If you don't like the license, don't use the framework. It's that simple. Charging for commercial licenses for libraries is a perfectly valid business strategy, and I can see lots of F# developers paying for this.
AFAIK, even for the open-source license - you only have to provide source code to your client - i.e. when distributing...
If you're using this framework for your personal project - you're free to not to release source code - since you're not distributing the binaries of your project either.
>If you're using this framework for your personal project - you're free to not to release source code - since you're not distributing the binaries of your project either.
In this case you can't even publish the code, since compiled js is kind of binary.
Can't you treat the part you're "distributing" - i.e. the client side html/css/js - as a separate part and open source only this?
But not sure if this kind of thing is really distribution. GPL* licenses were more oriented towards traditional compiled software and it is somewhat unclear with regard to nowadays prevalent web apps.
Many years ago, a Steves job asked Stallman this very question regarding a similar situation. Stallman initial thought it sounded legally sound, but since he is not a lawyer, he asked one.
The laywer replied judges would consider such schemes to be "subterfuges", and ask whether it was "really" one program with different labeled parts. Stallman sent a reply back to jobs, based on that recommendation from the lawyer.
Websites might feel very different from a technical point of view, but trying to do smart and tricky things with law always end up with the same question: How will a judge or jury view it. If I go to hackernews, do I get several "works" of JS, CSS, HTML, or is it a singular work with different labeled parts?
You have the freedom to do anything you want from the result of using this framework.
I also have the freedom to do so with what you make, if I am a user of it.
Why are you so dead set on taking away my freedom. Adding restrictions on what I can do with the work you created from that framework is kind of rude when the developers is asking you to share, and share alike.
>You have the freedom to do anything you want from the result of using this framework.
No I do not.
>I also have the freedom to do so with what you make
Then clearly I do not have the freedom to do anything I want.
>Why are you so dead set on taking away my freedom
I am taking nothing from you. I release all my code under the ISC license. That is free. Restrictions are not freedom.
>the developers is asking you to share, and share alike.
The developers can ask whatever they like. And I can decline their offer. I will continue to use free software instead. Why is it so upsetting that someone would choose not to use non-free software? If the developers find my absence to be a problem, they are welcome to change make their software free. I have no interest in shareware.
While I sincerely doubt that you release all your code under the ISC license, I will take your word on it.
That mean you can use any open source license and release your contributions under that license. Be that BSD, GPL, MIT, Apache... what ever it is, your contributions can always be under the license of your choice.
So yes, you do have the freedom to do what you claim you only do, ie, release code you write under ISC license. 100% freedom to do exactly that. Write a addon to AGPL and release that add-on as ISC? No legal problem at all.
If you want freedom to release code someone else has written under the license of your choice, then I sit in the same boat. I would like too to have the freedom to chose that, but alas, copyright wont' allow that. It would be a neat freedom to chose the license of OS X and windows.
