kemitchell

api-copyleft-license

Makefile2019–2019

kemitchell / api-copyleft-license · Archived

api-copyleft-license

an open source license that's copyleft for changes, additions, and wrappers, but permissive for applications

Explore on GitHub Read Hacker News discussions

4Distinct people

10Mentions

1Explicit recommenders

31GitHub stars

REPOSITORY AT A GLANCE

What to know before exploring

What it is

an open source license that's copyleft for changes, additions, and wrappers, but permissive for applications

GitHub

Where it is used

No documented product use has been verified yet.

What people are saying

I recommend taking a look at the API Copyleft License https://github.com/kemitchell/api-copyleft-license/blob/mast...

bradrydzewski used a recommendation phrase. One indexed comment matches. This is a phrase match, not a verdict.

No classified warning is attached to this page. Read the discussions before treating silence as approval.

Also in these discussions

No other repository is repeatedly linked in the same discussions.

This week on Hacker News

Nov 7–Nov 14 UTC · Direct repository links and separately labeled related project stories. Indexed through 11/14/2026, 1:49:46 PM UTC.

No direct repository links were found in the indexed HN discussions over the past seven days. Older discussions are available below.

Mentions over time

HN mentions by month10 dated mentions

Observed mentions: 2019-01-16 16:55:30 UTC to 2019-09-04 03:16:05 UTC.

Counts come from the repository’s dated source evidence. Index cutoff: 2026-11-02 08:16:59 UTC.

View mention counts and date ranges

UTC ranges include their start and exclude their end. Select a period to filter the source evidence.
Period	Start (UTC)	End (exclusive, UTC)	Mentions	Submissions	Comments
Jan 2019	2019-01-01 00:00:00 UTC	2019-02-01 00:00:00 UTC	3	0	3
Feb 2019	2019-02-01 00:00:00 UTC	2019-03-01 00:00:00 UTC	2	0	2
Mar 2019	2019-03-01 00:00:00 UTC	2019-04-01 00:00:00 UTC	2	0	2
Apr 2019	2019-04-01 00:00:00 UTC	2019-05-01 00:00:00 UTC	0	0	0
May 2019	2019-05-01 00:00:00 UTC	2019-06-01 00:00:00 UTC	0	0	0
Jun 2019	2019-06-01 00:00:00 UTC	2019-07-01 00:00:00 UTC	1	0	1
Jul 2019	2019-07-01 00:00:00 UTC	2019-08-01 00:00:00 UTC	0	0	0
Aug 2019	2019-08-01 00:00:00 UTC	2019-09-01 00:00:00 UTC	1	1	0
Sep 2019	2019-09-01 00:00:00 UTC	2019-10-01 00:00:00 UTC	1	0	1

What Hacker News says

10 sources

kemitchell·Sep 4, 2019

Keep reading! That is just the Purpose section, which summarizes the license. The specific sections affecting copyleft are Copyleft, Prototypes, Applications, and Contributing. I think they are slightly easier to read and understanding on the master branch of the development repository: https://github.com/kemitchell/api-copyleft-license/blob/mast...

In Subsistence Programming

Avi-D-coder·Aug 27, 2019Submission

API Copyleft License

2 points · Open discussion

bradrydzewski·Jun 2, 2019Recommendation phrase

I recommend taking a look at the API Copyleft License https://github.com/kemitchell/api-copyleft-license/blob/mast...

In Lack of leadership in open source results in source-available licenses

zzzcpan·Mar 11, 2019

> If you start a company and open source your core/clients, your product becomes part of AWS It seems not obvious to everyone, but you don't have to use a license, that allows AWS to run you into the ground. Take a look at API Copyleft License: https://github.com/kemitchell/api-copyleft-license

In Nginx to Be Acquired by F5 Networks

zzzcpan·Mar 11, 2019

> Looking even farther out, at this point does it make sense for any startup looking to create infrastructure software to open source it? Of course it still does, just not under permissive licenses. Hopefully the industry will converge on Kyle Mitchell's license for this, instead of everyone coming up with their own licenses: https://github.com/kemitchell/api-copyleft-license

In Open Distro for Elasticsearch

kemitchell·Feb 22, 2019

I'd love more feedback on this license: https://github.com/kemitchell/api-copyleft-license/blob/mast... It's written in everyday English. We've already had some great feedback from interested hackers.

In Redis Labs Changes Its Open-Source License Again

kemitchell·Feb 10, 2019

TL;DR: AGPL database. Permissively licensed client libraries. Dual licensing the database. But really you should read the post, for the thought process that led to that approach. Among well known database vendors, the natural comparisons are MongoDB and MySQL. Like Mongo, RavenDB is available under a single network-copyleft license. Like Mongo, RavenDB client libraries are permissively licensed. However, MongoDB focuses on selling all-encompassing packages that include a mix of support, services, and add-ons. To hear this post tell it, Hibernating Rhinos is running more of a pure dual-licensing play with RavenDB. That approach puts them close to MySQL. However, MySQL dual licensed both database and client libraries. Nobody needs to buy a commercial license for RavenDB client libraries. The obvious question, in current context, is

Read the rest

whether Hibernating Rhinos is cruising for a cloud provider bruising, the kind of which Mongo has loudly complained. Cue Server Side Public License. Here follow shameless but relevant plugs: Plain language, more general take on an SSPL-style license: https://github.com/kemitchell/shared-component-license/blob/... Open form paid license agreement for indie developers dual licensing, or doing paid add-ons: https://github.com/indieopensource/paid-license License Zero, which offers dual-licensing back-office as a service, as well as public licenses without the problems and known vulnerabilities of *GPL: https://licensezero.com/

In Making Money from Open-Source Software

kemitchell·Jan 17, 2019

I also criticize the way SSPL was drafted. The legal talent they have can do far better. The choice to patch AGPL cuffed them. Here's me announcing an attempt at a plain-language, SSPL-style license from scratch: https://writing.kemitchell.com/2019/01/12/Shared-Component-L... The latest license text is at: https://github.com/kemitchell/shared-component-license

In MongoDB removed from RHEL 8 beta due to license

kemitchell·Jan 17, 2019

I recently published a sketch of a plain-language license generalizing the SSPL approach. Feedback of all kinds welcome! https://github.com/kemitchell/shared-component-license At a minimum, I think my language can make the issues clearer. Folks don't want to wade 12 sections deep into AGPLv3, much less a path to AGPLv3. I can't blame them.

In MongoDB removed from RHEL 8 beta due to license

zzzcpan·Jan 16, 2019

MongoDB, Redis, CockroachDB and anyone else interested should join efforts with Kyle and adopt his similar to SSPL, but neutral and cleaner copyleft Shared Component License [1]. This should help clear up any confusion people have and avoid providing excuses for removing packages due to the license. [1] https://github.com/kemitchell/shared-component-license

In MongoDB removed from RHEL 8 beta due to license