Hacker News Reader

Comment by possibilistic | Hacker News Reader

Everybody, just a friendly reminder not to be too harsh on these guys. They are putting their stuff out in the open for others to use, so if you find faults offer some positive feedback and encouragement.

Your website is obviously getting hammered right now, so I couldn't really read it. It does seem somewhat inaccessible, though.

I did manage to get to your github and the first thing that struck me was that your project is GPL. Could you guys consider something else? It's viral, and not everyone can license their projects under that. Maybe LGPL?

The README file should be much more informative too. It's nice to have some kind of documentation in there.

View on HN

What is the scenario where this framework being GPL is a problem? And how would LGPL fix it? Is there something to link against?

Thanks!

Here's the github link while we activate the cache on the server: https://github.com/joshfire/joshfire-framework

This was released 2 days ago so yes it's still very rough around the edges!

It's currently GPL but there's also a free MIT-like commercial license that applies if you're not an OEM. So no problems for most projects.

Any other feedback is welcomed :)

Why have two licenses? Why not just MIT?

very simple, because as a company we'd like for manufacturers (think Samsung or LG) to come to us for licensing if they want to release a device using the framework.

That business plan allows us to avoid dicking around with developers like others do (we're on github, we don't try to obfuscate anything in order to sell "support") while still being able to make real money.

opinions on this position for an open source editor are welcome! we're still young :)

What's with the tendency to assume that people chose the GPL by accident or by default? What if they chose it explicitly to ensure that any published changes are contributed back to the community?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com