Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Show HN: Can’t afford Bloomberg Terminal? No prob, I built the next best thing

github.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

231–240 of 314 posts

Re: Show HN: Can’t afford Bloomberg Terminal? No prob, I built the next best thing

#231

Post by 40four »

moonchild wrote: post #115
lmm wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Coding against a library is usually understood to result in creating something that's a derivative work of that library.

The act of linking against a library produces a derivative work of that library. But since APIs are not copyrightable (in europe, at least), the act of using an API does not produce a derivative work, and thus code which uses an API is not bound to any particular license wrt it.

I don’t understand what you mean. You can’t use the API without, in this case, importing it in the python code. That means you bring in a whole copy of the code into your project, or the API wouldn’t work, right?

So, my understanding is the author’s new files that use the GPL licensed library can individually be licensed MIT, but the work as a whole must the GPL.

Re: Show HN: Can’t afford Bloomberg Terminal? No prob, I built the next best thing

#232

Post by 40four »

moonchild wrote: post #114
regularfry wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is incorrect, and it's precisely for this sort of situation that the LGPL exists. https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#IfLibraryIsGPL The problem for the author in this case is that a) writing their code against a GPL'd library constitutes creating a derivative work, and b) putting it on GitHub is distribution.

The page you linked contradicts you: > the terms of the GPL apply to the entire combination . The software modules that link with the library may be under various GPL compatible licenses , but the work as a whole must be licensed under the GPL. The application is a ‘software module’ licensed under the MIT license (a ‘GPL compatible license’). When you link that application against the GPL'd library, the resultant ‘wo…

The key part is “but the work as whole must be licensed under the terms of the GPL.”

Licenses are freaking confusing :) but I think folks are correct to point this out.

My understanding is that all of the new files the author wrote can individuals be licensed MIT, but unfortunately the work as a whole should be GPL.

Re: Show HN: Can’t afford Bloomberg Terminal? No prob, I built the next best thing

#233

Post by lvass »

qcoh wrote: post #116
regularfry wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is incorrect, and it's precisely for this sort of situation that the LGPL exists. https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#IfLibraryIsGPL The problem for the author in this case is that a) writing their code against a GPL'd library constitutes creating a derivative work, and b) putting it on GitHub is distribution.

From the FAQ, I don't get why the code has to be GPL licensed. It talks about libraries, "entire combinations", "software modules that link" and "work as a whole". On your second point: Can't they argue that they implement against an API, which could be provided by non-GPL software as well?

Compatibility with GPL in this case simply means a software distributed in a compatible license like MIT can be combined and distributed under GPL [0].

>On your second point: Can't they argue that they implement against an API, which could be provided by non-GPL software as well?

I don't think that is reasonable. A GPL program is specifically named in requirements.txt and imported. It's essentially the same as dynamic linking, that is no more than naming a program and using it's API. If this argument was valid one could also argue it's possible to modify a dynamically linked binary's rpath (can be easily done with patchelf on GNU/linux) from a GPL library to a non-GPL one so dynamically linking a library would never require you to do abide to it's license, which is obviously untrue [1].

[0]http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#WhatDoesCompatMean

[1]http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#GPLStaticVsDynamic

Re: Show HN: Can’t afford Bloomberg Terminal? No prob, I built the next best thing

#235

Post by lupire »

pc86 wrote: post #224
Hnrobert42 wrote: post #206

Is it just me, or is the feel of the comment on this post different than other HN posts? There are a lot more snarky jokes. A little more combative. It feels like why I stopped reading Reddit. I hope it doesn’t metastasize to posts on other topics.

> Please don't post comments saying that HN is turning into Reddit. It's a semi-noob[0] illusion[1], as[2] old[3] as[4] the[5] hills.[6] [7] [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=926703 [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=633099 [2] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=582513 [3] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=289254 [4] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=253657 [5] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?i…

It's funny to post that next to a junkchat thread started by one of the most famous redditors.

Re: Show HN: Can’t afford Bloomberg Terminal? No prob, I built the next best thing

#236

Post by DavidSJ »

Hnrobert42 wrote: post #206

Is it just me, or is the feel of the comment on this post different than other HN posts? There are a lot more snarky jokes. A little more combative. It feels like why I stopped reading Reddit. I hope it doesn’t metastasize to posts on other topics.

I independently had the same thought.

Re: Show HN: Can’t afford Bloomberg Terminal? No prob, I built the next best thing

#237

Post by lupire »

hntrader wrote: post #153
ricardobayes wrote: post #134

Without level 2 data trading is just trying your luck on a random number generator.

There's lots of short-term trading strategies that can work without L2 data. I know 2 people running short term strategies making 7 figures consistently who don't rely on L2. It's a dogma in certain high frequency trading firms that L2 is necessary for profitable edge (since that's a core part of their edge). That said, most profitable short term traders do rely on L2.

7 figures per what time range, for how much invested capital?

Re: Show HN: Can’t afford Bloomberg Terminal? No prob, I built the next best thing

#238

Post by bidirectional »

yakshaving_jgt wrote: post #205
ananthrk wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can you provide some more context on this?

It's the best scene in the movie. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qo1OSqBQYmk

Reading the comments, I'm struck by how I read this scene totally differently to most of them. I see an overworked, annoyed young analyst sent to deal with two rich kids (starting a hedge fund with money they made 'taking boats down the river', then skipping the ISDA requirements by calling their neighbour) who are wasting everyone's time by not even doing the absolute minimum research -- it was 2006, just Google ISDA and you find out the requirements.

Also a security guard kicking out two men in suits from a lobby is just weirdly unrealistic.

Re: Show HN: Can’t afford Bloomberg Terminal? No prob, I built the next best thing

#239

Post by hntrader »

lupire wrote: post #237
hntrader wrote: post #153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's lots of short-term trading strategies that can work without L2 data. I know 2 people running short term strategies making 7 figures consistently who don't rely on L2. It's a dogma in certain high frequency trading firms that L2 is necessary for profitable edge (since that's a core part of their edge). That said, most profitable short term traders do rely on L2.

7 figures per what time range, for how much invested capital?

7-figures per-year with annual returns of about 100% (not including the capital they use on margin), which is fairly typical for a proprietary short-term strategy

Re: Show HN: Can’t afford Bloomberg Terminal? No prob, I built the next best thing

#240

Post by cashewchoo »

metacritic12 wrote: post #213
jedberg wrote: post #132

The biggest thing you pay for in the Bloomberg Terminal is the chat function, which lets you talk to other people who also have $25,000 a year to spend on a Bloomberg Terminal. But this is still pretty cool :)

Having worked in finance on the buy side, I can say this was not true for me or the dozens of people I knew who use it. Neither I nor others I know in the space use the terminal as a place to "hang out" with wealthy people. Bloomberg's tooling is quite good, and you can get 80% of the way to a bespoke chart with 20% of the work. Not sure if the above is speculation, or parody, or just a projection of a stylized view…

Hello from the (ex) sell side. I think it's satire. Pretty hard to tell though. But I think it's just really good satire.
Post reply on HN