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

WiringPi – deprecated

wiringpi.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 151 posts

Re: WiringPi – deprecated

#141

Post by shakna »

jnbiche wrote: post #132
dtech wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He can release the software under a completely different license. Even if that is the exact same software. He can remove all downloads of the software from the websites etc. He owns the copyright. He cannot prevent people who obtained a version of the software under a license from doing what they want with it under the terms of that license.

> He cannot prevent people who obtained a version of the software under a license from doing what they want with it under the terms of that license. And that includes getting the source code for a binary released under the GPL. That's exactly what was at issue.

Those terms don't apply to the original copyright holder.

The requirement to release source code is placed on those making use of the license, not on the original holder.

> For example, if you distribute copies of such a program, whether gratis or for a fee, you must pass on to the recipients the same freedoms that you received. You must make sure that they, too, receive or can get the source code. And you must show them these terms so they know their rights.

The original licensor receives no freedoms, as the work is theirs to begin with. It doesn't apply to them. "You" refers solely to those accepting the license.

If the original licensor hasn't release the source code with the binary at the time, they are under no obligation to do so. Using the particular license doesn't make sense, but they still aren't obligated.

There is no legal issue here, only a moral one. And as the community didn't give the developer room to breathe, that has evaporated.

Re: WiringPi – deprecated

#142

Post by dtech »

jnbiche wrote: post #132
dtech wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He can release the software under a completely different license. Even if that is the exact same software. He can remove all downloads of the software from the websites etc. He owns the copyright. He cannot prevent people who obtained a version of the software under a license from doing what they want with it under the terms of that license.

> He cannot prevent people who obtained a version of the software under a license from doing what they want with it under the terms of that license. And that includes getting the source code for a binary released under the GPL. That's exactly what was at issue.

You're misunderstanding

Author releases software version A under GPL, source code and a binary.

Anyone can do anything they want with A under the terms of the GPL.

Author releases software version B. People cannot force him to release source code just because A was released under GPL.

Even if he says B falls under GPL but hasn't released the source code (yet), people at most can say he did not comply with the terms of the GPL and refuse to treat/use it as such , which means they cannot use or redistribute it since that is not allowed under normal copyright rules. It cannot be used to force the author to release Bs source code.

Re: WiringPi – deprecated

#143

Post by gwillz »

stjohnswarts wrote: post #84
gwillz wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's a subtle thing for sure. Just because he prefaces it with "not to be an ass" doesn't justify being an ass. Overall, it's still phrased in a demanding way.

He wasn't being an ass, DanielK was. It's HIS original software, he can distribute as he pleases.

That's right. I was quoting DanielK.

Re: WiringPi – deprecated

#144

Post by jnbiche »

chromatic wrote: post #133
jnbiche wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What kind of a license doesn't have to be observed by one of the parties to the license? Would any HN lawyers like to chip in? From my understanding of contracts, that interpretation seems contrary to basic legal principles. The obligation GPL would place on the developer would be to release the source code if the program is released under the GPL. Based on my reading of the blog post, that's exactly what one user wa…

What kind of a license doesn't have to be observed by one of the parties to the license? That's every license. You might be thinking of a contract, which is a binding agreement between two parties. Think of a license as a grant of certain rights to the licensee. There's no binding agreement upon the licenser. (Not an HN lawyer.)

> You might be thinking of a contract, which is a binding agreement between two parties.

Nope. I'm thinking of a license, which is a contract (go look it up if you don't believe me). And contracts can be a binding agreement between two or more parties.

Re: WiringPi – deprecated

#145

Post by Dayshine »

jnbiche wrote: post #144
chromatic wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What kind of a license doesn't have to be observed by one of the parties to the license? That's every license. You might be thinking of a contract, which is a binding agreement between two parties. Think of a license as a grant of certain rights to the licensee. There's no binding agreement upon the licenser. (Not an HN lawyer.)

> You might be thinking of a contract, which is a binding agreement between two parties. Nope. I'm thinking of a license, which is a contract (go look it up if you don't believe me). And contracts can be a binding agreement between two or more parties.

> which is a contract (go look it up if you don't believe me).

I've looked it up, I can't find anything. Apparently in germany GPL is a contract, as in germany contracts don't require consideration. But in the US, GPL is a license, not a contract.

Re: WiringPi – deprecated

#146

Post by tinus_hn »

jnbiche wrote: post #127
shakna wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> However, he does have to comply with the legal requirements of the license he uses. No, the author doesn't. Not really. The license governs the use of people who don't hold the copyright. That's why the author of a project can just turn around and release under a new license.

No, that's incorrect. The license governs the conduct of both parties (here, the creator and the users). Yes, he can release new software under a new license, but any past software he released under a certain license, he has to follow those terms. If you come to an agreement with another party (like you agree to license a movie, or book to them), you can't just unilaterally cancel that agreement. That's not how contr…

He has to follow no terms. He has given everyone else rights under certain terms, take it or leave it.

Re: WiringPi – deprecated

#147

Post by inferiorhuman »

exocos wrote: post #108
inferiorhuman wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As someone who's gone back and forth on licensing for personal projects over the years, tried to engage user communities for said personal projects, and tried to use various open source projects — I totally sympathize with the maintainers. As with a lot of things in life, user engagement is a two-way street. If folks want constructive engagement from the users, there needs to be constructive engagement from the maint…

> How are users supposed to react ... Answers: 1) fork the project, and do a better job yourself 2) suck it up quietly

You've articulated two great reasons why end users generate angry comments.

Re: WiringPi – deprecated

#148

Post by jnbiche »

dtech wrote: post #142
jnbiche wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> He cannot prevent people who obtained a version of the software under a license from doing what they want with it under the terms of that license. And that includes getting the source code for a binary released under the GPL. That's exactly what was at issue.

You're misunderstanding Author releases software version A under GPL, source code and a binary. Anyone can do anything they want with A under the terms of the GPL. Author releases software version B. People cannot force him to release source code just because A was released under GPL. Even if he says B falls under GPL but hasn't released the source code (yet), people at most can say he did not comply with the terms o…

I agree completely with your interpretation of the GPL. However, from my limited understanding, it seems that the situation in question was indeed about a "version A". I'm not suggesting the author can't release a future version under another license, or none at all. Of course he can.

I'm saying, if he releases version A under the GPL, he has to comply with the terms of the GPL for that release.

In any case, I'm no fan of the GPL, so it's no sweat off my back. But I don't understand someone releasing a software version under a certain license and then getting upset because someone asks him/her to abide by the terms of that license.

Re: WiringPi – deprecated

#149

Post by jnbiche »

Dayshine wrote: post #145
jnbiche wrote: post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You might be thinking of a contract, which is a binding agreement between two parties. Nope. I'm thinking of a license, which is a contract (go look it up if you don't believe me). And contracts can be a binding agreement between two or more parties.

> which is a contract (go look it up if you don't believe me). I've looked it up, I can't find anything. Apparently in germany GPL is a contract, as in germany contracts don't require consideration. But in the US, GPL is a license, not a contract.

Based on everything I'm reading in IP Law and contract law texts online, that is not the case. Here's one from Cornell Law School that specifically says that "Regardless of whether the parties call their transaction a license, sale, lease, or something else, the Principles would apply", where said "Principles" are those of software contract law. And then they discuss how they fall under contract law.

https://scholarship.law.cornell.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?arti...

Here's another from UChicago Law that takes it for granted that the legal reader understands that licenses are legal contracts, since it's full of quotes like "all licenses are vulnerable to the usual attacks that can be leveled against all types of contracts".

https://chicagounbound.uchicago.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?arti...

Re: WiringPi – deprecated

#150

Post by itsbruce »

groundlogic wrote: post #2

Step 1. Person A makes some piece of software under an open source license. (GPL) Step 2. This piece of software becomes widely used, primarily since it's open source licensed Step 3. (Modern variation) Person A feels cheated for not getting rich and creates some kind of drama. This doesn't make any sense at all, to me.

That is not what the article said. You are being just the kind of asshole the author complains about.
Post reply on HN