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。

这次讨论源于 Henri Bergius (bergie.iki.fi) 发布的一篇博文,宣布他将项目转为使用欧洲联盟公共许可证 (EUPL)。作者表示,传统的“开源”许可证主要让大型企业和亿万富翁获益,而开发者却几乎没有回报,对此他深感沮丧。 讨论中显现出社区内部的严重分歧: * **许可证解读:** 争论双方对于 EUPL 是否能成功填补“SaaS 漏洞”各执一词。一些人担心其兼容性条款(允许在 MPL/LGPL 等许可证下重新授权)可能导致被大型科技公司利用;而另一些人则认为,这些条款只是在不牺牲共享源代码这一核心要求的前提下,实现了互操作性。 * **Copyleft 与宽松协议之争:** 持怀疑态度者认为,宽松型许可证(如 MIT/Apache)是“注定失败的”,只会将价值拱手送给企业。Copyleft(如 AGPL/EUPL)的支持者则将其视为迫使贡献回流至“公共领域”的必要工具。 * **变现与伦理:** 许多维护者开始质疑,在人工智能时代,免费且宽松的软件模式是否具有可持续性。有人提议使用“商业源代码许可证”(BUSL) 或双重授权模式,以便向大型商业用户收费,同时保持业余爱好者的免费使用权。但批评者警告称,这会损害项目的普及率,并使其沦为“非自由”项目。
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