Microsoft Becomes Sponsor of Open Source Initiative • Hacker News Board

Re: Microsoft Becomes Sponsor of Open Source Initiative

#161

Post by watwut » Thu, Sep 28, 2017, 10:38 AM UTC

belorn wrote: post #155

watwut wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What is the alternative, break the license or change your own? If I want to allow my library in closed code, I cant import GPL. Hence, I have to rewrite it. Rewriting Apache into GPL makes little sense, but is little work. You can just import it and slap GPL on top. You cant just mix licenses, because licenses disallow/allow activities.

Take a operative system like debian. It has a huge number of packages in every combination and mix of open source defined and free software defined license. It does not limit itself to only use code that closed code can use. The community embrace license diversity, and thus has very little "my-way-is-the-only-way". As a practice, if they can avoid writing their own stuff they do so, always look around them and see if…

If you are writing a library, the moment you include GPL, you can't be Apache nor MIT nor BSD anymore. You yourself have to change the license so that your close source users are excluded (or forced to give put code). It is right there in GPL license. Only ideology is related to following copyright law. And maybe also respect toward GPL software creators who don't wish their code to be used.

You can legaly include apache in GPL software.

Following your theory, one would either have to break GPL and risk legal problems or exclude close source users of his work.

Re: Microsoft Becomes Sponsor of Open Source Initiative

#162

Post by Delmania » Thu, Sep 28, 2017, 12:20 PM UTC

vetinari wrote: post #147

Sir_Cmpwn wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Microsoft can't undo the past, and they aren't going away. Your choice boils down to a single question: do you want the Microsoft of tomorrow to be different from the Microsoft of yesterday? If so, then quit hating and start celebrating the victories.

Their past makes their starting position now more difficult. They have to make up for their past deeds, after all. Someone, who didn't do thing like Microsoft did, has it easier now. It sounds only fair to me.

They have nothing to atone for, and they don't owe you anything. Either you appreciate the steps they're taking, or you keep on living in the past.

Re: Microsoft Becomes Sponsor of Open Source Initiative

#163

Post by vetinari » Thu, Sep 28, 2017, 1:30 PM UTC

Delmania wrote: post #162

vetinari wrote: post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Their past makes their starting position now more difficult. They have to make up for their past deeds, after all. Someone, who didn't do thing like Microsoft did, has it easier now. It sounds only fair to me.

They have nothing to atone for, and they don't owe you anything. Either you appreciate the steps they're taking, or you keep on living in the past.

Yes, they do. They used every dirty trick in the book, and invented a few new ones. They damaged the computing environment we all have to live in.

I have no problem pointing out, that this is the company that to this day possesses (and still abuses) advantages gained by playing dirty. If they want to have an image of a good guy, they have work hard on it. Harder, than any random company that appears out of the blue.

The standard they are judged by is and will be definitely affected by their past.

Re: Microsoft Becomes Sponsor of Open Source Initiative

#164

Post by belorn » Thu, Sep 28, 2017, 10:58 PM UTC

watwut wrote: post #161

belorn wrote: post #155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Take a operative system like debian. It has a huge number of packages in every combination and mix of open source defined and free software defined license. It does not limit itself to only use code that closed code can use. The community embrace license diversity, and thus has very little "my-way-is-the-only-way". As a practice, if they can avoid writing their own stuff they do so, always look around them and see if…

If you are writing a library, the moment you include GPL, you can't be Apache nor MIT nor BSD anymore. You yourself have to change the license so that your close source users are excluded (or forced to give put code). It is right there in GPL license. Only ideology is related to following copyright law. And maybe also respect toward GPL software creators who don't wish their code to be used. You can legaly include ap…

If the goal of the library is to be used in closed source, you will be limited to reusing code to only those that has compatible license with the closed source. That is a choice you make that has nothing to do with writing software to fix problems that people have in their lives. In some cases this make a economical sense, where you do not just want to solve problems for customers but where the primary goal is to generate property for which the company can own. For other companies, solving problems for customer is how they get paid and the faster they solve one problem the fast they can go to the next.

But I digress. There is a clear bright line between writing code to solve a problem, and rewriting code because the license don't let you create property in the form of closed code. One is about pragmatic problem solving, and one is about ideology. One allows for code reuse, one is limited to my-way-is-the-only-way.

If you live in an ideology that demand that everything you do must be made into property owned by the company and only secondary solves problem for a customer, you will be slower than a companies which more pragmatically focused on fixing problems for customers. Don't blame others if you are self-imposing such restrictions on yourself.

Re: Microsoft Becomes Sponsor of Open Source Initiative

#165

Post by watwut » Fri, Sep 29, 2017, 6:54 AM UTC

belorn wrote: post #164

watwut wrote: post #161

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you are writing a library, the moment you include GPL, you can't be Apache nor MIT nor BSD anymore. You yourself have to change the license so that your close source users are excluded (or forced to give put code). It is right there in GPL license. Only ideology is related to following copyright law. And maybe also respect toward GPL software creators who don't wish their code to be used. You can legaly include ap…

If the goal of the library is to be used in closed source, you will be limited to reusing code to only those that has compatible license with the closed source. That is a choice you make that has nothing to do with writing software to fix problems that people have in their lives. In some cases this make a economical sense, where you do not just want to solve problems for customers but where the primary goal is to gen…

"If the goal of the library is to be used in closed source, you will be limited to reusing code to only those that has compatible license with the closed source. That is a choice you make that has nothing to do with writing software to fix problems that people have in their lives."

It absolutely does. It fixes problem of people who work on close source or otherwise something incompatible is gpl. You either dont count them as people or as problems and neither makes sense. I used open source inside closed source. So yep, if I am going to five away, I will give to the same pool. Generous people gave me something, so I am giving back.

A library that I can not use does not solve any problem. That is not pragmatic, just something with limited use. Which is fine, if you feel strongly about your work use being restricted to some people only. I don't.

The moment when your logic twists gpl into literally "the only pragmatic license" is the moment when I wonder whether you are even honest in your arguments.