Hacker News Reader

Comment by yodon | Hacker News Reader

Sigh, another cool looking project where a programmer who knows nothing about licensing wrote their own license, and made their project unusable by anyone.

Good lawyers aren't automatically good programmers, and good programmers aren't automatically good lawyers.

There is a reason why the Open Source community has standardized around a small set of licenses, and a reason why most attempts at writing new licenses end up in sadness.

View on HN

vvvv has been around for at least a decade (I recall looking at it when I was studying a digital arts degree in ‘09) so I doubt this is a problem in practice.

> vvvv has been around for at least a decade

25 years

Whelp, that’s definitely at least a decade.

What's unusual about a proprietary product which has a non commercial use carve out? That's pretty standard isn't it?

Indeed, I am confused what's so bad about this license?

Commercial use requires buying a license, and free for non-commercial uses. The website isn't using some bait and switch pseudo open-source tactics too, it's pretty clear that the product is proprietary.

And it says "pattern pending", probably should have been "patent pending". But the same text has been there since 2020, so maybe it's intentional.

https://web.archive.org/web/20200401215651/https://visualpro...

According to whatever “TRUST” is, the seem pretty keen on their own rules.

What if they don’t want anything else enforced by an existing license?

Wanting something, and writing a license that delivers what you want are two different things.

They may know what they want, but that doesn't mean they know how to write a license that delivers what they want.

"Do what I mean, not what I say" is not effective in either code or contracts.

> There is a reason why the Open Source community has standardized around a small set of licenses,

What are you talking about? vvvv is proprietary software (and has been for about 25 years)

Can you explain what exactly about this license makes it unusable?

I would like a point for point critique as well, not all of us are experts in legal and commercial aspects of licensing.

I’m embarrassed to admit my own working model is really limited as I’ve only worked in orgs where license issues were always somebody elses problem. I.e. somebody mandates which licenses can be used, and if there is a commercial offering you need to use, somebody else negotiates the terms and pricing.

I can't even find the text of their license anywhere.

"vvvv can be used freely without any limitations for the following purposes:

Evaluation

Non-commercial use

FOSS development

Contribution development

Teaching and learning vvvv"

For all other cases you go to https://store.vvvv.org/ .

Basically, a classic case of trying to use the opensource monika for marketing purposes, whilst trying to retain the ability to make money off the popularity when/if it does happen.

That's why if an "opensource" software does not use one of the standard OSS approved licenses, it is just shareware by another name.

Just fyi, the word is moniker, not monika.

I keep making that same error =D

The same erra

They've been doing this since the late nineties or so. I think they consider their licensing model proven to work for them by now.

> Basically, a classic case of trying to use the opensource monika for marketing purposes,

vvvv does not claim anywhere to be open source.

> whilst trying to retain the ability to make money off the popularity when/if it does happen.

vvvv has been around for about 25 years. I would suggest to do a bit more research before jumping to conclusions.

BTW, they do open source quite a few components under proper OSS licenses: https://github.com/vvvv

Reply on news.ycombinator.com