Hacker News Reader

Comment by rustc | Hacker News Reader

> There are two forms of licenses available for TypeIt -- an open source license, a limited commercial license, and an unlimited commercial license.

> Open Source License

> An open source license exists as GPLv3, and permits you to use TypeIt in any open source or personal project. Along with many other details, the GPLv3 license requires that any publicly released code using TypeIt be licensed under the GPLv3 as well.

I'm not familiar with using GPL licensed code on the frontend. If I include TypeIt on my site using a <script> tag, do I need to release all frontend JS on my website as GPL? What about the CSS/HTML code? What about the other dependencies I use on the page, like React or Vue, or third party dependencies like Google Analytics?

And do the exact same rules apply if I bundle my whole app into a single JS file (which is more common these days)?

View on HN

The unsatisfying practical answer: No company whose business relies on their website is going to be comfortable assuming the answer is no. So "commercial" usage, where "commercial" is defined as "worth suing and has lawyers who are worried about being sued," needs to buy a license, and "personal" usage, which is the complement of that, doesn't.

Seems like there's no clear answer:

1. https://opensource.stackexchange.com/questions/4360/what-are...

2. https://opensource.stackexchange.com/questions/12064/which-l...

3. https://opensource.stackexchange.com/questions/6132/can-i-us...

More: https://opensource.stackexchange.com/search?q=gpl+javascript

I have no clue. But, based on the theory that I really just don't want to get sued, even if I happen to be right, it seems important that neither does the author:

> permits you to use TypeIt in any [...] personal project

That's trying to establish some requirement to be non-commercial, which the GPL doesn't do. In fact the author here should know this better than most people, considering they are trying to sell something that's also GPL-licensed.

So if you get a good lawyer to give an all clear to use this in your Uber-for-Platypus-Stylists venture, they will get just as mad as if you don't.

Good point. It says "any open source or personal project". I think the "or" implies it's ok to use in non-open source projects as long as they're "personal". However the repo just contains the standard GPL-3.0 license, so I'm not sure.

It's interesting to see people start getting license-conscientious when the GPL family is mentioned, esp. for concern over how to obey the license terms.

The MIT license is one of the most popular licenses for Web developers, but it has license terms, too, and almost no one cares about whether they're following them—in fact many people don't.

Are you following the MIT license terms now? If not, are you going to start?

> in fact many people don't

Do you have any examples?

> Are you following the MIT license terms now?

Yes, I believe I am.

The MIT license has two conditions:

1. You must reproduce the copyright notices

2. You must reproduce the MIT License terms themselves

(To be clear, this applies to "_all_ [emphasis mine] copies or substantial portions of the Software".)

Many, many, many projects satisfy the first condition but drop the ball when it comes to the second. This has been discussed on HN before. I don't have a link.

> Do you have any examples?

<https://hn.algolia.com> for one example among a glut. I actually hedged by choosing to go with "many" in my first comment (and above) instead of "most". It probably is "most".

Reply on news.ycombinator.com