alt Hacker NewsNaive. Guy picks a license that allow anyone to do anything they want with his code. Later realizes that was not appropriate when he's trying make money. Changes to an obscure license that on the surface seems to fix the problem.
Your options are: MIT / BSD, GPL, LGPL, AGPL. All others are unnecessary and create needless incompatibility.
Replies
I think the MPL is a useful license as well, and underrated/underused.
It's less viral than the GPLs when just using the licensed work, and less permissive than MIT / BSD because changes have to be open sourced, when the program using the changed library is distributed.
MIT & BSD don't include a patent grant, that's a good reason to go with the Apache license.
Naive. Users who think a project that is Open Source will remain Open Source forever.
Authors gave the right to change license to a proprietary one. Users being surprised by this are as equally naive as developers who think you can make money writing Open Source.
I don't think Guy really cares. They made their project, and they want the source to be available, and so chose a license that allows for that.
I'd have to agree with this stance. You choose MIT when you are happy to share your source with no strings attached. Some do pick MIT with this intent, but that was not the case here. But rather a case of either miscommunication or wanting to have the pie ("look how altruistic I am") and eating it too ("look how business-minded I am").