Ask HN: Choosing open source project licenses when not legally-minded? | Hacker News Reader

Ask HN: Choosing open source project licenses when not legally-minded?

33 pointssbjs24 comments

I have an idea for a really great open source project that I know there's going to be a lot of interest in, and no app already fills that niche. Before I open source it, I want to choose the right license, to allow people to use the app freely for whatever they want, to protect me from whatever they do with it (without forming an LLC), to allow other developers to contribute to it, but still allow me to maintain control over the project, and to protect my right to receive donations through Patreon if people become enthusiastic and excited about the app. But IANAL and have no idea what repercussions each license comes with. What are some resources where I can quickly and reliably choose a good license based on my requirements, without becoming a lawyer and without accidentally choosing a license that bites me later down the road?

View on HN

No open source license will allow you to maintain control over the project.

If you can imagine having any proprietary interest in the project --- some line of business or donation revenue stream built on your thing that will naturally go to you --- you probably want to GPL. GPL adds use restrictions that make it difficult (though not impossible) to commercialize open source software, and those restrictions will apply only to your downstream users (you are not bound by the GPL for code you own and can relicense it as you see fit). This is part of the business model for a lot of open source companies.

If you want to go really nuts with that, look at AGPL, which imposes even more restrictions. People are generally cool about GPL and less cool about AGPL.

If you don't care about any of that, MIT license is the most normal choice.

So if I'm getting what you're saying, then if I make an app that lets people design and generate their own apps (like Eclipse), using GPL would NOT force them to use GPL on the apps they create with it. But if I give them a runtime (like Unity), using GPL forces them to release their apps under GPL too?

Probably. GPL "infects" code that's linked to it, so a GPL'd library can only be used in GPL'd programs. A GPL'd text editor doesn't "infect" source code, of course. A GPL'd runtime probably infects the applications that depend on it, but might not if apps can run without linking directly to it.

If you care a lot about GPL infection, this is a problem AGPL addresses; by the logic of the AGPL, even just using your code on a server as part of an ensemble in a SAAS app triggers infection. AGPL can be a reasonable choice, but people will grump about it, because it means it can't be used in commercial SAAS apps.

I don't think the commercial aspect of AGPL helps me a lot since my app will use Electron to let people make Electron apps, and there's no way to keep Electron apps closed source. But it does sound like it protects me in the event that I get a source of donations from Patreon, so that contributors can't sue me to get some of the donations since they would have to sign an agreement. That said, I am not opposed to sharing donations with contributors based on contribution percentages, knowing I would be the one writing almost all the code. But I don't understand the legality of all this and I am wondering if they'd be open to suing to get some of the donation money! I try to be business minded like this because even though most of humanity tries to do the right thing, there's always eventually some bad actors who come in and try to take advantage of people.

> there's no way to keep Electron apps closed source

See, for example, the closed-but-viewable-source Vivaldi browser.

I did not know that, thank you! This opens up a lot of possibilities...

I am not a lawyer ... Patreon allow people to get money from their "fans". You could make one or one hundred different app, each with their own licence, and it would (should) be irrelevant for support you get through Patreon.

I'm not sure what the "most normal choice" means, but in this age of software patents, X/MIT (or BSD) is archaic to the point of being dangerous except for the most trivial of projects.

Select a license which has a patent release. Otherwise people will have a very good reason not to use your software. If you want to go the BSD-style route, the most normal choice here is Apache.

Apache is a super normal choice too. The important distinction is between the GPLs and the MIT/Apache's.

I wouldn't use BSD in 2018 either.

The dual BSD/Apache route is also a good option if you’re concerned about scaring off people who prefer the simpler licenses.

Is this still an issue if you don't own any software patents?

Yes. Because your licensees don't know that and they don't know you wouldn't obtain them later.

> you are not bound by the GPL for code you own and can relicense it as you see fit

I'm confused about this line aren't you bound by the GPL too once you accept any contributions to the library while it's GPL'd?

You are if you don’t have a CLA or other agreement that gives you different licensing terms with contributors. The OP meant code you own in a strict sense.

Highly recommend https://choosealicense.com/

Also consider dual licensing as a solution. For instance, you can release code under a restrictive open source license (such as GPL or AGPL) and also offer the code for a fee under a non-open license that allows it to be used in closed-source projects.

That sounds like a great idea for the app I want to make! It would let users create and ship apps that come with my custom runtime functions bundled in. I'm trying to figure out how to monetize it, and my only thought so far is to open up a Patreon for donations from any very enthusiastic users. But sublicensing seems like a good alternative! Or maybe I can do both.

Besides the license think about registering a trademark. That way Docker, Linux or git manage not to dilute the name (see e.g. https://www.git-scm.com/about/trademark ).

As for the code, if it's open source anyone can fork. But with trademark they'd have to rename the project.

Good point, I was reading through licenses and saw some like Apache and Mozilla mentioned trademark limitations, but now that you mention it, that probably only counts if you trademark it first! I will look into trademarking without an LLC, great idea.

The easiest and safest approach is to choose the most restrictive license possible, like AGPL, and not accept contributions without signing an agreement, like Google does [1]. You can always switch to a less restrictive license later or sell under a different license, etc.

People will still be able to use your product freely, try it out, read code, contribute, but you will be protected from large corporations taking advantage of your work without paying you (like Amazon unable to use open source Mongo and Mongo unwilling to sell to Amazon).

[1] https://cla.developers.google.com/about/google-individual

This website is a really good resource: https://tldrlegal.com/

Hi dom96, it's so weird to see authors of big projects I really like just pop up in Hackernews comments like this! Thanks for the link and recommendation, it looks great, did you use this when choosing the license for Nim?

Actually I think we did. Nim used to be GPLv2 and we changed to MIT. :)

The only open source licenses that make sense are the Free Public License 1.0.0 and the Zero Clause BSD License.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com