Hacker News Reader

Comment by 2h | Hacker News Reader

[flagged]

They're right - that isn't an open source license. Its a source-available license.

And yeah, I guess we could pack it in and abandon the idea of opensource. But I think thats really sad. I love the fact that opensource code I've written is quietly powering things in companies large and small all over the world. Sure; it'd always be nice to be paid more for my work. But thats still really cool!

> quietly powering things in companies large and small all over the world

Thats cool that you feel that way, but I absolutely do not. I dont like the idea of huge companies making millions, while the authors of the software "powering" their business get nothing.

Just to be really clear, if you feel that way I'm glad you're opting out of using opensource licenses. Not everyone wants to be an opensource developer. Not all code needs to be open source to have value. There's nothing wrong with that and that makes complete sense to me.

If you ever publish anything to npm / cargo / etc, I hope you make the fact your code isn't opensource very clear. I don't want to accidentally use your code in my projects, in violation of your license.

you are welcome to use my code, as long is its non-commercial use. If you wish to have commercial use, I offer license for that as well for a fee.

I understand that; but libraries I publish have dependencies. If one of my dependencies (your library) isn't licensed for commercial use, then my library also can't be used in commercial projects.

Thats a decision I want to make intentionally, if at all.

I'm not sure if it would really help in this case, as you could still sue if you use the software for non-commercial purposes. As I understand it what this lawsuit essentially boils down to is "I had Bitcoin, they were stolen, and I'm holding these people accountable for that". Merely owning Bitcoin is not commercial.

Seems like a vastly WORSE version of the Creative Commons international license for the same intent: CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/legalcode

CC BY-NC-ND is nearly 4 times larger (688 words versus 2,621 words). So unless you have a better argument than "its worse", I will stick with mine.

Much more explicit legal language outlining terms and conditions reviewed by better lawyers

"CC BY-NC-ND 4.0" is exactly 14 characters.

Noncommercial seems like a non-starter for the bitcoin use case, which is what the original article is talking about.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com