What's a good license for My Library?

Discussion in 'Javascript' started by David Mark, Jan 5, 2010.

  1. David Mark

    David Mark Guest

    I've decided to release My Library under some sort of free license.
    Haven't thought about free licenses in a long time (decades), so I am
    open to ideas.

    Anything to prevent the exponential growth of JS futility like this;-

    http://github.com/jrburke/blade

    I don't think that thing even warrants a review and there are dozens
    more like it popping up. Enough is enough. :)
     
    David Mark, Jan 5, 2010
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. David Mark

    Matt Kruse Guest

    On Jan 4, 6:38 pm, David Mark <> wrote:
    > I've decided to release My Library under some sort of free license.
    > Haven't thought about free licenses in a long time (decades), so I am
    > open to ideas.


    Dual-license under MIT and GPL (user can choose). That covers most
    users that I've ever encountered.

    Although I suspect you aren't "open" enough to like MIT ;)

    Matt Kruse
     
    Matt Kruse, Jan 5, 2010
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. David Mark

    David Mark Guest

    On Jan 4, 10:29 pm, Matt Kruse <> wrote:
    > On Jan 4, 6:38 pm, David Mark <> wrote:
    >
    > > I've decided to release My Library under some sort of free license.
    > > Haven't thought about free licenses in a long time (decades), so I am
    > > open to ideas.

    >
    > Dual-license under MIT and GPL (user can choose). That covers most
    > users that I've ever encountered.
    >
    > Although I suspect you aren't "open" enough to like MIT ;)
    >


    The source will _never_ be open to "test-driven" patching by anyone
    with a PC, that's for sure. :) But I'm not sure what that has to do
    with the licensing.

    I'll look into them. Thanks.
     
    David Mark, Jan 5, 2010
    #3
  4. David Mark wrote:
    > I've decided to release My Library under some sort of free license.
    > Haven't thought about free licenses in a long time (decades), so I am
    > open to ideas.
    >


    Why not use Dojo?

    > Anything to prevent the exponential growth of JS futility like this;-
    >
    > http://github.com/jrburke/blade
    >


    He's got some goals there. Didn't peek at the code.
    --
    Garrett
    comp.lang.javascript FAQ: http://jibbering.com/faq/
     
    Garrett Smith, Jan 5, 2010
    #4
  5. David Mark

    Scott Sauyet Guest

    On Jan 4, 7:38 pm, David Mark <> wrote:
    > I've decided to release My Library under some sort of free license.
    > Haven't thought about free licenses in a long time (decades), so I am
    > open to ideas.


    Well, I guess it depends upon what you mean by free license.

    What do you want to allow users to do with the code?

    - View it? We all know that they will anyway.

    - Steal^H^H^H^H^H Borrow heavily from it? Ditto.

    - Modify it and release incompatible versions of it? Most FOSS
    licenses allow this, and the major discriminator between them is
    whether they require the modified versions to maintain the same
    license.

    - Do whatever the hell they want with it as long as they don't
    bother or blame you? Most of the BSD or MIT style licenses are pretty
    good for this.

    Matt's suggestion is a good one if you really don't care too much
    about how they use it as long as they don't try to blame you for
    problems or credit you for their distortions of your code. MIT / GPL
    covers the spectrum comfortably.

    -- Scott
     
    Scott Sauyet, Jan 5, 2010
    #5
  6. David Mark

    David Mark Guest

    Garrett Smith wrote:
    > David Mark wrote:
    >> I've decided to release My Library under some sort of free license.
    >> Haven't thought about free licenses in a long time (decades), so I am
    >> open to ideas.
    >>

    >
    > Why not use Dojo?


    For what?

    >
    >> Anything to prevent the exponential growth of JS futility like this;-
    >>
    >> http://github.com/jrburke/blade
    >>

    >
    > He's got some goals there. Didn't peek at the code.


    The code is the usual gibberish.

    As for the "goals":-

    * Smallest possible namespace

    Meaningless. Generalizations don't work as design goals.

    * Use a standalone module loader, runjs

    That thing is complete garbage.

    * object.verb(…) or verb(object,…)

    Whatever.

    * Modules should define a function

    Meaningless.

    * Mobile is more important than Internet Explorer

    Apples are more important than oranges? :)

    * HTML5 support is standard

    Except that he never figured out the current (or past) technologies. ;)

    * Use advanced features where possible

    :) See most of the above.

    * JQuery API matching

    Not a good goal to match an awkward and ill-advised API like jQuery's.
    And yes, despite there being very little code at all at this point, a
    large percentage of it involves the rookie mistake of "overloading."

    * Focus on the code, not the tooling

    LOL. Learn the language first, yes?

    * Provide BSD licensed, CLA-safe code

    CLA-safe?
     
    David Mark, Jan 5, 2010
    #6
  7. David Mark wrote:

    > | * Provide BSD licensed, CLA-safe code
    >
    > CLA-safe?


    Probably he is referring to
    <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contributor_License_Agreement>


    PointedEars
    --
    Prototype.js was written by people who don't know javascript for people
    who don't know javascript. People who don't know javascript are not
    the best source of advice on designing systems that use javascript.
    -- Richard Cornford, cljs, <f806at$ail$1$>
     
    Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn, Jan 5, 2010
    #7
  8. David Mark

    David Mark Guest

    On Jan 5, 5:06 pm, Scott Sauyet <> wrote:
    > On Jan 4, 7:38 pm, David Mark <> wrote:
    >
    > > I've decided to release My Library under some sort of free license.
    > > Haven't thought about free licenses in a long time (decades), so I am
    > > open to ideas.

    >
    > Well, I guess it depends upon what you mean by free license.


    Meaning that commercial enterprises can use it to avoid having to swap
    out piles of manure like jQuery every six months. It's always been
    free for non-commercial use. ISTM that decision-makers at
    corporations wouldn't care if a library is free or not (provided it
    isn't outrageously priced), but they defer to Web monkeys on such
    decisions (and those types are obsessed with getting everything for
    free). So that would seem to be a barrier and I am taking it down.

    >
    > What do you want to allow users to do with the code?


    Whatever they want.

    >
    >   - View it?  We all know that they will anyway.


    They _have_ anyway. That's certainly no secret. ;)

    >
    >   - Steal^H^H^H^H^H Borrow heavily from it?  Ditto.


    Same. I've allowed it to go on as I have better things to do than
    file lawsuits.

    >
    >   - Modify it and release incompatible versions of it?  Most FOSS
    > licenses allow this, and the major discriminator between them is
    > whether they require the modified versions to maintain the same
    > license.


    No, I don't want a hundred "forks" to start springing up.

    >
    >   - Do whatever the hell they want with it as long as they don't
    > bother or blame you?  Most of the BSD or MIT style licenses are pretty
    > good for this.


    Typically users of my code rely on me for support and/or other
    consulting. The more the merrier. :)

    >
    > Matt's suggestion is a good one if you really don't care too much
    > about how they use it as long as they don't try to blame you for
    > problems or credit you for their distortions of your code.  MIT / GPL
    > covers the spectrum comfortably.


    I'm looking into it...
     
    David Mark, Jan 6, 2010
    #8
  9. David Mark

    Jorge Guest

    On Jan 5, 1:38 am, David Mark <> wrote:
    > I've decided to release My Library under some sort of free license.
    > Haven't thought about free licenses in a long time (decades), so I am
    > open to ideas.


    "The Software shall be used for Good, not Evil" ?
    --
    Jorge.
     
    Jorge, Jan 6, 2010
    #9
  10. David Mark

    David Mark Guest

    On Jan 5, 8:10 pm, Jorge <> wrote:
    > On Jan 5, 1:38 am, David Mark <> wrote:
    >
    > > I've decided to release My Library under some sort of free license.
    > > Haven't thought about free licenses in a long time (decades), so I am
    > > open to ideas.

    >
    > "The Software shall be used for Good, not Evil" ?


    Well, as the "competitors" are virtually all "Evil" (i.e. full of
    hacks, outdated ideas, bogus logic, misconceptions, etc.), using My
    Library can only be considered "Good" by comparison.
     
    David Mark, Jan 6, 2010
    #10
  11. David Mark

    Matt Sach Guest

    On Jan 5, 10:57 pm, David Mark <> wrote:
    > As for the "goals":-
    >
    > * Mobile is more important than Internet Explorer
    >
    > Apples are more important than oranges? :)


    I think "lemon" would be a more appropriate citrus fruit to represent
    IE ;)

    I've been looking at My Library, due to your arguments against jQuery.
    I've already been stripping jQuery out of code at home since starting
    to read c.l.js, as the detailed arguments against it here have
    clarified my own uneasy feelings about including such a huge pile for
    (usually) simple tasks.

    A more permissive license for My Library would help me try to wean
    other webdevs at my office off their jQuery dependence. I've been
    trying to push them myself, in order to get them thinking and learning
    (not necessarily from my tutelage; I'm certainly nowhere near you and
    others here), but it's very difficult to get folks to learn when they
    have an "easy" way out that they already know. It's my own fault,
    really; I encouraged them to use it in the first place because I could
    see some of them waving dead chickens over their javascript to get
    things working. I should have made them learn, rather than make it
    "easier" for them :(

    Matt
     
    Matt Sach, Jan 6, 2010
    #11
  12. David Mark

    David Mark Guest

    On Jan 6, 6:36 am, Matt Sach <> wrote:
    > On Jan 5, 10:57 pm, David Mark <> wrote:
    >
    > > As for the "goals":-

    >
    > >     * Mobile is more important than Internet Explorer

    >
    > > Apples are more important than oranges?  :)

    >
    > I think "lemon" would be a more appropriate citrus fruit to represent
    > IE ;)


    Touché. :)

    >
    > I've been looking at My Library, due to your arguments against jQuery.


    That's a good side effect.

    > I've already been stripping jQuery out of code at home since starting
    > to read c.l.js, as the detailed arguments against it here have
    > clarified my own uneasy feelings about including such a huge pile for
    > (usually) simple tasks.


    Yes. And even if it were a pile of something _good_. ;)

    >
    > A more permissive license for My Library would help me try to wean
    > other webdevs at my office off their jQuery dependence.


    NP. It's coming. But try to let them know that they don't need a
    _general_ pile of anything to do cross-browser scripting.

    > I've been
    > trying to push them myself, in order to get them thinking and learning
    > (not necessarily from my tutelage; I'm certainly nowhere near you and
    > others here), but it's very difficult to get folks to learn when they
    > have an "easy" way out that they already know.


    All you have to do is demonstrate how it fails. :) As for help doing
    that, it's coming (is it ever). For anyone who hasn't seen the signs,
    cinsoft.net is going to be the new quirksmode.org (for libraries and
    frameworks, rather than browsers). Oh, and with competent
    explanations. :)

    > It's my own fault,
    > really; I encouraged them to use it in the first place because I could
    > see some of them waving dead chickens over their javascript to get
    > things working.


    So you gave them a turkey? We all make mistakes. The learning curve
    is steep in this business. Admitting the mistakes is the first step
    to recovery.

    > I should have made them learn, rather than make it
    > "easier" for them :(


    Sounds like you got it! :)
     
    David Mark, Jan 6, 2010
    #12
  13. David Mark

    Matt Kruse Guest

    On Jan 6, 7:05 am, David Mark <> wrote:
    > For anyone who hasn't seen the signs,
    > cinsoft.net is going to be the new quirksmode.org (for libraries and
    > frameworks, rather than browsers).  


    ETA?

    Matt Kruse
     
    Matt Kruse, Jan 6, 2010
    #13
  14. David Mark

    David Mark Guest

    Matt Kruse wrote:
    > On Jan 6, 7:05 am, David Mark <> wrote:
    >> For anyone who hasn't seen the signs,
    >> cinsoft.net is going to be the new quirksmode.org (for libraries and
    >> frameworks, rather than browsers).

    >
    > ETA?
    >


    I should have the initial effort up later this month.
     
    David Mark, Jan 6, 2010
    #14
  15. Jorge <> writes:

    > On Jan 5, 1:38 am, David Mark <> wrote:
    >> I've decided to release My Library under some sort of free license.
    >> Haven't thought about free licenses in a long time (decades), so I am
    >> open to ideas.

    >
    > "The Software shall be used for Good, not Evil" ?


    Bad idea. It lacks a definition of both "Good" and "Evil", making the
    license ambiguous, and if it had one, it would probably run afoul of
    the Open Source Definition (6. No Discrimination Against Fields of
    Endeavor).

    /L
    --
    Lasse Reichstein Holst Nielsen
    'Javascript frameworks is a disruptive technology'
     
    Lasse Reichstein Nielsen, Jan 6, 2010
    #15
  16. Lasse Reichstein Nielsen wrote:
    > Jorge <> writes:
    >
    >> On Jan 5, 1:38 am, David Mark <> wrote:
    >>> I've decided to release My Library under some sort of free license.
    >>> Haven't thought about free licenses in a long time (decades), so I am
    >>> open to ideas.

    >> "The Software shall be used for Good, not Evil" ?

    >
    > Bad idea. It lacks a definition of both "Good" and "Evil", making the
    > license ambiguous, and if it had one, it would probably run afoul of
    > the Open Source Definition (6. No Discrimination Against Fields of
    > Endeavor).


    but with an "or" instead of "and not" it's OK, right?

    http://nehararora.com/2008/oct/19/fortune-firesign-theater-a-power-so-great/

    :)
     
    Chris Riesbeck, Jan 6, 2010
    #16
  17. On Mon, 04 Jan 2010 16:38:30 -0800, David Mark wrote:

    > I've decided to release My Library under some sort of free license.
    > Haven't thought about free licenses in a long time (decades), so I am
    > open to ideas.
    >
    > Anything to prevent the exponential growth of JS futility like this;-
    >
    > http://github.com/jrburke/blade
    >
    > I don't think that thing even warrants a review and there are dozens
    > more like it popping up. Enough is enough. :)


    I'd have to agree with many of the others and figure that the MIT/BSD
    license would be a good shot. MIT/BSD/LGPL only adds a few more letters
    in from what I can tell.

    I don't think I'd be too worried about forking, honestly. As I've
    watched the various open source projects, major forks seem fairly rare
    and only after other effects have failed.

    I have no ideas of the legalities concerned, but if you change the My
    Library name to something that can be trade marked, you can do the same
    stunt that Firefox did. "You can copy our code exactly, but if you
    change it you've got to call it something else." Hence Firefox and
    IceWeasel.

    That way, we'll have:
    My Library
    His Library
    David's Library
    The Cowardly Anon's Library
    Not Your Library

    and the like.
     
    Jeremy J Starcher, Jan 6, 2010
    #17
  18. Chris Riesbeck <> writes:

    > Lasse Reichstein Nielsen wrote:
    >> Jorge <> writes:


    >>> "The Software shall be used for Good, not Evil" ?


    >> Bad idea. It lacks a definition of both "Good" and "Evil", making the
    >> license ambiguous, and if it had one, it would probably run afoul of
    >> the Open Source Definition (6. No Discrimination Against Fields of
    >> Endeavor).

    >
    > but with an "or" instead of "and not" it's OK, right?


    Only if Good and Evil encompasses all uses.
    Morally neutral uses must be allowed as well ... if such exists.

    > http://nehararora.com/2008/oct/19/fortune-firesign-theater-a-power-so-great/


    I like it :)

    /L
    --
    Lasse Reichstein Holst Nielsen
    'Javascript frameworks is a disruptive technology'
     
    Lasse Reichstein Nielsen, Jan 6, 2010
    #18
  19. David Mark wrote:
    > On Jan 6, 6:36 am, Matt Sach <> wrote:
    >> On Jan 5, 10:57 pm, David Mark <> wrote:
    >>
    >>> As for the "goals":-
    >>> * Mobile is more important than Internet Explorer
    >>> Apples are more important than oranges? :)

    >> I think "lemon" would be a more appropriate citrus fruit to represent
    >> IE ;)


    Sure, but having goals and writing them down has fundamental value. That
    way everybody knows what it is. It is worse to not have goals than to
    have bad goals. Bad goals can be changed.

    >> I've been
    >> trying to push them myself, in order to get them thinking and learning
    >> (not necessarily from my tutelage; I'm certainly nowhere near you and
    >> others here), but it's very difficult to get folks to learn when they
    >> have an "easy" way out that they already know.

    >
    > All you have to do is demonstrate how it fails. :) As for help doing
    > that, it's coming (is it ever). For anyone who hasn't seen the signs,
    > cinsoft.net is going to be the new quirksmode.org (for libraries and
    > frameworks, rather than browsers). Oh, and with competent
    > explanations. :)
    >


    Sounds good.

    You can try organizing and aggregating:

    Juriy's tests:
    http://github.com/kangax/jstests

    Sputnik tests:
    http://code.google.com/p/sputniktests/

    Hixie's tests:
    http://hixie.ch/tests/evil/mixed/


    Those could all be improved by automation. Significantly

    Please don't make me click through to every example and don't make
    complicated test cases (like an functional/example page that has every
    usage of the property/method).

    For such a test suite, the relevance of specification is important.

    Writing a testrunner will take time, but the investment will pay off
    with managing complexity of testing variance across browsers.

    YUI Test is not a bad one. You will need to patch it, though, and may
    want to change many things about the design of it.

    The asynchronous aspect of YUI Test is an important part that many other
    test runners or unit test frameworks just totally ignore..

    The asynchronous part of YUI Test could be redesigned so that it allows
    pause between tests, and so that it uses a Timing abstraction (too much
    setTimeout eats up CPU and crashes poor Blackberry). Also it would be
    useful to have similar to Selenium `waitForCondition` (so the test can
    complete before the allotted expiration time).

    Also in YUI Test, it would be nice t ohave smaller methods. Not only
    would this help make YUI Test more readable, but when debugging, the
    developer should not have to step through a 300 line function just to
    get to where YUI Test has dispatched and event. Oh, it is so painful my
    fingers hurt just thinking about clicking debugger "step over" that many
    times. Ouch.

    YUI can be forked. Submitting but reports to YUI is a waste of time,
    IME. Just patch and go.
    --
    Garrett
    comp.lang.javascript FAQ: http://jibbering.com/faq/
     
    Garrett Smith, Jan 6, 2010
    #19
  20. David Mark

    David Mark Guest

    On Jan 6, 5:12 pm, Garrett Smith <> wrote:
    > David Mark wrote:
    > > On Jan 6, 6:36 am, Matt Sach <> wrote:
    > >> On Jan 5, 10:57 pm, David Mark <> wrote:

    >
    > >>> As for the "goals":-
    > >>>     * Mobile is more important than Internet Explorer
    > >>> Apples are more important than oranges?  :)
    > >> I think "lemon" would be a more appropriate citrus fruit to represent
    > >> IE ;)

    >
    > Sure, but having goals and writing them down has fundamental value. That
    > way everybody knows what it is. It is worse to not have goals than to
    > have bad goals.  Bad goals can be changed.


    I know that guy. Goals or no goals, he's programming for failure
    every time (and he's not alone in that regard). The justification for
    his "guru-ness" is that he worked on the (stifling laughter) big
    social networking sites. And (LOL) AOL. :D

    Doesn't know the language. That thing had typeof xyz == 'array' - for
    example - until I beat him over the head with it (sound familiar).
    First he demanded "proof" that it didn't work in "all browsers" (hard
    to phrase such "logic"). And I tried to tell him (and his friends)
    that they don't need to keep starting every fucking project with
    isArray, isFunction, isThis, isThat. Agh.

    >
    > >> I've been
    > >> trying to push them myself, in order to get them thinking and learning
    > >> (not necessarily from my tutelage; I'm certainly nowhere near you and
    > >> others here), but it's very difficult to get folks to learn when they
    > >> have an "easy" way out that they already know.

    >
    > > All you have to do is demonstrate how it fails.  :)  As for help doing
    > > that, it's coming (is it ever).  For anyone who hasn't seen the signs,
    > > cinsoft.net is going to be the new quirksmode.org (for libraries and
    > > frameworks, rather than browsers).  Oh, and with competent
    > > explanations.  :)

    >
    > Sounds good.


    Yes, I am sure it will be.

    >
    > You can try organizing and aggregating:
    >
    > Juriy's tests:http://github.com/kangax/jstests
    >
    > Sputnik tests:http://code.google.com/p/sputniktests/
    >
    > Hixie's tests:http://hixie.ch/tests/evil/mixed/


    I think not.

    >
    > Those could all be improved by automation. Significantly
    >
    > Please don't make me click through to every example and don't make
    > complicated test cases (like an functional/example page that has every
    > usage of the property/method).


    No clue what that means. :)

    >
    > For such a test suite, the relevance of specification is important.


    Or that.

    >
    > Writing a testrunner will take time, but the investment will pay off
    > with managing complexity of testing variance across browsers.


    I don't need to write one. I have what I need for now.

    >
    > YUI Test is not a bad one. You will need to patch it, though, and may
    > want to change many things about the design of it.


    I'd sooner shoot myself than use a single line of Yahoo-authored (or
    Yahoo-supervised open source) JS. :)

    >
    > The asynchronous aspect of YUI Test is an important part that many other
    > test runners or unit test frameworks just totally ignore..


    I suppose. I remember cleaning up Dojo's and it had all sorts of
    asynchronous stuff, "robots" and whatever. None of it was rocket
    science. I do remember at least part of it used Java, which I will
    not be using under any circumstances. ;)

    >
    > The asynchronous part of YUI Test could be redesigned so that it allows
    > pause between tests, and so that it uses a Timing abstraction (too much
    > setTimeout eats up CPU and crashes poor Blackberry).


    I'm going to concentrate on code reviews and some basic synchronous
    test results for starters. In fact, the test results will likely be
    static as the old versions of libraries never change. It will be more
    of a last word resource than an automated test suite.

    > Also it would be
    > useful to have similar to Selenium `waitForCondition` (so the test can
    > complete before the allotted expiration time).


    You are getting way ahead of me.

    >
    > Also in YUI Test, it would be nice t ohave smaller methods. Not only
    > would this help make YUI Test more readable, but when debugging, the
    > developer should not have to step through a 300 line function just to
    > get to where YUI Test has dispatched and event. Oh, it is so painful my
    > fingers hurt just thinking about clicking debugger "step over" that many
    > times. Ouch.


    Whatever YUI is doing with their stuff is irrelevant.

    >
    > YUI can be forked. Submitting but reports to YUI is a waste of time,
    > IME. Just patch and go.


    I don't patch and I'm not going there. :)

    Thanks for the suggestions.
     
    David Mark, Jan 7, 2010
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Joacim J
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    453
    M van Leeuwen
    Feb 23, 2005
  2. Leif K-Brooks
    Replies:
    5
    Views:
    408
    Leif K-Brooks
    Aug 8, 2004
  3. Volker Grabsch
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    736
    Michael Hudson
    Jul 25, 2005
  4. Replies:
    21
    Views:
    1,090
    protectlicense
    Jul 11, 2007
  5. Replies:
    0
    Views:
    312
Loading...

Share This Page