[HN Gopher] Htmx changes license to Zero-Clause BSD
___________________________________________________________________
Htmx changes license to Zero-Clause BSD
Author : jicea
Score : 178 points
Date : 2024-01-15 17:14 UTC (5 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (github.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (github.com)
| samsquire wrote:
| I use the zero clause licence for my all my work because it just
| removes all the overhead of using my code.
|
| I think (please correct my understanding) zero clause BSD can be
| embedded in a GPL project too, it just becomes one-way included,
| subsumed into the GPL project and then under the GPL licence.
| (Relicenced)
|
| Could the author of HTMX explain their reasoning for changing the
| licence? I am curious?
| stavros wrote:
| IANAL, but yep, that sounds about right, the more restrictive
| license then applies. Of course, anyone can use the original,
| BSD copy of the code, without the restrictions.
| samsquire wrote:
| I would have hope that anybody who uses your code doesn't
| want to keep it a secret, because it would be good if people
| use the same common base code and changes can benefit
| everyone.
|
| Since there's no requirement to credit a zero clause licenced
| BSD code, someone who receives the BSD code compiled might
| not know it's included but that's the risk I'm taking.
| recursivedoubts wrote:
| It was mainly as a joke, but I wanted to remove the attribution
| clauses, they just seemed dumb for a single-file javascript
| library that was probably going to be minimized anyway, where
| are you supposed to stick the license?
| skybrian wrote:
| Some companies are careful to include all the libraries'
| licenses when minimizing JavaScript code. There are tools to
| do it. But it seems wasteful, so it's great that you removed
| the requirement.
| recursivedoubts wrote:
| background:
|
| - over the weekend I started making the @htmx_org twitter account
| increasingly corporate looking
|
| - started talking a lot about MSFT, implying they were interested
| in htmx
|
| - someone asked if MSFT was going to buy htmx:
| https://fxtwitter.com/htmx_org/status/1746656784088228204
|
| - i then put up a post about changing the htmx license, implying
| i was going to restrict it due to MSFT interest:
| https://fxtwitter.com/htmx_org/status/1746736273728094323
|
| - I then made is 0BSD instead of 2BSD:
| https://fxtwitter.com/htmx_org/status/1746880860723544211
|
| - I then posted the "offer" i got from MSFT (some credit card
| thing) https://fxtwitter.com/htmx_org/status/1746895016256328079
|
| - And explained how there were no lies involved in the ruse:
| https://fxtwitter.com/htmx_org/status/1746924827641102719
|
| the reason i did all this is for the lols
| saghm wrote:
| > - I then posted the "offer" i got from MSFT (some credit card
| thing)
| https://fxtwitter.com/htmx_org/status/1746895016256328079
|
| Know your worth; don't sell out for anything under 20% cash
| back at Bed, Bath & Beyond!
| internet101010 wrote:
| Only applicable to private label items.
| dan15 wrote:
| I used one of their 20% off coupons for a Simplehuman bin a
| while back (one of the ones with recycling on the left and
| trash on the right).
|
| Having said that, I don't think they actually take coupons
| any more. It stopped when all the physical stores closed.
| The offer here is a cash back offer, where you pay the full
| price then another company (like TopCashback, Rakuten,
| apparently Microsoft too) gives you 10% cash back.
| philwelch wrote:
| I always felt like "simplehuman" was the kind of brand
| name a condescending AI would come up with. "Simple
| human, buy this trash can and I will sell you overpriced,
| custom-fitting trash bags forever!"
| kamikaz1k wrote:
| what does the fx in fxtwitter.com mean?
| aatd86 wrote:
| Fix twitter...
|
| Just kidding... Foreign exchange....
|
| Kidding again... I don't actually know.
| nouryqt wrote:
| Fix, it's mostly used for having embeds work again in discord
| and such
|
| https://github.com/FixTweet/FxTwitter
| disintegrator wrote:
| https://github.com/FixTweet/FxTwitter
| softinio wrote:
| I was wondering same .... found this:
|
| https://docs.fxtwitter.com/en/latest/index.html#
| geek_at wrote:
| since the WHOIS states it's DNS servers are hosted by
| cloudflare (twitter is hosted by twtrdns.net) it seems to be
| a "fuck x - twitter.com" forwarding domain. Maybe also with
| some tracking to see how many people clicked the link but
| that's just speculation
| isoprophlex wrote:
| Absolute madman
|
| Should have gone for the "do whatever the fuck you want"
| license though
| recursivedoubts wrote:
| i went to berkeley so i have a soft spot for BSD (even though
| BSD0 technically isn't derived from BSD)
| bombcar wrote:
| 0BSD scares a lot less people than the various "public
| domain" or "wtf" licenses, let me tell you.
|
| Lawyers don't like things they don't recognize.
| bruh2 wrote:
| I love your spirit. Actually funny
| purple_ferret wrote:
| Your lack of professional seriousness is truly astounding.
|
| One of the primary reasons we've gone with React/NextJS coupled
| with MongoDB and Kubernetes over HTMX
| sgift wrote:
| Talks about lack of professional seriousness. Goes with
| MongoDB. Sometimes reality writes the best jokes.
| endisneigh wrote:
| What's wrong with mongodb?
| macintux wrote:
| I can't speak to its current state, but there were some
| highly dubious design decisions early in its life, such
| as the library would reply to the client indicating a
| successful push of data into the database _before the
| network request even left the local computer_.
| endisneigh wrote:
| The past mongodb issues don't seem relevant unless they
| persist today, no?
| macintux wrote:
| Reputational damage is difficult to recover from.
| endisneigh wrote:
| That's not relevant to the question of "what's wrong with
| mongodb?" It seems folks just regurgitate memes without
| any understanding of the current product.
| macintux wrote:
| I thought "I can't speak to its current state" explained
| that I could not, in fact, speak to its current state.
|
| But when it comes to databases, which are often the
| single most important part of an architecture, you'll
| find that many people are less forgiving of old sins,
| especially when Postgres now has native JSON support.
|
| Much like I won't trust Uber with my location, or Google
| with my email, I won't trust Mongo with my data.
| endisneigh wrote:
| Why even reply if you don't know what you're talking
| about in terms of current mongo? Not sure what Postgres
| or Uber or Google even has to do with this.
|
| FYI using mongo is more than simply wanting a json
| interface.
| Literalyevery wrote:
| Mongodb was/is for a long time inconsistent. You had to
| worry loosing data when using mongo.
|
| And everything mongodb brought us, was either implemented
| by someone else better or already existed.
|
| If you use mongodb today, just go with postgres and
| forget about mongo
| endisneigh wrote:
| Yes there used to be issues with mongo (and Postgres
| around serializable for the matter). What are the issues
| in 2024?
| osalberger wrote:
| Breaks causal consistency and a bunch of other
| assumptions:
|
| https://jepsen.io/analyses/mongodb-4.2.6
| endisneigh wrote:
| 4 years old. Mongodb is at version 7 now.
| tobltobs wrote:
| So MongoDB was an inconsistent DB for at least 70% of its
| lifetime. It doesn't sound too ensuring.
| bombcar wrote:
| It's webscale.
| robertlagrant wrote:
| I'm pretty sure that was a joke.
| sodapopcan wrote:
| I wasn't sure at first but on a re-read it now seems
| glaringly obvious it's a joke :D
| paulddraper wrote:
| I wasn't sure either until the gratuitous "coupled with
| MongoDB and Kubernetes" lol
| ASalazarMX wrote:
| And it was indeed written by someone real! Astounding!
| drcongo wrote:
| Sometimes the best jokes look like reality.
| notfed wrote:
| Poe would like a word with you.
| markski wrote:
| you chose your stack by weighing the professionalism of the
| twitter account?
| lmeyerov wrote:
| may you never have to maintain production code...
| markski wrote:
| i do. what now?
| lmeyerov wrote:
| may you and the people relying on you never have to rely
| on the maintainers taking things more seriously than
| they've shown themselves to in their public positioning
| markski wrote:
| HTMX has existed for nearly a decade (prev.
| intercoolerjs); 1cg has proven to be extremely invested
| in it, and the whole philosophy around it in general
| (even being in charge of an "Hypermedia Research Group"
| at Montana university). To dismiss all of the credibility
| he has created with his work just because the guy wants
| to be funny on twitter is nothing short of stupid.
| lmeyerov wrote:
| This appears to be the official account, not a personal
| one. If he wants me to take htmx seriously as a prod
| dependency, I care about how he treats it, all the way
| from code to governance to community interactions.
|
| He has no such obligation to do these things, this is all
| his choice. I'm not sure why the contention? If you read
| my comment, it was strictly about production scenarios,
| not about all credibility for all scenarios. If this
| project is meant to be treated as fun CRAPL, Matthew
| Might made a great license for that:
| https://matt.might.net/articles/crapl/ .
| markski wrote:
| I apologize for the contention - I misunderstood what
| your point was which made my writing a little too
| aggressive.
|
| I still hold the position that the social media presence
| of the project should be inconsequential for considering
| it's production usage. But I can see your point now, even
| if I disagree.
| clivestaples wrote:
| I see your point but I let the technology do the talking.
| People focus on personalities but the work is what
| matters to me. I used to get annoyed at DHH but then I
| just ignored it and built stuff really fast.
| rakoo wrote:
| 1. They are the maintainers of htmx, not the maintainers
| of your code. There is no contract with them.
|
| 2. The joke made by the maintainer gives absolutely no
| insight into how they will behave if there were a
| contract. If anything, that might mean the maintainer
| actually is a human that is agreeable to talk and work
| with, because they don't take it so seriously as to
| forbid any jokes.
|
| Professionalism doesn't mean "no jokes allowed", it means
| "do your best".
| recursivedoubts wrote:
| That's a great option, many people choose it!
| recursivedoubts wrote:
| OK, I'll respond in a bit more detail to this, now that it's
| closer to the top. I'll assume you are being serious as well
| (always hard to tell online.)
|
| I understand where you are coming from, the @htmx_org twitter
| account is very silly. This can be a big turn off to some
| developers and companies. On the other hand, I do have a fair
| number of serious essays on the htmx website
| (https://htmx.org/essays) and a free book that is also
| serious (https://hypermedia.systems).
|
| I view twitter as a tool for getting the word out about htmx
| and, therefore, use it in that manner. I don't think that
| medium supports super-nuanced discussions (although I've had
| some.) I try to not be negative on it, and frequently link to
| my essays for more in-depth discussions. I also enjoy being
| funny and making people laugh.
|
| And, while I can understand and sympathize with people who
| dislike the general vibe of my account, you can't argue with
| the success of this approach.
|
| It has recently passed 27k stars on github:
|
| https://star-history.com/#bigskysoftware/htmx&Date
|
| And finished 2nd (!!!) in the js rising stars frameworks for
| 2023:
|
| https://risingstars.js.org/2023/en#section-framework
|
| Plus #10 overall. This is a library created by a one-person
| company that is trying to compete with the likes of Facebook,
| Google and Vercel when it comes to developer mindshare. While
| I would love to think it is the insightful essays, excellent
| coding ability and the quality of my book, there is no doubt
| that the twitter account has been a huge contributor to
| htmx's success.
| sodapopcan wrote:
| I'm not OP, but I would like to think it's a joke. If they
| were actually turned off by your "lack of professionalism"
| they would like turn to Alpinejs before "React/NextJS
| coupled with MongoDB and Kubernetes" :) But who knows!
| giancarlostoro wrote:
| > the reason i did all this is for the lols
|
| Do the lols while you still can, the Trust and Safety
| departments at major social media companies want to extinguish
| funny.
|
| Everyone who does even a smidgen of memeing on the internet
| knows what happens when you post images of large spiders.
| People start talking about burning things down, like the entire
| building its inside of, etc. Someone posted a video where a
| little girl had one crawling on her hand, it was bigger than
| her face. I said "Girl get away from that spider, we have to
| set the house on fire" and the AI anti-funny overlords at
| Facebook deleted my comment, and gave me some sort of "strike"
| and then I appealed, and was auto denied.
|
| Our favorite Sci-Fi dystopias coming soon, to a Trust and
| Safety social media site nightmare near you.
| recursivedoubts wrote:
| The only hope you have is to accept the fact that you're
| already cancelled.
|
| The sooner you accept that, the sooner you'll be able to
| function as a shiposter is supposed to function: without
| mercy, without anxiety, without remorse.
|
| All shiposting depends upon it.
| giancarlostoro wrote:
| I mean, I just stopped using Facebook instead, I was an
| admin for my employer at the times Facebook app (used for
| login) so I did not want to risk it. It's Facebooks loss.
| ordinaryradical wrote:
| We happy few, we band of brothers.
| mtlmtlmtlmtl wrote:
| Meanwhile someone was using my late brother's name and
| face(in a list of supposed "vaccine casualties". My brother
| died from heart failure after lifelong illness, age 39) to
| spread vile antivaxx/protrump stuff.
|
| All reports denied. It was glaringly obvious she was a paid
| misinfo troll.
| somat wrote:
| Just a question, I don't pay much attention to politics,
| are the two related? are anti vaxers pro trump? The vaccine
| was developed on Trumps watch.
|
| I figured it was just like any other boss, takes all the
| credit if it works. desperately tries to shift blame if it
| does not.
| pgeorgi wrote:
| There's some correlation, and while Trump tried to take
| credit for Operation Warp Speed for a while[0], he
| distanced himself from everything related to "Covid is a
| threat" (including "it needs vaccines") when the tide
| shifted in his voter base and they went fiercely antivax,
| antidistancing, antilockdown, ...
|
| [0] the process was pretty much the same speed for non-
| participants in non-participant countries, but okay: his
| administration made it a priority. Gold star for you!
| giancarlostoro wrote:
| I used to watch loads of political speeches, including
| Biden and Trumps because otherwise you take someone
| else's word for what they say, and I still remember the
| boo's he got in one of his early speeches after Biden was
| sworn in, the entire crowd booed when he said to go out
| and get vaccinated, then he said "if you want to" after
| he realized his 'goof.' It was like he was not paying any
| attention to his base since losing the White House (again
| this was like his second (I think?) rally since). Then he
| changed his strategy with his base on it after. So you're
| not wrong. I think he still brings it up, but briefly.
| bombcar wrote:
| It amuses me, personally, seeing the "antivax" crowd
| quickly being equalized to all the other various "bad"
| people - 20 years ago, there was a strong but quiet
| "antivax" crowd and it was _definitely_ not made up of
| Trump or even R-leaning people. It was quite the "hippy
| liberal progressive" if you had to qualify it.
|
| But then again, twenty years ago you had all sorts of
| political positions you could take, now everything is
| simply binary. You have no agency.
| cqqxo4zV46cp wrote:
| It doesn't sound it like it amuses you. You sound kind of
| miffed off about it.
| bombcar wrote:
| Fair enough, it's a bit annoying because now you need
| about five seconds and you can replace almost anyone (at
| least online) with a tuned LLM without much thought.
|
| It was fun to watch people disagree about things, that's
| mostly gone in the political world (and that world eats
| all discussion boards eventually, in my experience).
| giancarlostoro wrote:
| After my cousin passed away his mother took over the
| account. They used it to spew hatred and condemn people. I
| don't think the account was ever shut down.
| clwg wrote:
| bravo, what editor did you use to change the license file?
| recursivedoubts wrote:
| WebStorm
| neoromantique wrote:
| absolutely proprietary :<
| recursivedoubts wrote:
| yeah i'm not doctrinaire about things and I don't mind
| paying for my tools
| tgv wrote:
| Good for you, and the spirit of open software.
| singron wrote:
| This made me wonder what the shortest open source license is, and
| it seems to be the Fair License:
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_License
|
| > <Copyright Information>
|
| >
|
| > Usage of the works is permitted provided that this instrument
| is retained with the works, so that any entity that uses the
| works is notified of this instrument.
|
| >
|
| > DISCLAIMER: THE WORKS ARE WITHOUT WARRANTY.
|
| EDIT: I would not use this license. I'm not sure how this got
| approved by the OSI, but I'm not a lawyer. Some of the email
| threads think the disclaimer is insufficient, and I'm not
| entirely sure that it confers all the expected rights since it
| only says "Usage" (copying, modification, distribution).
| kotborealis wrote:
| "Don't ask me about it License" looks a bit shorter[0].
|
| 0: https://github.com/ErikMcClure/bad-
| licenses/blob/master/dont...
| hiccuphippo wrote:
| Is License golf a thing? ChatGPT reduces that from 205 to 130
| bytes:
|
| The works can be used as long as this instrument is kept
| alongside them to notify users. The works are provided without
| warranty.
| saghm wrote:
| Is "zero-clause BSD" a joke, or is it considered a legitimate
| license? If the latter, does it actually differ from the MIT
| license in anything other than name?
| sethops1 wrote:
| It is approved by OSI[1]
|
| [1] https://opensource.org/license/0bsd/
| explodingcamera wrote:
| zero-clause BSD is essentially a modified MIT that doesn't even
| require attribution, so essentially a "public domain" like
| license.
| kube-system wrote:
| Presuming that 'MIT' was a typo: most BSD-licensed software
| doesn't use the original (4-clause) BSD license, most are under
| variants:
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BSD_licenses
| saghm wrote:
| No, it wasn't a typo; the 0-clause BSD looks pretty similar
| to the MIT license, and from a cursory reading, it appears
| that the clauses are what makes the BSD license different
| from the MIT license. I was wondering if my reading is
| correct or if I've missed something.
| kube-system wrote:
| MIT has several (very important) requirements that BSD-0
| does not. MIT is more similar to BSD-2-clause. It requires
| the user to include the copyright notice and disclaimer in
| any distributions.
| 0x69420 wrote:
| it eschews attribution, making it just about the closest thing
| to a public-domain dedication that still retains the
| appropriate verbiage to hold up to legal scrutiny
| mminer237 wrote:
| In the US, simply saying "I hereby dedicate this work to the
| public domain." is as an effective, if not more effective,
| way to do that as any license. These licenses are just for
| countries like Germany that basically make it illegal to
| sell, gift, or release a copyright at all.
| MzHN wrote:
| There's also another OSI approved "zero" license called MIT-0
|
| https://opensource.org/license/mit-0/
| simonw wrote:
| I hadn't seen Zero-Clause BSD before:
| https://opensource.org/license/0bsd/
|
| > Note: Despite its name, Zero-Clause BSD is an alteration of the
| ISC license, and is not textually derived from licenses in the
| BSD family. Zero-Clause BSD was originally approved under the
| name "Free Public License 1.0.0".
|
| Anyone seen a good write-up of the tradeoffs for this license? I
| like how short and simple it is.
| ameliaquining wrote:
| It's appropriate for software designed for use cases where an
| attribution requirement would be inconvenient or otherwise
| undesirable. For example, https://github.com/microsoft/tslib
| uses it, because that library is automatically included in any
| TypeScript program that uses downleveling, so if it had an
| attribution requirement then that requirement would apply to
| every program written in TypeScript, which nobody wants. (GCC
| and LLVM do something similar with their special runtime-
| library exceptions to the GPL and Apache License, respectively,
| but tslib lives in a separate repository from the rest of
| TypeScript and so could easily just get a separate license.)
| theanonymousone wrote:
| Is there a license that requires (or encourages) contributing
| back the modifications, _but only if the upstream project is open
| source/non-commercial_?
| zilti wrote:
| You'd have to dual license your code afaik, the way Qt did/does
| it
| p8donald wrote:
| If I contribute code to an open source project under the BSD
| 2-Clause license and don't sign any contributor license
| agreement, can the maintainer relicense the code without getting
| my permission?
| njharman wrote:
| Sure, anyone can do anything. It would be up to you (and
| hopefully a lawyer) to then sue them and let judge/jury decide.
| Or, convince authorities that some criminal law was violated
| and they should investigate.
|
| Both of which are hard and/or expensive. So most rely on public
| shame. Out them on social media and foment outrage.
| colejohnson66 wrote:
| In the US, generally no.
| logicprog wrote:
| The state of software licenses makes me a bit sad. On the one
| hand we have open source licenses like the MIT and Apache 2.0
| licenses that give corporations free reign to enclose and exploit
| the software commons without any real limit or any requirement to
| give back to the things they are getting rich off of, and then on
| the other hand we have the GPL and LGPL licenses which are too
| aggressive and stringent, while also being somewhat vague -- see
| for instance the almost superstitious fear companies have about
| using LGPL code even when it would probably be fine -- which
| means that almost no one ends up using those licenses, because
| companies are too afraid to use software that is licensed under
| them (and therefore wouldn't be invested in them at all, which
| means they give back to those projects _even less_ than they do
| for projects under open source licenses) and because even FLOSS
| developers just don 't want to deal with the dependency headaches
| of using GPL code. Which in turn ironically means that, despite
| being designed to very aggressively protect and help the software
| commons, the GPL and LGPL licenses end up doing _worse_ for the
| software commons then open source licenses do, in general,
| because no one uses them or invests in them in the first place,
| and _of course_ there are going to be fewer contributions to the
| software commons from a license that is never used or invested in
| then there are going to be from a license that is widely used and
| deeply invested in but has fewer requirements, because it 's a
| matter of percentages essentially. So in essence both licenses
| fail to do what at least I feel like they should ideally do,
| although for opposite reasons.
|
| Ultimately, I think this stems from the fact that Open Source
| licenses were explicitly created by people who wanted to be
| friendly to corporations, and the GPL licenses were created by
| the FSF, who are essentially the vegans of software. So I think
| in the long run what we need is a free software movement that is
| detached from _both_ the dogmatism and absolutism of the Free
| Software Foundation _and_ the desire to suck up with
| corporations. A movement that perhaps sees itself as being a
| check on the balance of corporations in the software world, but
| in a more pragmatic way.
|
| I think the sort of license a movement like that might produce
| might end up looking something like the MPL 2.0: it allows
| combined works that use the existing code _in any way they want_
| , while requiring changes or improvements _to the existing code_
| to be shared back to the community, so that there is a clear
| requirement to give back to the things you benefited from,
| without trying to also take away the things you or your team
| wrote themselves.
|
| This is similar to the LGPL, but unlike that license the basic
| unit of separation is clearer: files. Original source code files
| and any files containing substantial portions of code copied from
| the original source code are considered part of the original
| work, and therefore something to which changes must be
| contributed back to the community, but anything outside those
| files can stay proprietary. This is a lot clearer and more
| flexible than the LGPL, meaning developers from FOSS and from
| corporations can use code under the without headaches, while
| still not allowing companies to just completely free ride on the
| things the software community makes, and we get to have both
| because unlike the LGPL the MPL is willing to sacrifice some
| stringency and control in return for those benefits.
|
| Additionally, and perhaps _more_ importantly, it doesn 't have
| particularly onerous source distribution requirements or
| requirements to distribute your own application as object code or
| provide some other way for users to swap out the version of the
| free software code that's being used, which likewise does
| sacrifice some FSF purity, but in return for a massive decrease
| in the complexity, onerousness, and annoyingness of the license
| requirements as a whole. So yeah, the MPL isn't perfect -- maybe
| the ideal free software license would be the LGPL with just
| clearer specification of where the boundaries are between the
| LGPL code and the proprietary code, and no annoying object code
| or dynamic linking requirements -- but it's a lot closer to where
| I think we need to move with licenses. I don't think zero clause
| open source licenses are the way.
| jabl wrote:
| I like the MPL 2.0 and use it for some of my own software as it
| best seems to describe the outcome that I want (incorporate it
| into whatever you want, but please contribute improvements to
| the MPL licensed parts of the software back to upstream).
|
| However, I also think it's fairly easy to circumvent for a
| hypothetical leech that just wants to use my code without
| contributing back any improvements. Namely just put the
| improvements into a separate proprietary file, and insert stubs
| in the MPL licensed file calling the proprietary code. Taking
| this argument to the extreme, one should use either something
| extremely permissive like 0BSD or then go full AGPLv3, as
| everything inbetween is to an extent possible to circumvent
| without too much trouble (GPL "condoms" and all that).
| logicprog wrote:
| > However, I also think it's fairly easy to circumvent for a
| hypothetical leech that just wants to use my code without
| contributing back any improvements. Namely just put the
| improvements into a separate proprietary file, and insert
| stubs in the MPL licensed file calling the proprietary code.
|
| Yeah this is the work around that came to mind when I first
| read the MPL, and it's what I had in mind when I said it
| isn't perfect. I'm using it for a current game engine project
| I'm working on, and will probably use it for any of my other
| work moving forward, but I definitely think it isn't the end
| of license history -- there is still a _lot_ more improvement
| that could be made. I was just giving it as an example of
| what I think the correct direction is, in contrast to the
| current extremes. I think it 's where more work on licenses
| should go.
| mook wrote:
| I like MPL too (depending on context), but do be aware that
| (per section 10) Mozilla is allowed to ship new versions of
| the license and people can choose to use those new versions
| in place of the version you licensed under. This is not
| inherently bad -- many projects are licensed under "GPL 3 or
| later", for example -- but it's something to be aware of. See
| also CDDL, which is mostly MPL but Sun (and now Oracle) in
| place of Mozilla Foundation.
| logicprog wrote:
| Oh I didnt know that, good to know. Another area where it
| isn't perfect!
| Guid_NewGuid wrote:
| I don't understand the view that MIT and Apache 2.0 make it
| possible for corporations to somehow destroy or enclose the
| commons. Code is code. It can't be destroyed, its cost of
| duplication is effectively zero. If I take some open source
| code, add my changes and distribute a paid, closed-source,
| version, nothing has been removed/lost.
|
| Certainly they make it hard/impossible to build a business from
| Open Source code. Unfortunately in an economic system designed
| to maximise the reward for value capture at the cost of value
| creators this is a common problem. But I believe the answer to
| that is more communism, not more licenses with more convoluted
| requirements creating jobs for legal departments for shared
| code.
| logicprog wrote:
| > I don't understand the view that MIT and Apache 2.0 make it
| possible for corporations to somehow destroy or enclose the
| commons. Code is code. It can't be destroyed, its cost of
| duplication is effectively zero. If I take some open source
| code, add my changes and distribute a paid, closed-source,
| version, nothing has been removed/lost.
|
| You are technically correct in this, and technically speaking
| perhaps I should have put what I said in terms of the free
| rider problem, not necessarily enclosure of the commons, but
| two things: first, I do think what corporations do with open
| source software is to some degree more analogous to such an
| enclosure, since in a free rider problem we typically imagine
| a few or even very large number of lazy individuals just not
| paying for something, whereas in the enclosure of the commons
| it is the rich and large corporations benefiting from the
| work of more common folk, and the power dynamics of what
| happens in software look more like the latter than the
| former. Second, you're forgetting embrace, extend,
| extinguish, which very much does have the effect of
| destroying things by commercial cooption and absorbtion.
|
| > Certainly they make it hard/impossible to build a business
| from Open Source code. Unfortunately in an economic system
| designed to maximise the reward for value capture at the cost
| of value creators this is a common problem. But I believe the
| answer to that is more communism, not more licenses with more
| convoluted requirements creating jobs for legal departments
| for shared code.
|
| I sort of view licenses that require contributing any
| improvements you've made to something back to the collective
| pool from which you got it as a form of communism, even if in
| this case it is embedded in and enforced by a capitalist
| system.
| jbverschoor wrote:
| I'm curious, what exactly would a VC or MSFT want with htmx? Just
| talent? or the actual product/tech?
| recursivedoubts wrote:
| I don't think there's much VCs would want w/htmx: it's a really
| simple concept implemented in a single js file w/no moats or
| obvious market opportunities as far as i can tell, and I'm a
| one man shop. I think I got the calls because htmx trended on
| twitter a couple of times.
|
| MSFT might want it because it's gotten a lot of attention
| lately (finished #2 in
| https://risingstars.js.org/2023/en#section-framework for 2023)
| and would give them a front-end library in the game w/ React,
| Vue, Svelte, etc. On the other hand, i've made the social media
| account pretty toxic/funny (same thing) for a big tech company
| and now the library is 0BSD, and htmx's agnosticism towards
| back end tech doesn't really dovetail w/ the Microsoft ethos.
| gen220 wrote:
| VCs have taken a few positions in FOSS recently [1][2]. I
| also don't understand the financial reasoning of investing in
| the companies, for what they are. My guess is that it's an
| option on having influence on relatively influential
| developers in the mid-to-later stages of their career.
|
| [1]: https://techcrunch.com/2023/02/16/sequoia-backs-open-
| source-...
|
| [2]: https://www.sequoiacap.com/article/sequoia-open-source-
| fello...
| alberth wrote:
| Public Domain
|
| Does this effectively make htmx public domain?
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2024-01-15 23:02 UTC)