Nostr

Devon Lyne 1y ago

#asknostr Which #opensource license do you prefer and why? I've been considering making some #nostr tools and am debating which license to release under. I've historically favored #GPL since I think users should be able to know what they're running on their machines, but licenses like #BSD and #MIT give developers more freedom which could enable more development in the space overall. I'm considering a library, so it could conceivably be used in a variety of tools, and I want to be able to help as many #devs as possible, but I also don't super like the idea of contributing to #closedsource corporate products attempting to commoditize the space. What type of license do you prefer? What do you think would best foster growth in the nostr ecosystem? Should I let go and accept that businesses will incorporate my code in closed source products, or should I enforce openness through my licensing?

#FOSS #devstr #dev #nostrdev #programming

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

Zardoz 1y ago

How about the Mozilla Public License (MPL)? Might be a decent middle ground.

Pros: It requires modifications to your code to be open-source, but it allows companies and individuals to combine your library with proprietary code, provided the proprietary parts are kept separate. This could encourage more adoption while still ensuring your core contributions remain open.

Cons: MPL is less restrictive than GPL or AGPL, so some companies may still use your library in proprietary systems.

If you want to foster collaboration however I would avoid GPLv3 - and favor GPLv2. V3 basically is a license that actually IMHO stifles collaboration because as the “owner” of the code base you could technically yank the ability to use the library from a contributor at any time (at least in my understanding). I don’t have a problem with that per se but the authors should have given it a new name rather than co-opt the V2 reputation.