That one of the reason why I brought up this thread to bring up discussion on some of the other ways we could address this while retaining commercial use.
My interpretation of non-commercial licensing is that it would allows the code to remain open, it just that it may mandates companies to purchase commercial license if they wish to peruse such project commercially. There are some projects that practiced dual licensing schemes.
Thank you for posting this! It’s very interesting on how it can be applied on top of existing open source licensing. I’ve got some reading to do!
That a pretty interesting license, I distinctly remember that there were an argument on the internet over that license. So I took the time to review what happened, there were few criticisms for it:
Conflict over “Open Source” Definition - Open source license must allow the software to be freely used, modified, and shared. The SSPL adds additional restrictions, particularly the requirement to open source not just the software itself but also the software used to offer the program as a service.
Restricts Freedom to Use the Software - It requires that anyone who makes the software available as a service must release the source code for their entire stack.
But none the less, this license is an interesting one and an inspiration could be drawn from it to not go to that extreme stipulated by SSPL, but to have some lines drawn to address some of the concerns around AGPL loopholes.
You raise a good point on that consideration.
From what I understood about the copyright law is that you could create a separate license apart from non-commercial license and you could still sell a commercial license (if all contributors agreed to it, CAA/CLA agreements been signed, or some other agreements in place.) A project can have multiple licenses. Please correct me if I’m wrong however.
And it sucks that it such a massive discouragement from a lot of developers who shared similar concerns as I have about this.
Absolutely, your understanding mirrors mine. The re-licensing process is a complex one, particularly in the context of FOSS projects with multiple contributors. It requires unanimous agreement from all contributors, unless a Contributor License Agreement (CLA) or Copyright Assignment Agreement is already in place, which can simplify the process.
As for the scenario where a distro continues to maintain a hard fork of the project from the point before re-licensing, it’s certainly possible. However, as you pointed out, it would place a substantial burden on the distro in terms of resources. They would need to maintain and update the code independently, which might not be feasible or desirable.
In regards to the proposed license conditions, “Sources must be publicly available if repackaged” or “Cannot be packaged for sale”, it’s worth noting that the first one is already embodied in the principles of GPL/AGPL. The second proposal, however, raises more complex considerations. This approach would indeed help address the issue of commercial exploitation that I initially raised. But as you’ve mentioned, the challenge lies in navigating the re-licensing process.
If a FOSS project is already licensed under a different license, a re-license would require obtaining permissions from all contributors, which might prove to be a logistical challenge. Therefore, any change in the licensing model needs to be thought through carefully, taking into account not only the potential legal complexities but also the broader implications for the open-source community.
Disclaimer that I’m not a lawyer.
Yeah, MIT license is absurdly free and flexible, so basically you just need to retain copyright notice and license copy.
That I agree, I always see it as a critical necessity to always document everything when more than 1 developer work on the project. It like making a trade:
Spend time and effort debugging
Or
Spend time documenting and maintain it with the help of Chatgpt
With ChatGPT, it seems to reduce cost for documenting while same can’t be said for debugging.
I know, just not sure the quality it offers and I am 99% sure that they train it on the piles which is a huge nearly 1 petabyte dataset that includes GitHub code. They are likely doing the same thing GitHub did when training copilot.
Fairly skeptical about Jetbrains’ Model, so it’s basically a wait and see.
One of the thing I learn about in programming is that, if you have to use debuggers too often then maybe it’s a good time to re-evaluate on how you develop a project.
By fixing your practice and making it less prone to bugs, you wouldn’t have to resort to using debugger as often.
As for profilers, it really depends, but generally if you try to be conservative like applying lockless concurrency where possible and sometime resorting to mutex/semaphore if otherwise needed, you should generally be ok when dealing with concurrency situation. As for overall performance, the rule of thumb is that, the less code you run to do the work, the better. You can see what program would actually do when dealing with C language for instance, but you might have a harder time to make such evaluation on higher level languages, so the general wisdom is that the heavy computation operation should be deferred to low level language like C language and you should have high level language calls into that C function to handle those performance intensive operations.
Thing is, there is a line of succession for Linux Kernel, Linus is more of a Q/A manager for determining whether to merge code or not, and they most likely never yield to Linux Foundation, because why the hell would they want to let some corpo suits tell them what to do especially if they don’t have the technical literacy to do the job in the first place? If corpo try to meddle with the development process of Linux Kernel into something of a hostile environment, then developers of Linux would just fork off and spin off their own version right there and then.
I guess it’s for the best that those astroturfing people stay on Reddit while we can enjoy the Lemmy-verse.
I would have to agree on this, it seems rather odd if the code repo is confidential or classified to be shared on a Windows Share. The reason why we would use Git services (self-hosted) is so that we have multitude of security services/layers maintained by dedicated team of system administrators such as firewall, service update, data redundancy, backup, active directory and so forth.
I can see a scenario where people accidentally put classified repos or information that aren’t supposed to be shared on Windows Share where unauthorized users could view that repos.
The main reason why one would want to use C is likely Foreign Function Interface (FFI), whatever code you write in C (apart from emitting assemblies) would likely be usable and extensible from any other programming languages so long that some of the conventions are followed. Rust and C++ could likely produce code just as fast as well optimized C code, but inaccessible or not readily accessible to other programming languages IE Name Mangling that are compiler implementation dependent, missing FFI access to STL and Traits and so forth. If it was readily accessible, then I would ask where is QT API (complete API access, not API-Lite) access for any other programming language.
FFI is pretty much the only reason why I am still writing in C in a very large project like GUI Toolkit to replace GTK and QT by using Vulkan. I would not recommend doing what I do when it come to implementing OOP manually in C to ensure that other programming language could extend my library. (I would write VTable manually and establish some of the OOP paradigms. C compiler does extremely well when optimizing out virtual dispatches to static dispatch.)
That’s about it, as you said, it have a lot of hassles in C, so that why I am now working on Compiler Generator to create dialects on top of C similarly to MLIR so it would compile to readable C at the end of it as well as generating LSP server, FFI-JSON, and other things for it.
Well corporations can use the given work too, it just that they also have to disclose their derived work of the given code and have it licensed under GPL or AGPL as well. That the general idea of copyleft.