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

221–230 of 240 posts

Re: Nano is no longer a GNU project

#221

Post by synchronise »

cyphar wrote: post #217
thomasahle wrote: post #205

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's possible that this has been 'fixed' with GPL3. I just know Linus used it as a reason not to change the license of the Linux kernel.

Linus explicitly opted out of the "or any later version" clause because he doesn't agree with the ideals of free software (seeing it as more of a practical convenience). All versions of the GPL have had an upgrade clause, mainly so that GNU projects can upgrade the license. Not to mention that much of the code inside Linux is under GPLv2-or-later, but because some of it is GPLv2-only the whole work is GPLv2-only.

Out of curiosity, how much code is actually GPLv2 only, and how hard would it be to replace those sections with code that was GPLv2+?

Re: Nano is no longer a GNU project

#222

Post by threeseed »

moloh wrote: post #211
zx2c4 wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't know anything about the politics involved, and I don't even use nano (vim guy myself), but I just ran this out of curiosity: zx2c4@thinkpad ~/nano $ git shortlog -sne --since '3 years ago' 1298 Benno Schulenberg 64 Chris Allegretta 6 Jordi Mallach 3 Mike Frysinger 3 Mike Scalora 2 Rishabh Dave Seems like Benno is clearly the driving force behind the project.

Why only 3 years ago? Maybe 10 years will be little more accurate? git shortlog -sne --since '10 years ago' 1298 Benno Schulenberg 481 David Lawrence Ramsey 382 Chris Allegretta 28 Jordi Mallach 3 Mike Frysinger 3 Mike Scalora 2 Rishabh Dave git shortlog -sne --since '15 years ago' 2528 David Lawrence Ramsey 1298 Benno Schulenberg 803 Chris Allegretta 355 Jordi Mallach 3 Mike Frysinger 3 Mike Scalora 2 Rishabh Dave 1…

2001 was when Windows XP was released. That's at least a few "eras" in computing ago.

Any open source project is only as good as it is today not what it was.

Re: Nano is no longer a GNU project

#223

Post by [deleted] »

infodroid wrote: post #155
hundchenkatze wrote: post #154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They are accessible over HTTP. http://git.savannah.gnu.org/cgit/nano.git/commit/?id=115aeda...

I did not know that about Savannah. I am mainly familiar with Github, Bitbucket and Launchpad. I guess there is no point hiding from the bots these days.

[deleted]

Re: Nano is no longer a GNU project

#224

Post by cyphar »

synchronise wrote: post #221
cyphar wrote: post #217

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Linus explicitly opted out of the "or any later version" clause because he doesn't agree with the ideals of free software (seeing it as more of a practical convenience). All versions of the GPL have had an upgrade clause, mainly so that GNU projects can upgrade the license. Not to mention that much of the code inside Linux is under GPLv2-or-later, but because some of it is GPLv2-only the whole work is GPLv2-only.

Out of curiosity, how much code is actually GPLv2 only, and how hard would it be to replace those sections with code that was GPLv2+?

A lot of the core code (and dissapointingly, btrfs) is GPLv2-only. So rewrites are unlikely, you'd have to ask contributors to update the license.

Just do a grep for "at your option", since that's the wording in the copyright header to specify that it's released under GPLv2-or-later, tells me that it isn't that great. It's around 10000 files (Linux has ~50000 files) so it's ~20% of files. This doesn't account for documentation or files that don't specify that they are under GPLv2-or-later.

Re: Nano is no longer a GNU project

#225

Post by synchronise »

cyphar wrote: post #224
synchronise wrote: post #221

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Out of curiosity, how much code is actually GPLv2 only, and how hard would it be to replace those sections with code that was GPLv2+?

A lot of the core code (and dissapointingly, btrfs) is GPLv2-only. So rewrites are unlikely, you'd have to ask contributors to update the license. Just do a grep for "at your option", since that's the wording in the copyright header to specify that it's released under GPLv2-or-later, tells me that it isn't that great. It's around 10000 files (Linux has ~50000 files) so it's ~20% of files. This doesn't account for doc…

Was there any specific reason that license was chosen for btrfs that you know of?

Re: Nano is no longer a GNU project

#226

Post by cm3 »

tracker1 wrote: post #219
cm3 wrote: post #157

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Interesting, thanks for the correction. Reading that page, it appears that this due to US IP ownership agreements for employees. Is that correct? If so, why isn't there an exception for personal-time-only contributions by single developers, or at least those outside a jurisdiction like the US where an employer may own each and all of your ideas and intellectual output? To be clear, I haven't lived or worked in the US…

I always line out those sections of employee agreements... Fortunately, haven't had a problem with it yet. There are separate state laws, iirc such as California, which makes parts of those kinds of provisions void.

If you mean striking through some sections in contracts too, but wouldn't you have to do it in both copies to have some level of confidence? I cannot imagine you can do this with, say, an ISP contract where you don't agree with some clause.

In the past I've had contracts reprinted after pointing out errors in them.

Re: Nano is no longer a GNU project

#227

Post by sampo »

drinchev wrote: post #32
bechampion wrote: post #2

don't want to sound nasty , but is anyone there using nano really ? i know it come by default in some distros but that's about it really.

There was a nice xkcd about this [1]. I know HN is not the place for this comix, but anyway your question is a bit opinionated. 1 : http://xkcd.com/378/

> There was a nice xkcd about this

Also Hackles

https://web.archive.org/web/20160307122907/http://hackles.or...

Re: Nano is no longer a GNU project

#228

Post by digi_owl »

sangnoir wrote: post #209
gravypod wrote: post #195

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Isn't that the idea of open source software? The best maintainer is the one in charge. I don't think Linus would object to someone replacing him if anyone was more qualified for the job. Hell he even openly encourages people to fork Linux, make improvements, and follow the license (copy left). I see nothing wrong with the most active/best maintainer having say over the project's future.

> Isn't that the idea of open source software? The best maintainer is the one in charge. No, not really. Open source embraces the idea of forking - a hostile take over of the original project is most definitely not the idea - but it can be allowed depending on the projects charter. Also - most active contribute =/= maintainer - I'm sure Red Hat adds more code to the kernel than Linus these days, but Linus is still th…

Pretty much. Especially if one i trying to introduce major changes.

Edit: That said, there seems to be more hostile takeovers happening these days. Perhaps because a new gen of devs care as much, or more, about brand as about code quality...

Re: Nano is no longer a GNU project

#229

Post by digi_owl »

threeseed wrote: post #222
moloh wrote: post #211

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why only 3 years ago? Maybe 10 years will be little more accurate? git shortlog -sne --since '10 years ago' 1298 Benno Schulenberg 481 David Lawrence Ramsey 382 Chris Allegretta 28 Jordi Mallach 3 Mike Frysinger 3 Mike Scalora 2 Rishabh Dave git shortlog -sne --since '15 years ago' 2528 David Lawrence Ramsey 1298 Benno Schulenberg 803 Chris Allegretta 355 Jordi Mallach 3 Mike Frysinger 3 Mike Scalora 2 Rishabh Dave 1…

2001 was when Windows XP was released. That's at least a few "eras" in computing ago. Any open source project is only as good as it is today not what it was.

Then again, in many orgs XP is barely being replaced with Windows 7...

Re: Nano is no longer a GNU project

#230

Post by mysidia1 »

yellowapple wrote: post #200
tzs wrote: post #165

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They are more accessible here on HN, though, because crawlers that obey robots.txt will not see it on git.savannah.gnu.org but will see it here on HN.

I suspect that if a crawler is being used to farm email addresses for spamming, it's highly unlikely that robots.txt would be any deterrent whatsoever.

Spammers' crawlers use URLs obtained from search engines and public sources. If the whole directory is blocked in robots.txt, it WILL reduce crawling activity massively.
Post reply on HN