voorhoede / head-start

Base setup on top of headless services to help you quickly start a new website

ISC License

3 stars 0 forks source link

License #69

Closed jbmoelker closed 6 months ago

jbmoelker commented 8 months ago

User story

As a Voorhoede customer, I want Head Start to have a permissive license, so that when it's used for my project, I'm not vendor-locked.

As De Voorhoede BV (limited), we want Head Start to have a restrictive license, so that we can protect our intellectual property and profit from our competitive advantage.

As De Voorhoede, certified B Corp, we want Head Start to have a permissive license, so that we can contribute back to society and the open source community.

WesselSmit commented 7 months ago

I think some more specifics are needed. What would you want to dis(allow) in a license to 'protect our intellectual property and profit from our competitive advantage'?

If I look at https://choosealicense.com/licenses/ I see the following statement "Open source licenses grant permission for anybody to use, modify, and share licensed software for any purpose, subject to conditions preserving the provenance and openness of the software." Leading me to believe that open sourcing and 'protecting our intellectual property and profit from our competitive advantage' don't exactly go hand in hand unless 'disclosure of source' satisfies those needs. Unless we want to go the route of license keys, but this doesn't really seem open source to me.

WesselSmit commented 7 months ago

I would say that the following 2 conditions would seem logical to me:

disclosure source because it would credit us and improve brand recognition?
document changes because we want to present De Voorhoede (certified B Corp) as a green and durable company, this seems like a good precaution for the (hopefully unlikely) scenario where someone takes head-start, makes some changes that we're not fully behind, and potentially taints the company's reputation. An example would be: someone implements GA4, which is not privacy-friendly, and releases it as a package. The document changes condition would require them to specify what changes they've made from our head-start codebase and makes the changes more obvious and easier to spot.

jbmoelker commented 7 months ago

Those are some good points @WesselSmit! Does narrow it down, but also still leaves us with quite a few options. Wondering why would we have preference for a specific one. @Siilwyn maybe has an opinion?

Siilwyn commented 7 months ago

Basically what Wessel said, I always use the choosealicense.com website too. :)

Especially disclosing the source & keeping the license are important in this case. A really common/popular license is GNU GPLv3, which also requires to state the changes. Otherwise Mozilla Public License 2.0 could be an option that doesn't require to state changes.

*Edit: actually GNU AGPLv3 might fit better since we're talking about networked access I think :thinking: