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

Nano is no longer a GNU project

nano-editor.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 240 posts

Re: Nano is no longer a GNU project

#91

Post by bluejekyll »

nnutter wrote: post #73
thomasahle wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem is if the maintainer wants to change the license (Like GPL2 -> GPL3). That's only possible if the contributors have signed over copyright, or the maintainer can track down every person who ever sent a patch, and get them to agree.

I don't think GPL2 -> GPL3 is a valid example of that. Usually it is to dual-license with a non-open-source license or some other incompatible open-source licenses. The GPL "upgrade" clause, > Each version is given a distinguishing version number. If the Program specifies a version number of this License which applies to it and "any later version", you have the option of following the terms and conditions either of t…

I think you missed the if clause:

> If the Program specifies a version number of this License which applies to it and "any later version",

I'm no lawyer, but I think the source has to mention that explicitly. So it's not true of ALL gpl projects. In this case though you are right because nano, it appears, specifies it's license as:

> License: GNU General Public License v3 or later

So, while true in this case it's not always true (see Linux kernel license, GPLv2, no upgrade).

Re: Nano is no longer a GNU project

#92

Post by brudgers »

infodroid wrote: post #68
klakier wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you know that according to copy rights, open source projects are mess. Nobody tried it in the court, but if some developer contributing to project went to court saying "This part of code is mine, I don't want it to be modified by other people", then the project could be in trouble. Nobody tried that (yet). That's why some OS projects require signing Developer Certificates of Origin etc.

The way I see it, if you contribute to a project for example by sending a patch to it by email or pull request then you agree to be bound by the license. Even if there is no copyright assignment. Otherwise you would not have the right to modify the software to write your patch in the first place. This just seems like common sense to me.

[I am not a lawyer. I've written and signed and worked under many contracts where the details of copyright are critical to the transaction]

The US and some other jurisdictions use common law. It may be the case that common law is a subset of common sense intended to deal with issues of scale and perpetuity. It may not. Even among common law jurisdictions, copyright laws vary.

In the US, the default stance is that the author of a work owns the copyright. Hence, without explicit reassignment, contributing does not transfer copyright. As an aside, in the US, copyright does not transfer just because money changes hands either [though it generally does in cases of statutory employment].

Re: Nano is no longer a GNU project

#93

Post by mkesper »

nnutter wrote: post #73
thomasahle wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem is if the maintainer wants to change the license (Like GPL2 -> GPL3). That's only possible if the contributors have signed over copyright, or the maintainer can track down every person who ever sent a patch, and get them to agree.

I don't think GPL2 -> GPL3 is a valid example of that. Usually it is to dual-license with a non-open-source license or some other incompatible open-source licenses. The GPL "upgrade" clause, > Each version is given a distinguishing version number. If the Program specifies a version number of this License which applies to it and "any later version", you have the option of following the terms and conditions either of t…

If your licence is GPLv2 only (like for example the linux kernel), there is NO upgrade path.

Re: Nano is no longer a GNU project

#94

Post by blakesterz »

k__ wrote: post #87
tapiwa wrote: post #25

Loads of us use nano. Simple light editor without the overhead (read learning curve), of all the other big editors. Sure, I might not write code in it, but when I need to edit a conf file or two, both on a server, and my desktop, it really hits the spot.

I use nano, because I didn't "get" Vim.

I hate to admit it, but that's more or less why I do as well. It's not that I don't get ViM, it's just that I don't like it. I have TRIED to force myself to use it. Something about that long reach for the Esc key? I don't know what it is really, but I just never felt comfortable using it. Emacs is such a huge monster of a program. 90% of what it does I never touch. Most of the time I just need to edit a conf file and move on. Being a sysadmin my needs are very few in a text editor.

Re: Nano is no longer a GNU project

#95

Post by _pmf_ »

mikegerwitz wrote: post #43

I'm on the GNU maintainers team; I want to clarify a couple things about this: First, Nano has _not_ left the GNU project; GNU Nano still does and will continue to exist. The current maintainer of GNU Nano---Chris Allegretta---was hoping to add Benno Schulenberg as a co-maintainer, citing numerous contributions by him. Unfortunately, Benno refused to accept GNU's maintainership agreement, and so was not appointed. Be…

> Benno also did not want to assign copyright to the FSF for his contributions.

In Germany, you cannot legally sign away copyright (i.e. signing away your copyright is either an empty action or may even void other agreements contained in a larger contract).

Re: Nano is no longer a GNU project

#96

Post by infodroid »

bluejekyll wrote: post #81
thomasahle wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem is if the maintainer wants to change the license (Like GPL2 -> GPL3). That's only possible if the contributors have signed over copyright, or the maintainer can track down every person who ever sent a patch, and get them to agree.

I've been struggling with this question as well. If you want to maintain full control of your project, then you want any contributors to assign copyright, because it gives the maintainer the most flexibility. On the other hand, as happened here, it makes people less likely to want to contribute to the project, because they probably feel like they are being taken advantage of or losing some right. A counter argument t…

> it makes people less likely to want to contribute to the project, because they probably feel like they are being taken advantage of or losing some right

I think it depends who the copyright is assigned to. I imagine people will have strong reservations about transferring copyright to a private company or individual.

But if the copyright is assigned to a mutually trusted organisation like a FLOSS foundation then I can't think of a good reason that a contributor would withhold copyright assignment.

They have nothing to lose and the project they care about will gain. There are even tools nowadays like CLAHub to make the process more convenient.

One exception might be corporate restrictions on contributors. Like if you need permission from your boss and it is denied.

I think the bigger issue with FLOSS projects is that often people are not always able to agree on an acceptable organisation to own the copyright let alone the kind of license to have.

Re: Nano is no longer a GNU project

#97

Post by Jtsummers »

philh wrote: post #41
draw_down wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, maybe I'm just weird, but I like it when the down-arrow key makes the cursor go down a line.

Not saying they don't exist, but I don't think I've ever encountered a vim instance where that didn't happen.

I recall many frustrating days in college when I first learned vim but not enough to configure it (or was to lazy to). The arrow keys inserted control characters in edit mode on the basic Linux install I had at the time and on the school's computers (circa 2000-2004). It was annoying. It turned me off to vim for a while, but emacs and I were a better fit anyways.

Re: Nano is no longer a GNU project

#98

Post by teh_klev »

sena wrote: post #80
teh_klev wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Seriously, if you're spending more than a few minutes a week SSH'ing then forget PuTTY, grab yourself a copy of MobaXterm: http://mobaxterm.mobatek.net/ It's also Pageant aware and will use that as your ssh key agent if you prefer. And vim works properly. We like it so much we pay for the Pro editions.

"Max. 12 sessions Max. 2 SSH tunnels Max. 4 macros Max. 360 seconds for Tftp, Nfs and Cron" Not open source and heavily limited. Unless you pay for Pro, it's pretty useless...

If you just have a handful of servers you can still get a lot done with the free edition, not useless at all by any stretch of the imagination. Paying a few quid a year to keep up with the updates is peanuts compared to the extra productivity we get from it.

Re: Nano is no longer a GNU project

#99

Post by baldfat »

Already__Taken wrote: post #14
baldfat wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I hear this faster for small things but if you use vim I would say I can make changes in a small document twice as fast. They should have a new tag line: Nano the plain text editor for non-Vim maybe EMACS users?

This is only true if you use vim at least once a week forever. Some people don't want to study a manual to change 1 config line. Call me crazy I know.

vim file_foo

press i for interactive and make changes then press :wq

:) I have that embedded in my brain after all these years.

Re: Nano is no longer a GNU project

#100

Post by ArneBab »

nnutter wrote: post #73
thomasahle wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem is if the maintainer wants to change the license (Like GPL2 -> GPL3). That's only possible if the contributors have signed over copyright, or the maintainer can track down every person who ever sent a patch, and get them to agree.

I don't think GPL2 -> GPL3 is a valid example of that. Usually it is to dual-license with a non-open-source license or some other incompatible open-source licenses. The GPL "upgrade" clause, > Each version is given a distinguishing version number. If the Program specifies a version number of this License which applies to it and "any later version", you have the option of following the terms and conditions either of t…

Dual-license with a proprietary license is not allowed by the papers you sign when assigning copyright to the GNU project.

»We promise to always keep the software free. This promise extends to any successors in the copyright, meaning that even if the FSF were to go away the freedom of all users to share in the contributions wouldn't.« — https://www.fsf.org/bulletin/2014/spring/copyright-assignmen...

This is the difference between copyright assignment to the FSF and most other copyright assignment.

Post reply on HN