jupiterbroadcasting.com
jupiterbroadcasting.com copied to clipboard
JupiterBroadcasting
License for code - need to choose one
We need to choose a license for the code we've all created here, and with the other related repos in mind (scraper, infra, etc). This is related to, but necessarily different from choosing a license for the show content (see #50 ) .
Any suggestions or leanings on a particular open source license? If so, please explain!
MIT maybe? It's very simple and open making it easy to integrate with other projects or projects with different licenses
Much of the code from this was based on https://github.com/selfhostedshow/show-notes, which is under GPL 3.
With the code being in the state its in now, you'll likely need unanimous agreement from all committers before changing the license.
Much of the code from this was based on https://github.com/selfhostedshow/show-notes, which is under GPL 3.
With the code being in the state its in now, you'll likely need unanimous agreement from all committers before changing the license.
So I know you said code, but just want to clarify, the website repo isn't based off of that one. It was based off of @StefanS-O 's repo here (which has no license in the repo).
The scraper repo will probably have to stay GPLv3, since it's derived work from the repo the @RealOrangeOne mentioned.
I think the only thing the scraper repo has done for this repo was provide output with all the content. Which, since it's not copying code then it shouldn't have to be GPLv3 for this repo.
Also, a helpful resources:
- https://choosealicense.com/no-permission/
(The site overall is a pretty good resource)
From an end-user perspective, the choice of OSS license shouldn't make a difference here.
Any OSS license will allow others to use the code internally, modify it, extend it, incorporate it into their deployment pipeline, and so on. The differences between GPL and the permissive licenses (MIT, etc.) take effect upon distribution of the software, which is an unlikely use case for backend code that deploys a website. So from a practical standpoint, any OSS license should be fine.
A permissive license would make it possible for non-GPL projects to pull in snippets of this code. Perhaps that's a point in favor of choosing something like MIT.
The differences between GPL and the permissive licenses (MIT, etc.) take effect upon distribution of the software, which is an unlikely use case for backend code that deploys a website. So from a practical standpoint, any OSS license should be fine.
From a practical standpoint this sounds like it could be right (definitely not a lawyer 😅), but one thing I've heard about is that some companies won't even consider allowing an employee (even on personal time) to use a project that has a more restrictive GPL license. I've had a friend tell me I had to change this license to, at minimum, something like: GNU Lesser General Public License v3.0
So he could contribute to my project or even consider using it at work.
From a practical standpoint this sounds like it could be right (definitely not a lawyer sweat_smile), but one thing I've heard about is that some companies won't even consider allowing an employee (even on personal time) to use a project that has a more restrictive GPL license. I've had a friend tell me I had to change this license to, at minimum, something like: GNU Lesser General Public License v3.0
So he could contribute to my project or even consider using it at work.
I have encountered this as well. But it isn't rational, and I think it's less common than it used to be. People and companies are becoming more comfortable with the GPL.
In any event -- this licensing issue should be addressed sooner rather than later. We already have code from 20+ contributors, all made with no license in place. Choosing a license after people have started contributing code is tricky; we will need to make sure all contributors are in agreement with whatever license is chosen.
Since a majority of the current code was written by @StefanS-O (please correct me if I'm wrong here), I think we need him to weigh in. @StefanS-O, did you have any particular license in mind when you started work on this project?