Ask HN: Which OS License you try to avoid? And why?
If you are a developer you have to deal with software libraries and software licenses. Which licenses you try to avoid and why? And which licenses are OK for you if you develop a proprietary product?
3 comments
Context is missing, so "it depends" applies.
GPL can be used inside proprietary products, the copyleft clause is only activated if you distribute the product to other parties. And by distribution this doesn't mean public distribution, it just means giving the code to the person who receives the binaries.
On the case of web services, it is rare to see distribution of software.
I could go on writing the whole day about the matter. In the end what wins is the end-user context. Licenses are like weapons, each one was created for a specific scenario.
GPL can be used inside proprietary products, the copyleft clause is only activated if you distribute the product to other parties. And by distribution this doesn't mean public distribution, it just means giving the code to the person who receives the binaries.
On the case of web services, it is rare to see distribution of software.
I could go on writing the whole day about the matter. In the end what wins is the end-user context. Licenses are like weapons, each one was created for a specific scenario.
Are you in a highly competitive field? If so, any code you can avoid writing is a competitive advantage, and means you can push out a product faster than everyone else. In those cases, use, buy, and ask for any code which will benefit the production and only avoid licenses which directly prevents your business model from earning revenue.
Everybody is an highly competitive field. Everybody wants to release as fast as possible. That's why everybody is using open source components. I know that everybody in the commercial field avoids GPL. Just curious which other licenses are on the blacklist of the some companies.
If I take a specific example, a AAA game like starcraft 2 uses something like 10-20 different open source projects, where the licenses are everything from personal granted permission, mit, to LGPL. I would also guess that some of those personal granted permission is actually bought permission from dual licensed GPL projects.
Not everyone are willing to go those lengths to save time and work. Not-invented-here is still going strong, as is FUD. If you are in a highly competitive field that can't afford NIH and FUD, then you can't afford a blacklist either.
Not everyone are willing to go those lengths to save time and work. Not-invented-here is still going strong, as is FUD. If you are in a highly competitive field that can't afford NIH and FUD, then you can't afford a blacklist either.
MIT, BSD or Apache are fine. I try to avoid GPL as it tends to bring up more issues than it solves with the derived works clause.
http://choosealicense.com/licenses
http://choosealicense.com/licenses