi
On Saturday, 15 December 2012 06:38:14 UTC+2, Raynos wrote:
> I have zero dependencies on GPL modules for that reason and won't use any
> npm modules that are under the GPL licence.
>
>
This brings up a good point: we should maybe be able to blacklist licenses
in the NPM client. If you want to w
On Friday, December 14, 2012 9:38:14 PM UTC-7, Raynos wrote:
> From my understanding is that if I have a dependency on a GPL module no
> matter how deep in my dependency tree (my larger apps have over a 100
> dependencies) my entire app is GPL.
>
Where in the world do you get this impression? Th
On Fri, Dec 14, 2012 at 8:28 PM, David Herron wrote:
>
> Okay, my early grok of the answers is that there isn't an actual legal
> hurdle .. someone else using the module won't be subject to the viral
> effect of the GPL in other words.
>
I wouldn't be too sure of that, unless you can point to ac
>From my understanding is that if I have a dependency on a GPL module no
matter how deep in my dependency tree (my larger apps have over a 100
dependencies) my entire app is GPL.
I have zero dependencies on GPL modules for that reason and won't use any
npm modules that are under the GPL licence.
On Fri, Dec 14, 2012 at 8:28 PM, David Herron wrote:
>
> Okay, my early grok of the answers is that there isn't an actual legal
> hurdle .. someone else using the module won't be subject to the viral
> effect of the GPL in other words. It's more of a community dislike. Am I
> reading the reacti
On Fri, Dec 14, 2012 at 7:29 PM, David Herron wrote:
> I'm curious about the preferred license for modules that are distributed
> through the npmjs.org repository
>
> In particular is there any legal barrier to using GPL in such modules?
>
> As far as I understand it, the legal barrier would be w
Okay, my early grok of the answers is that there isn't an actual legal
hurdle .. someone else using the module won't be subject to the viral
effect of the GPL in other words. It's more of a community dislike. Am I
reading the reaction correctly?
Which reminds me of a quip I read a long time ago,
Whatever you like. This is your effort, your code, and it is owned by you.
You should make an informed decision but there's no recommendation to be
found (from a node perspective).
Personally you might find interesting information and opinions, but that's
just that
The last thing i read that was
The vast majority of the community uses MIT licences.
On Fri, Dec 14, 2012 at 7:38 PM, Forrest L Norvell wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 14, 2012 at 7:29 PM, David Herron wrote:
>
>> I'm curious about the preferred license for modules that are distributed
>> through the npmjs.org repository
>
>
> We discu
On Fri, Dec 14, 2012 at 7:29 PM, David Herron wrote:
> I'm curious about the preferred license for modules that are distributed
> through the npmjs.org repository
We discussed this a bit at NodeConf summer camp this year, and the
consensus was pretty strongly in favor of BSD or MIT licenses, or
I'm curious about the preferred license for modules that are distributed
through the npmjs.org repository
In particular is there any legal barrier to using GPL in such modules?
As far as I understand it, the legal barrier would be whether a module
which uses a GPL'd module is derivative of that
41 matches
Mail list logo
