Re: [hackers] Licensing status of patches

From: Daniel Littlewood <>
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 2020 19:06:32 +0100

Hi Pedro,

Thanks for those mentions, I love the qutebrowser project and am
warmed to see other examples of GPL projects finding ways to monetise
their work.

I am wary of going too far off topic, but I think a convincing
argument against the use of "permissive" licenses like MIT is that if
your project grows above a certain size, it necessitates CLAs in
addition to a license. If you do not use a platform like GitHub who
guarantees that inbound=outbound, then you don't necessarily have a
right to your contributors' changes, which I'm sure could be painful.
Sure, it's an unlikely situation, but so are most pathological
behaviours that necessitate a license.

On Wed, Sep 30, 2020 at 3:53 PM Pedro Lucas Porcellis
<> wrote:
> Hi, Laslo and Hiltjo,
> > You don't sell CDs with your software anymore (this
> > worked maybe 20 years ago), but you can make good money with providing
> > support, which is, I think, the most probable direction.
> > > I think for businesses a development-model of selling and providing
> > > the full FOSS and offer paid services for the custom work done is a
> > > more fair model.
> Just to shout out and promote some examples about this, this has been
> the sourcehut project [1] motto and I've seen on some other minor
> projects as the miniflux app [2] and qutebrowser [3] folow the same idea
> (kind of).
> It has also been the subject of a long (but good!) discussion on
> LibrePlanet Discuss in the last days about this subject, if any of you
> people are interested [4].
> Best regards,
> Pedro Lucas
> --
> [1]:
> [2]:
> [3]:
> [4]:
Received on Wed Sep 30 2020 - 20:06:32 CEST

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Wed Sep 30 2020 - 21:12:32 CEST