[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [] pumped

From: Kuno Woudt
Subject: Re: [] pumped
Date: Fri, 12 Jul 2013 11:03:21 +0200
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130510 Thunderbird/17.0.6


On 07/12/2013 03:13 AM, Mike Linksvayer wrote:
Second, and much more widely noted, is the preference of
(supposedly young, but I'm doubtful) web developers for permissive
licenses. If true, this would make a permissive license all the more
necessary to establish a standard, and hopefully contribute to
non-obscurity among developers.

One possible reason (I've come to realize) for this is that a typical web application often depends on hundreds of third party libraries / modules [1], and no one wants to spend time figuring out if all of them have compatible licenses.

After running "npm install" on, you will end up with up 107 third party modules in "node_modules". It's just so much easier to pick a permissive license and not have to worry about the question whether your code is going to be derivative of any of those modules or have incompatible licenses.

If we want strong copyleft to be more popular with web developers one of the things we need to do is make sure this boundary is clear. The license should only apply to the code the developer is shipping. Third party libraries which are only mentioned in a machine-readable dependencies/requirements file and in import/require statements in the code should always be considered separate works.

Fontana's copyleft-next has I think a good solution to this in version 0.3.0, see the "Derived Work" definition in the license text [2]. (Although that version still allows you to opt-out from this interpretation, which I think is a mistake :)

-- kuno / warp.

[1] ps, perl and node.js modules seem more granular than python and php. MediaGoblin for example probably "only" needs about 40 or 50 python libraries for its default install.


reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]