我更改了我的许可证
I Changed My License

原始链接: https://bergie.iki.fi/blog/eupl/

在 28 年的职业生涯中,作者不断演进其许可策略,从较弱的 Copyleft 协议 LGPLv2 和宽松的 MIT 协议,转向了他们的新标准:EUPL-1.2。 作者反思了“开源”模式的局限性,认为宽松的许可协议主要惠及大公司,而非开发者或用户。因此,他们采用了 EUPL-1.2,这是一种强 Copyleft 协议,通过要求软件无论以何种方式分发都必须遵守互惠许可,从而堵住了“SaaS 漏洞”。此外,作者非常赞赏 EUPL 在 23 种语言中均具有正式法律效力,这承认了硅谷以外软件开发的全球性特征。 虽然 NoFlo 等现有项目将保留其原有的 MIT 许可,但作者的新作品——包括 Reticulum 网状网络协议、dacar 授权系统以及各种基于卫星的工具——现在都已采用 EUPL。这一转变标志着作者有意背离那种对企业友好的宽松许可模式,转向一种确保软件对所有人保持自由与互惠的模式。

所提供的 Hacker News 讨论帖围绕 bergie.iki.fi 发布的一篇题为《我更改了许可证》的博文展开。社区的反应反映了关于软件和内容许可复杂性的广泛讨论: * **实用性与执行力:** 一位评论者质疑在 AI 时代,限制性许可证是否还有意义,并指出已公开的源代码很容易被重新实现。 * **对限制的偏好:** 另一位用户表示,在非代码内容方面,人们正逐渐且无奈地转向使用 CC BY-NC-ND 许可证。 * **许可方面的担忧:** 讨论中出现了关于欧盟公共许可证(EUPL)的争议。尽管有评论者赞赏该许可将“交流”与“分发”并列,但他们也批评了该许可证的结构,并质疑其措辞存在矛盾,在法律上是否具备可执行性。 总的来说,这场讨论凸显了开发者对现代许可协议的清晰度和实际效用所感到的沮丧。
相关文章

原文

In the last 28 years of publishing software, I’ve had three distinct eras of software licensing. All of my recent stuff is available under the European Union Public License 1.2, and I thought to explain why.

Midgard was all LGPLv2. This was a simpler time, and there weren’t that many free software licenses around. Since Midgard was a web framework, using a weak copyleft license felt like the right thing to do. The example website shipping with Midgard was X11 licensed.

When I started working more seriously with JavaScript around 2011, I switched to the MIT license. This was a “do whatever you like, just don’t sue me” sort of a simple affair favored by the NPM package ecosystem. Easy interoperability, no hooks attached.

After we closed Flowhub, there were a few years of hiatus where I published almost no software. Either because it wasn’t feasible due to my work situation, or because I was busy with the boat.

This year I decided to switch my “default license” to EUPL-1.2. This is an OSI-approved free software license created and published by the European Union. And it is quite a divergence from the licenses I’ve used in the past. EUPL is a strong copyleft license that closes the “SaaS loophole” by requiring reciprocal licensing regardless of how the software is distributed.

Over the years it has been clear that we in the “open source” camp (as opposed to the “free software” camp) were wrong all along. We won the debate, and gained little for users or developers. All that our efforts did was to make it easier for big corporations build things more cheaply and for billionaires to become trillionaires.

And so it is time to stop messing about with permissive licenses. If corporations don’t want to use our software under our terms, they are free to spend the effort or tokens to build their own.

The fact that EUPL has legally valid official translations to 23 languages also doesn’t hurt in a world where most of software is built and used in the wider world outside of the Valley.

Here are some things I’ve already published under EUPL:

  • reticulum-js: JavaScript implementation of the Reticulum mesh networking protocol
  • dacar: decentralized authorization system built on Reticulum
  • signalk-energy-predictor: prediction system for boats powered by renewable energy
  • offshore-blogging-system: tool for publishing blog posts and downloading weather data over InReach satellite text messages

In addition the new rewrite of NoFlo Development Environment is being made under EUPL. NoFlo itself will remain MIT-licensed, as it is a pre-existing project with plenty of 3rd party contributions.

联系我们 contact @ memedata.com