Htmx changes license to Zero-Clause BSD(github.com)
github.com
Htmx changes license to Zero-Clause BSD
https://github.com/bigskysoftware/htmx/commit/e16f1865a494b6281f8a44ed0db5338e718b3f07
119 comments
> - I then posted the "offer" i got from MSFT (some credit card thing) https://fxtwitter.com/htmx_org/status/1746895016256328079
Know your worth; don't sell out for anything under 20% cash back at Bed, Bath & Beyond!
Know your worth; don't sell out for anything under 20% cash back at Bed, Bath & Beyond!
Only applicable to private label items.
I used one of their 20% off coupons for a Simplehuman bin a while back (one of the ones with recycling on the left and trash on the right).
Having said that, I don't think they actually take coupons any more. It stopped when all the physical stores closed. The offer here is a cash back offer, where you pay the full price then another company (like TopCashback, Rakuten, apparently Microsoft too) gives you 10% cash back.
Having said that, I don't think they actually take coupons any more. It stopped when all the physical stores closed. The offer here is a cash back offer, where you pay the full price then another company (like TopCashback, Rakuten, apparently Microsoft too) gives you 10% cash back.
I always felt like “simplehuman” was the kind of brand name a condescending AI would come up with. “Simple human, buy this trash can and I will sell you overpriced, custom-fitting trash bags forever!”
what does the fx in fxtwitter.com mean?
since the WHOIS states it's DNS servers are hosted by cloudflare (twitter is hosted by twtrdns.net) it seems to be a "fuck x - twitter.com" forwarding domain. Maybe also with some tracking to see how many people clicked the link but that's just speculation
[deleted]
Fix twitter...
Just kidding... Foreign exchange....
Kidding again... I don't actually know.
Just kidding... Foreign exchange....
Kidding again... I don't actually know.
[deleted]
Fix, it's mostly used for having embeds work again in discord and such
https://github.com/FixTweet/FxTwitter
https://github.com/FixTweet/FxTwitter
I was wondering same .... found this:
https://docs.fxtwitter.com/en/latest/index.html#
https://docs.fxtwitter.com/en/latest/index.html#
Absolute madman
Should have gone for the "do whatever the fuck you want" license though
Should have gone for the "do whatever the fuck you want" license though
i went to berkeley so i have a soft spot for BSD (even though BSD0 technically isn't derived from BSD)
I love your spirit. Actually funny
Your lack of professional seriousness is truly astounding.
One of the primary reasons we've gone with React/NextJS coupled with MongoDB and Kubernetes over HTMX
One of the primary reasons we've gone with React/NextJS coupled with MongoDB and Kubernetes over HTMX
OK, I'll respond in a bit more detail to this, now that it's closer to the top. I'll assume you are being serious as well (always hard to tell online.)
I understand where you are coming from, the @htmx_org twitter account is very silly. This can be a big turn off to some developers and companies. On the other hand, I do have a fair number of serious essays on the htmx website (https://htmx.org/essays) and a free book that is also serious (https://hypermedia.systems).
I view twitter as a tool for getting the word out about htmx and, therefore, use it in that manner. I don't think that medium supports super-nuanced discussions (although I've had some.) I try to not be negative on it, and frequently link to my essays for more in-depth discussions. I also enjoy being funny and making people laugh.
And, while I can understand and sympathize with people who dislike the general vibe of my account, you can't argue with the success of this approach.
It has recently passed 27k stars on github:
https://star-history.com/#bigskysoftware/htmx&Date
And finished 2nd (!!!) in the js rising stars frameworks for 2023:
https://risingstars.js.org/2023/en#section-framework
Plus #10 overall. This is a library created by a one-person company that is trying to compete with the likes of Facebook, Google and Vercel when it comes to developer mindshare. While I would love to think it is the insightful essays, excellent coding ability and the quality of my book, there is no doubt that the twitter account has been a huge contributor to htmx's success.
I understand where you are coming from, the @htmx_org twitter account is very silly. This can be a big turn off to some developers and companies. On the other hand, I do have a fair number of serious essays on the htmx website (https://htmx.org/essays) and a free book that is also serious (https://hypermedia.systems).
I view twitter as a tool for getting the word out about htmx and, therefore, use it in that manner. I don't think that medium supports super-nuanced discussions (although I've had some.) I try to not be negative on it, and frequently link to my essays for more in-depth discussions. I also enjoy being funny and making people laugh.
And, while I can understand and sympathize with people who dislike the general vibe of my account, you can't argue with the success of this approach.
It has recently passed 27k stars on github:
https://star-history.com/#bigskysoftware/htmx&Date
And finished 2nd (!!!) in the js rising stars frameworks for 2023:
https://risingstars.js.org/2023/en#section-framework
Plus #10 overall. This is a library created by a one-person company that is trying to compete with the likes of Facebook, Google and Vercel when it comes to developer mindshare. While I would love to think it is the insightful essays, excellent coding ability and the quality of my book, there is no doubt that the twitter account has been a huge contributor to htmx's success.
I'm not OP, but I would like to think it's a joke. If they were actually turned off by your "lack of professionalism" they would like turn to Alpinejs before "React/NextJS coupled with MongoDB and Kubernetes" :) But who knows!
Talks about lack of professional seriousness. Goes with MongoDB. Sometimes reality writes the best jokes.
I'm pretty sure that was a joke.
I wasn't sure at first but on a re-read it now seems glaringly obvious it's a joke :D
I wasn't sure either until the gratuitous "coupled with MongoDB and Kubernetes" lol
And it was indeed written by someone real! Astounding!
What’s wrong with mongodb?
Mongodb was/is for a long time inconsistent. You had to worry loosing data when using mongo.
And everything mongodb brought us, was either implemented by someone else better or already existed.
If you use mongodb today, just go with postgres and forget about mongo
And everything mongodb brought us, was either implemented by someone else better or already existed.
If you use mongodb today, just go with postgres and forget about mongo
Yes there used to be issues with mongo (and Postgres around serializable for the matter). What are the issues in 2024?
Breaks causal consistency and a bunch of other assumptions:
https://jepsen.io/analyses/mongodb-4.2.6
https://jepsen.io/analyses/mongodb-4.2.6
4 years old. Mongodb is at version 7 now.
So MongoDB was an inconsistent DB for at least 70% of its lifetime. It doesn't sound too ensuring.
Why giving something a chance when you can just use postgres?
I can't speak to its current state, but there were some highly dubious design decisions early in its life, such as the library would reply to the client indicating a successful push of data into the database before the network request even left the local computer.
The past mongodb issues don’t seem relevant unless they persist today, no?
Reputational damage is difficult to recover from.
That’s not relevant to the question of “what’s wrong with mongodb?” It seems folks just regurgitate memes without any understanding of the current product.
I thought "I can't speak to its current state" explained that I could not, in fact, speak to its current state.
But when it comes to databases, which are often the single most important part of an architecture, you'll find that many people are less forgiving of old sins, especially when Postgres now has native JSON support.
Much like I won't trust Uber with my location, or Google with my email, I won't trust Mongo with my data.
But when it comes to databases, which are often the single most important part of an architecture, you'll find that many people are less forgiving of old sins, especially when Postgres now has native JSON support.
Much like I won't trust Uber with my location, or Google with my email, I won't trust Mongo with my data.
Why even reply if you don’t know what you’re talking about in terms of current mongo? Not sure what Postgres or Uber or Google even has to do with this.
FYI using mongo is more than simply wanting a json interface.
FYI using mongo is more than simply wanting a json interface.
Does this proverb sound familiar?
"Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me."
Maybe MongoDB is great now. That doesn't change the fact that many people have been burned by MongoDB.
But, perhaps we can let maybe we can let bygones be bygones if we can determine that MongoDB is solid and dependable now. How do we make that determination?
If we decide that MongoDB is now robust based on present popularity and general satisfaction, that's fallacious reasoning:
https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/bandwagon
After all, there was tons of stoke about MongoDB early on, only for people to realize later that their data was being silently nuked, which is why there is such a grudge against MongoDB in the first place. If an appeal to popular belief is proof, then we have a paradox.
Not everyone has the time and skill to thoroughly analyze MongoDB like Kyle Kingsbury / Jepsen:
https://jepsen.io/analyses/mongodb-4.2.6
And even then, there are so many other databases that have a better track record, so it would be hard to argue that the effort would be worthwhile.
I don't see how you're struggling with the notion of reputation here.
Maybe bias in favor of MongoDB is too strong? If that's the case, one last ditch effort:
If your friend's dog has gruesomely bit you 10 out of the last 10 times you've visited him, but he swears the dog is now rehabilitated, do you just shrug off being bit over and over again, and visit your friend without even the slightest apprehension? Or do you, at the very least, remain hypervigilant, given you're history with the dog?
Now replace "dog" with "MongoDB", and replace "bite" with "invaluable production data being absolutely eviscerated, resulting in your customer's lost trust and also immeasurable financial harm being done to you and your family".
"Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me."
Maybe MongoDB is great now. That doesn't change the fact that many people have been burned by MongoDB.
But, perhaps we can let maybe we can let bygones be bygones if we can determine that MongoDB is solid and dependable now. How do we make that determination?
If we decide that MongoDB is now robust based on present popularity and general satisfaction, that's fallacious reasoning:
https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/bandwagon
After all, there was tons of stoke about MongoDB early on, only for people to realize later that their data was being silently nuked, which is why there is such a grudge against MongoDB in the first place. If an appeal to popular belief is proof, then we have a paradox.
Not everyone has the time and skill to thoroughly analyze MongoDB like Kyle Kingsbury / Jepsen:
https://jepsen.io/analyses/mongodb-4.2.6
And even then, there are so many other databases that have a better track record, so it would be hard to argue that the effort would be worthwhile.
I don't see how you're struggling with the notion of reputation here.
Maybe bias in favor of MongoDB is too strong? If that's the case, one last ditch effort:
If your friend's dog has gruesomely bit you 10 out of the last 10 times you've visited him, but he swears the dog is now rehabilitated, do you just shrug off being bit over and over again, and visit your friend without even the slightest apprehension? Or do you, at the very least, remain hypervigilant, given you're history with the dog?
Now replace "dog" with "MongoDB", and replace "bite" with "invaluable production data being absolutely eviscerated, resulting in your customer's lost trust and also immeasurable financial harm being done to you and your family".
It's webscale.
Sometimes the best jokes look like reality.
[deleted]
you chose your stack by weighing the professionalism of the twitter account?
may you never have to maintain production code...
i do. what now?
may you and the people relying on you never have to rely on the maintainers taking things more seriously than they've shown themselves to in their public positioning
HTMX has existed for nearly a decade (prev. intercoolerjs); 1cg has proven to be extremely invested in it, and the whole philosophy around it in general (even being in charge of an "Hypermedia Research Group" at Montana university). To dismiss all of the credibility he has created with his work just because the guy wants to be funny on twitter is nothing short of stupid.
This appears to be the official account, not a personal one. If he wants me to take htmx seriously as a prod dependency, I care about how he treats it, all the way from code to governance to community interactions.
He has no such obligation to do these things, this is all his choice. I'm not sure why the contention? If you read my comment, it was strictly about production scenarios, not about all credibility for all scenarios. If this project is meant to be treated as fun CRAPL, Matthew Might made a great license for that: https://matt.might.net/articles/crapl/ .
He has no such obligation to do these things, this is all his choice. I'm not sure why the contention? If you read my comment, it was strictly about production scenarios, not about all credibility for all scenarios. If this project is meant to be treated as fun CRAPL, Matthew Might made a great license for that: https://matt.might.net/articles/crapl/ .
I apologize for the contention - I misunderstood what your point was which made my writing a little too aggressive.
I still hold the position that the social media presence of the project should be inconsequential for considering it's production usage. But I can see your point now, even if I disagree.
I still hold the position that the social media presence of the project should be inconsequential for considering it's production usage. But I can see your point now, even if I disagree.
I see your point but I let the technology do the talking. People focus on personalities but the work is what matters to me. I used to get annoyed at DHH but then I just ignored it and built stuff really fast.
1. They are the maintainers of htmx, not the maintainers of your code. There is no contract with them.
2. The joke made by the maintainer gives absolutely no insight into how they will behave if there were a contract. If anything, that might mean the maintainer actually is a human that is agreeable to talk and work with, because they don't take it so seriously as to forbid any jokes.
Professionalism doesn't mean "no jokes allowed", it means "do your best".
2. The joke made by the maintainer gives absolutely no insight into how they will behave if there were a contract. If anything, that might mean the maintainer actually is a human that is agreeable to talk and work with, because they don't take it so seriously as to forbid any jokes.
Professionalism doesn't mean "no jokes allowed", it means "do your best".
I hope whoever taught you that "good software is only written by people without a sense of humour" isn't teaching anymore.
Poe would like a word with you.
That's a great option, many people choose it!
> the reason i did all this is for the lols
Do the lols while you still can, the Trust and Safety departments at major social media companies want to extinguish funny.
Everyone who does even a smidgen of memeing on the internet knows what happens when you post images of large spiders. People start talking about burning things down, like the entire building its inside of, etc. Someone posted a video where a little girl had one crawling on her hand, it was bigger than her face. I said "Girl get away from that spider, we have to set the house on fire" and the AI anti-funny overlords at Facebook deleted my comment, and gave me some sort of "strike" and then I appealed, and was auto denied.
Our favorite Sci-Fi dystopias coming soon, to a Trust and Safety social media site nightmare near you.
Do the lols while you still can, the Trust and Safety departments at major social media companies want to extinguish funny.
Everyone who does even a smidgen of memeing on the internet knows what happens when you post images of large spiders. People start talking about burning things down, like the entire building its inside of, etc. Someone posted a video where a little girl had one crawling on her hand, it was bigger than her face. I said "Girl get away from that spider, we have to set the house on fire" and the AI anti-funny overlords at Facebook deleted my comment, and gave me some sort of "strike" and then I appealed, and was auto denied.
Our favorite Sci-Fi dystopias coming soon, to a Trust and Safety social media site nightmare near you.
The only hope you have is to accept the fact that you're already cancelled.
The sooner you accept that, the sooner you'll be able to function as a shiposter is supposed to function: without mercy, without anxiety, without remorse.
All shiposting depends upon it.
The sooner you accept that, the sooner you'll be able to function as a shiposter is supposed to function: without mercy, without anxiety, without remorse.
All shiposting depends upon it.
We happy few, we band of brothers.
I mean, I just stopped using Facebook instead, I was an admin for my employer at the times Facebook app (used for login) so I did not want to risk it. It's Facebooks loss.
Meanwhile someone was using my late brother's name and face(in a list of supposed "vaccine casualties". My brother died from heart failure after lifelong illness, age 39) to spread vile antivaxx/protrump stuff.
All reports denied. It was glaringly obvious she was a paid misinfo troll.
All reports denied. It was glaringly obvious she was a paid misinfo troll.
After my cousin passed away his mother took over the account. They used it to spew hatred and condemn people. I don't think the account was ever shut down.
Just a question, I don't pay much attention to politics, are the two related? are anti vaxers pro trump? The vaccine was developed on Trumps watch.
I figured it was just like any other boss, takes all the credit if it works. desperately tries to shift blame if it does not.
I figured it was just like any other boss, takes all the credit if it works. desperately tries to shift blame if it does not.
It amuses me, personally, seeing the "antivax" crowd quickly being equalized to all the other various "bad" people - 20 years ago, there was a strong but quiet "antivax" crowd and it was definitely not made up of Trump or even R-leaning people. It was quite the "hippy liberal progressive" if you had to qualify it.
But then again, twenty years ago you had all sorts of political positions you could take, now everything is simply binary. You have no agency.
But then again, twenty years ago you had all sorts of political positions you could take, now everything is simply binary. You have no agency.
It doesn’t sound it like it amuses you. You sound kind of miffed off about it.
Fair enough, it's a bit annoying because now you need about five seconds and you can replace almost anyone (at least online) with a tuned LLM without much thought.
It was fun to watch people disagree about things, that's mostly gone in the political world (and that world eats all discussion boards eventually, in my experience).
It was fun to watch people disagree about things, that's mostly gone in the political world (and that world eats all discussion boards eventually, in my experience).
There's some correlation, and while Trump tried to take credit for Operation Warp Speed for a while[0], he distanced himself from everything related to "Covid is a threat" (including "it needs vaccines") when the tide shifted in his voter base and they went fiercely antivax, antidistancing, antilockdown, ...
[0] the process was pretty much the same speed for non-participants in non-participant countries, but okay: his administration made it a priority. Gold star for you!
[0] the process was pretty much the same speed for non-participants in non-participant countries, but okay: his administration made it a priority. Gold star for you!
I used to watch loads of political speeches, including Biden and Trumps because otherwise you take someone else's word for what they say, and I still remember the boo's he got in one of his early speeches after Biden was sworn in, the entire crowd booed when he said to go out and get vaccinated, then he said "if you want to" after he realized his 'goof.' It was like he was not paying any attention to his base since losing the White House (again this was like his second (I think?) rally since). Then he changed his strategy with his base on it after. So you're not wrong. I think he still brings it up, but briefly.
bravo, what editor did you use to change the license file?
WebStorm
absolutely proprietary :<
yeah i'm not doctrinaire about things and I don't mind paying for my tools
[deleted]
Good for you, and the spirit of open software.
This made me wonder what the shortest open source license is, and it seems to be the Fair License: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_License
> <Copyright Information>
>
> Usage of the works is permitted provided that this instrument is retained with the works, so that any entity that uses the works is notified of this instrument.
>
> DISCLAIMER: THE WORKS ARE WITHOUT WARRANTY.
EDIT: I would not use this license. I'm not sure how this got approved by the OSI, but I'm not a lawyer. Some of the email threads think the disclaimer is insufficient, and I'm not entirely sure that it confers all the expected rights since it only says "Usage" (copying, modification, distribution).
> <Copyright Information>
>
> Usage of the works is permitted provided that this instrument is retained with the works, so that any entity that uses the works is notified of this instrument.
>
> DISCLAIMER: THE WORKS ARE WITHOUT WARRANTY.
EDIT: I would not use this license. I'm not sure how this got approved by the OSI, but I'm not a lawyer. Some of the email threads think the disclaimer is insufficient, and I'm not entirely sure that it confers all the expected rights since it only says "Usage" (copying, modification, distribution).
If you want statistics about license texts, many years ago I had published a peer-reviewed article:
Zavras, Alexios. Twenty-five years of school? Analysis of Free and Open Source software license texts. Journal of Open Law, Technology & Society, [S.l.], v. 8, n. 1, p. 29-44, nov. 2016. ISSN 2666-8106. Available at: <https://www.jolts.world/index.php/jolts/article/view/111>.
Zavras, Alexios. Twenty-five years of school? Analysis of Free and Open Source software license texts. Journal of Open Law, Technology & Society, [S.l.], v. 8, n. 1, p. 29-44, nov. 2016. ISSN 2666-8106. Available at: <https://www.jolts.world/index.php/jolts/article/view/111>.
"Don't ask me about it License" looks a bit shorter[0].
0: https://github.com/ErikMcClure/bad-licenses/blob/master/dont...
0: https://github.com/ErikMcClure/bad-licenses/blob/master/dont...
Is License golf a thing? ChatGPT reduces that from 205 to 130 bytes:
The works can be used as long as this instrument is kept alongside them to notify users. The works are provided without warranty.
The works can be used as long as this instrument is kept alongside them to notify users. The works are provided without warranty.
I hadn't seen Zero-Clause BSD before: https://opensource.org/license/0bsd/
> Note: Despite its name, Zero-Clause BSD is an alteration of the ISC license, and is not textually derived from licenses in the BSD family. Zero-Clause BSD was originally approved under the name “Free Public License 1.0.0”.
Anyone seen a good write-up of the tradeoffs for this license? I like how short and simple it is.
> Note: Despite its name, Zero-Clause BSD is an alteration of the ISC license, and is not textually derived from licenses in the BSD family. Zero-Clause BSD was originally approved under the name “Free Public License 1.0.0”.
Anyone seen a good write-up of the tradeoffs for this license? I like how short and simple it is.
It's appropriate for software designed for use cases where an attribution requirement would be inconvenient or otherwise undesirable. For example, https://github.com/microsoft/tslib uses it, because that library is automatically included in any TypeScript program that uses downleveling, so if it had an attribution requirement then that requirement would apply to every program written in TypeScript, which nobody wants. (GCC and LLVM do something similar with their special runtime-library exceptions to the GPL and Apache License, respectively, but tslib lives in a separate repository from the rest of TypeScript and so could easily just get a separate license.)
It's a nice license when you don't want to burden users of your software with providing attribution. A typical use case is for stuff that will be included in many different projects, while not being a crucial part of it.
For example, all the code snippets in the Intel Software Developer Manuals (https://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/developer/articles/t...) are licensed under 0BSD, so that people can easily re-use them (with or without adapting them).
For example, all the code snippets in the Intel Software Developer Manuals (https://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/developer/articles/t...) are licensed under 0BSD, so that people can easily re-use them (with or without adapting them).
This is handy but might not classify as a "write-up".
https://www.tldrlegal.com/
https://www.tldrlegal.com/
I use the zero clause licence for my all my work because it just removes all the overhead of using my code.
I think (please correct my understanding) zero clause BSD can be embedded in a GPL project too, it just becomes one-way included, subsumed into the GPL project and then under the GPL licence. (Relicenced)
Could the author of HTMX explain their reasoning for changing the licence? I am curious?
I think (please correct my understanding) zero clause BSD can be embedded in a GPL project too, it just becomes one-way included, subsumed into the GPL project and then under the GPL licence. (Relicenced)
Could the author of HTMX explain their reasoning for changing the licence? I am curious?
It was mainly as a joke, but I wanted to remove the attribution clauses, they just seemed dumb for a single-file javascript library that was probably going to be minimized anyway, where are you supposed to stick the license?
Thank you for this!
It lifts a significant burden for people/projects/organizations who want to release software while complying with all license obligations.
It lifts a significant burden for people/projects/organizations who want to release software while complying with all license obligations.
IANAL, but yep, that sounds about right, the more restrictive license then applies. Of course, anyone can use the original, BSD copy of the code, without the restrictions.
I would have hope that anybody who uses your code doesn't want to keep it a secret, because it would be good if people use the same common base code and changes can benefit everyone.
Since there's no requirement to credit a zero clause licenced BSD code, someone who receives the BSD code compiled might not know it's included but that's the risk I'm taking.
Since there's no requirement to credit a zero clause licenced BSD code, someone who receives the BSD code compiled might not know it's included but that's the risk I'm taking.
Is "zero-clause BSD" a joke, or is it considered a legitimate license? If the latter, does it actually differ from the MIT license in anything other than name?
It is approved by OSI[1]
[1] https://opensource.org/license/0bsd/
[1] https://opensource.org/license/0bsd/
zero-clause BSD is essentially a modified MIT that doesn't even require attribution, so essentially a "public domain" like license.
Presuming that 'MIT' was a typo: most BSD-licensed software doesn't use the original (4-clause) BSD license, most are under variants:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BSD_licenses
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BSD_licenses
No, it wasn't a typo; the 0-clause BSD looks pretty similar to the MIT license, and from a cursory reading, it appears that the clauses are what makes the BSD license different from the MIT license. I was wondering if my reading is correct or if I've missed something.
MIT has several (very important) requirements that BSD-0 does not. MIT is more similar to BSD-2-clause. It requires the user to include the copyright notice and disclaimer in any distributions.
it eschews attribution, making it just about the closest thing to a public-domain dedication that still retains the appropriate verbiage to hold up to legal scrutiny
In the US, simply saying "I hereby dedicate this work to the public domain." is as an effective, if not more effective, way to do that as any license. These licenses are just for countries like Germany that basically make it illegal to sell, gift, or release a copyright at all.
It's great feature that we don't need consider where authors locate
There's also another OSI approved "zero" license called MIT-0
https://opensource.org/license/mit-0/
https://opensource.org/license/mit-0/
always preferred east coast in the east/west coast war.
If I contribute code to an open source project under the BSD 2-Clause license and don't sign any contributor license agreement, can the maintainer relicense the code without getting my permission?
Yes, unless they change the copyright. You own the copyright to your code contribution. The license only states how the copyrighted code can be used.
In the US, generally no.
Sure, anyone can do anything. It would be up to you (and hopefully a lawyer) to then sue them and let judge/jury decide. Or, convince authorities that some criminal law was violated and they should investigate.
Both of which are hard and/or expensive. So most rely on public shame. Out them on social media and foment outrage.
Both of which are hard and/or expensive. So most rely on public shame. Out them on social media and foment outrage.
I'm curious, what exactly would a VC or MSFT want with htmx? Just talent? or the actual product/tech?
I don't think there's much VCs would want w/htmx: it's a really simple concept implemented in a single js file w/no moats or obvious market opportunities as far as i can tell, and I'm a one man shop. I think I got the calls because htmx trended on twitter a couple of times.
MSFT might want it because it's gotten a lot of attention lately (finished #2 in https://risingstars.js.org/2023/en#section-framework for 2023) and would give them a front-end library in the game w/ React, Vue, Svelte, etc. On the other hand, i've made the social media account pretty toxic/funny (same thing) for a big tech company and now the library is 0BSD, and htmx's agnosticism towards back end tech doesn't really dovetail w/ the Microsoft ethos.
MSFT might want it because it's gotten a lot of attention lately (finished #2 in https://risingstars.js.org/2023/en#section-framework for 2023) and would give them a front-end library in the game w/ React, Vue, Svelte, etc. On the other hand, i've made the social media account pretty toxic/funny (same thing) for a big tech company and now the library is 0BSD, and htmx's agnosticism towards back end tech doesn't really dovetail w/ the Microsoft ethos.
VCs have taken a few positions in FOSS recently [1][2]. I also don't understand the financial reasoning of investing in the companies, for what they are. My guess is that it's an option on having influence on relatively influential developers in the mid-to-later stages of their career.
[1]: https://techcrunch.com/2023/02/16/sequoia-backs-open-source-...
[2]: https://www.sequoiacap.com/article/sequoia-open-source-fello...
[1]: https://techcrunch.com/2023/02/16/sequoia-backs-open-source-...
[2]: https://www.sequoiacap.com/article/sequoia-open-source-fello...
The state of software licenses makes me a bit sad. On the one hand we have open source licenses like the MIT and Apache 2.0 licenses that give corporations free reign to enclose and exploit the software commons without any real limit or any requirement to give back to the things they are getting rich off of, and then on the other hand we have the GPL and LGPL licenses which are too aggressive and stringent, while also being somewhat vague — see for instance the almost superstitious fear companies have about using LGPL code even when it would probably be fine — which means that almost no one ends up using those licenses, because companies are too afraid to use software that is licensed under them (and therefore wouldn't be invested in them at all, which means they give back to those projects even less than they do for projects under open source licenses) and because even FLOSS developers just don't want to deal with the dependency headaches of using GPL code. Which in turn ironically means that, despite being designed to very aggressively protect and help the software commons, the GPL and LGPL licenses end up doing worse for the software commons then open source licenses do, in general, because no one uses them or invests in them in the first place, and of course there are going to be fewer contributions to the software commons from a license that is never used or invested in then there are going to be from a license that is widely used and deeply invested in but has fewer requirements, because it's a matter of percentages essentially. So in essence both licenses fail to do what at least I feel like they should ideally do, although for opposite reasons.
Ultimately, I think this stems from the fact that Open Source licenses were explicitly created by people who wanted to be friendly to corporations, and the GPL licenses were created by the FSF, who are essentially the vegans of software. So I think in the long run what we need is a free software movement that is detached from both the dogmatism and absolutism of the Free Software Foundation and the desire to suck up with corporations. A movement that perhaps sees itself as being a check on the balance of corporations in the software world, but in a more pragmatic way.
I think the sort of license a movement like that might produce might end up looking something like the MPL 2.0: it allows combined works that use the existing code in any way they want, while requiring changes or improvements to the existing code to be shared back to the community, so that there is a clear requirement to give back to the things you benefited from, without trying to also take away the things you or your team wrote themselves.
This is similar to the LGPL, but unlike that license the basic unit of separation is clearer: files. Original source code files and any files containing substantial portions of code copied from the original source code are considered part of the original work, and therefore something to which changes must be contributed back to the community, but anything outside those files can stay proprietary. This is a lot clearer and more flexible than the LGPL, meaning developers from FOSS and from corporations can use code under the without headaches, while still not allowing companies to just completely free ride on the things the software community makes, and we get to have both because unlike the LGPL the MPL is willing to sacrifice some stringency and control in return for those benefits.
Additionally, and perhaps more importantly, it doesn't have particularly onerous source distribution requirements or requirements to distribute your own application as object code or provide some other way for users to swap out the version of the free software code that's being used, which likewise does sacrifice some FSF purity, but in return for a massive decrease in the complexity, onerousness, and annoyingness of the license requirements as a whole. So yeah, the MPL isn't perfect — maybe the ideal free software license would be the LGPL with just clearer specification of where the boundaries are between the LGPL code and the proprietary code, and no annoying object code or dynamic linking requirements — but it's a lot closer to where I think we need to move with licenses. I don't think zero clause open source licenses are the way.
Ultimately, I think this stems from the fact that Open Source licenses were explicitly created by people who wanted to be friendly to corporations, and the GPL licenses were created by the FSF, who are essentially the vegans of software. So I think in the long run what we need is a free software movement that is detached from both the dogmatism and absolutism of the Free Software Foundation and the desire to suck up with corporations. A movement that perhaps sees itself as being a check on the balance of corporations in the software world, but in a more pragmatic way.
I think the sort of license a movement like that might produce might end up looking something like the MPL 2.0: it allows combined works that use the existing code in any way they want, while requiring changes or improvements to the existing code to be shared back to the community, so that there is a clear requirement to give back to the things you benefited from, without trying to also take away the things you or your team wrote themselves.
This is similar to the LGPL, but unlike that license the basic unit of separation is clearer: files. Original source code files and any files containing substantial portions of code copied from the original source code are considered part of the original work, and therefore something to which changes must be contributed back to the community, but anything outside those files can stay proprietary. This is a lot clearer and more flexible than the LGPL, meaning developers from FOSS and from corporations can use code under the without headaches, while still not allowing companies to just completely free ride on the things the software community makes, and we get to have both because unlike the LGPL the MPL is willing to sacrifice some stringency and control in return for those benefits.
Additionally, and perhaps more importantly, it doesn't have particularly onerous source distribution requirements or requirements to distribute your own application as object code or provide some other way for users to swap out the version of the free software code that's being used, which likewise does sacrifice some FSF purity, but in return for a massive decrease in the complexity, onerousness, and annoyingness of the license requirements as a whole. So yeah, the MPL isn't perfect — maybe the ideal free software license would be the LGPL with just clearer specification of where the boundaries are between the LGPL code and the proprietary code, and no annoying object code or dynamic linking requirements — but it's a lot closer to where I think we need to move with licenses. I don't think zero clause open source licenses are the way.
I like the MPL 2.0 and use it for some of my own software as it best seems to describe the outcome that I want (incorporate it into whatever you want, but please contribute improvements to the MPL licensed parts of the software back to upstream).
However, I also think it's fairly easy to circumvent for a hypothetical leech that just wants to use my code without contributing back any improvements. Namely just put the improvements into a separate proprietary file, and insert stubs in the MPL licensed file calling the proprietary code. Taking this argument to the extreme, one should use either something extremely permissive like 0BSD or then go full AGPLv3, as everything inbetween is to an extent possible to circumvent without too much trouble (GPL "condoms" and all that).
However, I also think it's fairly easy to circumvent for a hypothetical leech that just wants to use my code without contributing back any improvements. Namely just put the improvements into a separate proprietary file, and insert stubs in the MPL licensed file calling the proprietary code. Taking this argument to the extreme, one should use either something extremely permissive like 0BSD or then go full AGPLv3, as everything inbetween is to an extent possible to circumvent without too much trouble (GPL "condoms" and all that).
I like MPL too (depending on context), but do be aware that (per section 10) Mozilla is allowed to ship new versions of the license and people can choose to use those new versions in place of the version you licensed under. This is not inherently bad — many projects are licensed under "GPL 3 or later", for example — but it's something to be aware of. See also CDDL, which is mostly MPL but Sun (and now Oracle) in place of Mozilla Foundation.
Oh I didnt know that, good to know. Another area where it isn't perfect!
> However, I also think it's fairly easy to circumvent for a hypothetical leech that just wants to use my code without contributing back any improvements. Namely just put the improvements into a separate proprietary file, and insert stubs in the MPL licensed file calling the proprietary code.
Yeah this is the work around that came to mind when I first read the MPL, and it's what I had in mind when I said it isn't perfect. I'm using it for a current game engine project I'm working on, and will probably use it for any of my other work moving forward, but I definitely think it isn't the end of license history — there is still a lot more improvement that could be made. I was just giving it as an example of what I think the correct direction is, in contrast to the current extremes. I think it's where more work on licenses should go.
Yeah this is the work around that came to mind when I first read the MPL, and it's what I had in mind when I said it isn't perfect. I'm using it for a current game engine project I'm working on, and will probably use it for any of my other work moving forward, but I definitely think it isn't the end of license history — there is still a lot more improvement that could be made. I was just giving it as an example of what I think the correct direction is, in contrast to the current extremes. I think it's where more work on licenses should go.
I don't understand the view that MIT and Apache 2.0 make it possible for corporations to somehow destroy or enclose the commons. Code is code. It can't be destroyed, its cost of duplication is effectively zero. If I take some open source code, add my changes and distribute a paid, closed-source, version, nothing has been removed/lost.
Certainly they make it hard/impossible to build a business from Open Source code. Unfortunately in an economic system designed to maximise the reward for value capture at the cost of value creators this is a common problem. But I believe the answer to that is more communism, not more licenses with more convoluted requirements creating jobs for legal departments for shared code.
Certainly they make it hard/impossible to build a business from Open Source code. Unfortunately in an economic system designed to maximise the reward for value capture at the cost of value creators this is a common problem. But I believe the answer to that is more communism, not more licenses with more convoluted requirements creating jobs for legal departments for shared code.
> I don't understand the view that MIT and Apache 2.0 make it possible for corporations to somehow destroy or enclose the commons. Code is code. It can't be destroyed, its cost of duplication is effectively zero. If I take some open source code, add my changes and distribute a paid, closed-source, version, nothing has been removed/lost.
You are technically correct in this, and technically speaking perhaps I should have put what I said in terms of the free rider problem, not necessarily enclosure of the commons, but two things: first, I do think what corporations do with open source software is to some degree more analogous to such an enclosure, since in a free rider problem we typically imagine a few or even very large number of lazy individuals just not paying for something, whereas in the enclosure of the commons it is the rich and large corporations benefiting from the work of more common folk, and the power dynamics of what happens in software look more like the latter than the former. Second, you're forgetting embrace, extend, extinguish, which very much does have the effect of destroying things by commercial cooption and absorbtion.
> Certainly they make it hard/impossible to build a business from Open Source code. Unfortunately in an economic system designed to maximise the reward for value capture at the cost of value creators this is a common problem. But I believe the answer to that is more communism, not more licenses with more convoluted requirements creating jobs for legal departments for shared code.
I sort of view licenses that require contributing any improvements you've made to something back to the collective pool from which you got it as a form of communism, even if in this case it is embedded in and enforced by a capitalist system.
You are technically correct in this, and technically speaking perhaps I should have put what I said in terms of the free rider problem, not necessarily enclosure of the commons, but two things: first, I do think what corporations do with open source software is to some degree more analogous to such an enclosure, since in a free rider problem we typically imagine a few or even very large number of lazy individuals just not paying for something, whereas in the enclosure of the commons it is the rich and large corporations benefiting from the work of more common folk, and the power dynamics of what happens in software look more like the latter than the former. Second, you're forgetting embrace, extend, extinguish, which very much does have the effect of destroying things by commercial cooption and absorbtion.
> Certainly they make it hard/impossible to build a business from Open Source code. Unfortunately in an economic system designed to maximise the reward for value capture at the cost of value creators this is a common problem. But I believe the answer to that is more communism, not more licenses with more convoluted requirements creating jobs for legal departments for shared code.
I sort of view licenses that require contributing any improvements you've made to something back to the collective pool from which you got it as a form of communism, even if in this case it is embedded in and enforced by a capitalist system.
Is there a license that requires (or encourages) contributing back the modifications, _but only if the upstream project is open source/non-commercial_?
You'd have to dual license your code afaik, the way Qt did/does it
- over the weekend I started making the @htmx_org twitter account increasingly corporate looking
- started talking a lot about MSFT, implying they were interested in htmx
- someone asked if MSFT was going to buy htmx: https://fxtwitter.com/htmx_org/status/1746656784088228204
- i then put up a post about changing the htmx license, implying i was going to restrict it due to MSFT interest: https://fxtwitter.com/htmx_org/status/1746736273728094323
- I then made is 0BSD instead of 2BSD: https://fxtwitter.com/htmx_org/status/1746880860723544211
- I then posted the "offer" i got from MSFT (some credit card thing) https://fxtwitter.com/htmx_org/status/1746895016256328079
- And explained how there were no lies involved in the ruse: https://fxtwitter.com/htmx_org/status/1746924827641102719
the reason i did all this is for the lols