Account Options

  1. Sign in
The old Google Groups will be going away soon, but your browser is incompatible with the new version.
Google Groups Home
« Groups Home
nodejs
Home
+ new post
About this group
Join this group
what's the correct/best license for an open-source client library to a non-open-source service?
Options
There are currently too many topics in this group that display first. To make this topic appear first, remove this option from another topic.
There was an error processing your request. Please try again.
flag
   4 messages - Collapse all  -  Translate all to Translated (View all originals)
The group you are posting to is a Usenet group. Messages posted to this group will make your email address visible to anyone on the Internet.
Your reply message has not been sent.
Your post was successful
 
From:
To:
Cc:
Followup To:
Add Cc | Add Followup-to | Edit Subject
Subject:
Validation:
For verification purposes please type the characters you see in the picture below or the numbers you hear by clicking the accessibility icon. Listen and type the numbers you hear
 
Ken  
View profile  
 More options Apr 24 2012, 5:07 pm
From: Ken <ken.woodr...@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2012 14:07:32 -0700 (PDT)
Local: Tues, Apr 24 2012 5:07 pm
Subject: what's the correct/best license for an open-source client library to a non-open-source service?
Print | Individual message | Show original | Report this message | Find messages by this author

I'm in the processing of releasing open-source clients (including one for
node) for a currently free but planned freemium service (which is not open
source).  I don't care at all about people copying/modifying the code of
the client (so would default to MIT or similar) but in its default mode the
only thing the client does is communicate with the service and thus its use
should adhere to the terms of service.  Anyone have pointers (or precedent)
for the right kind of license to use for this?

--Ken


 
You must Sign in before you can post messages.
To post a message you must first join this group.
Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting.
You do not have the permission required to post.
Matt  
View profile  
 More options Apr 24 2012, 5:09 pm
From: Matt <hel...@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2012 17:09:03 -0400
Local: Tues, Apr 24 2012 5:09 pm
Subject: Re: [nodejs] what's the correct/best license for an open-source client library to a non-open-source service?
Print | Individual message | Show original | Report this message | Find messages by this author

Just stick with MIT. It makes everyone the most comfortable.


 
You must Sign in before you can post messages.
To post a message you must first join this group.
Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting.
You do not have the permission required to post.
Ben Noordhuis  
View profile  
 More options Apr 24 2012, 7:17 pm
From: Ben Noordhuis <i...@bnoordhuis.nl>
Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2012 01:17:00 +0200
Subject: Re: [nodejs] what's the correct/best license for an open-source client library to a non-open-source service?
Print | Individual message | Show original | Report this message | Find messages by this author

On Tue, Apr 24, 2012 at 23:09, Matt <hel...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Just stick with MIT. It makes everyone the most comfortable.

Or the Apache 2.0 license if you want a patent grant. MIT, BSD and ISC
are fine too but they don't say anything about patents.

 
You must Sign in before you can post messages.
To post a message you must first join this group.
Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting.
You do not have the permission required to post.
Matt  
View profile  
 More options Apr 25 2012, 8:29 am
From: Matt <hel...@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2012 08:29:51 -0400
Local: Wed, Apr 25 2012 8:29 am
Subject: Re: [nodejs] what's the correct/best license for an open-source client library to a non-open-source service?
Print | Individual message | Show original | Report this message | Find messages by this author

On Tue, Apr 24, 2012 at 7:17 PM, Ben Noordhuis <i...@bnoordhuis.nl> wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 24, 2012 at 23:09, Matt <hel...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Just stick with MIT. It makes everyone the most comfortable.

> Or the Apache 2.0 license if you want a patent grant. MIT, BSD and ISC
> are fine too but they don't say anything about patents.

Yeah it's technically better, but I'm not sure I know of a single submarine
patent case with the MIT license. Has there been any?

 
You must Sign in before you can post messages.
To post a message you must first join this group.
Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting.
You do not have the permission required to post.
End of messages
« Back to Discussions « Newer topic     Older topic »

Create a group - Google Groups - Google Home - Terms of Service - Privacy Policy
©2013 Google