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

Microsoft: No GPLv3 Software for Windows Phone and Xbox Apps.

jan.wildeboer.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 134 posts

Re: Microsoft: No GPLv3 Software for Windows Phone and Xbox Apps.

#21

Post by Fice »

btipling wrote: post #15
SimonPStevens wrote: post #12

They aren't prohibiting "Free Software", they are prohibiting software that is under a license that requires the distributor to pass certain rights along to the recipient. Hence GPL like licenses that require distribution of source code, and that you grant redistribution rights to everyone you distribute it to are being explicitly prohibited. (And in fairness I can see why those licenses would cause problems for Micr…

Exactly. Also GPL style licenses are a virus that while they promote freedom, in reality they take it away. It assumes that people are naturally untrustworthy and thus forces them to act in a way the creators of GPL see as the right way. Because of how the GPL licenses are worded, especially insane versions like the AGPL, everything they touch may be affected negatively. MIT and BSD style licenses on the other hand a…

GPL ensures freedom. Also there is a great article by Bruce Perens about why Microsoft is hostile to GPL and why they sponsor non-copyleft open source: http://itmanagement.earthweb.com/osrc/article.php/3762786/Br...

Re: Microsoft: No GPLv3 Software for Windows Phone and Xbox Apps.

#22

Post by samatman »

skore wrote: post #16
btipling wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Exactly. Also GPL style licenses are a virus that while they promote freedom, in reality they take it away. It assumes that people are naturally untrustworthy and thus forces them to act in a way the creators of GPL see as the right way. Because of how the GPL licenses are worded, especially insane versions like the AGPL, everything they touch may be affected negatively. MIT and BSD style licenses on the other hand a…

You're probably just trolling, but it needs to be said every time: The freedom that the GPL takes away is the freedom to bring down the system. It keeps people in check and prevents corruption. If you enjoy the freedoms of MIT and BSD style licenses - why do you complain about the GPL? It seems that it only takes "freedoms" away that you don't appear to be interested in anyways?

Possibly for the same reason GPL advocates complain about more restrictive licensing than the GPL.

"Hey, why can't I view and improve your source code? No fair!"

"Hey, why can't I improve, compile, and sell your program? No fair!"

disclaimer: I'm fairly license-neutral and think people should choose based on what's good for their project.

Re: Microsoft: No GPLv3 Software for Windows Phone and Xbox Apps.

#23

Post by cosgroveb »

btipling wrote: post #15
SimonPStevens wrote: post #12

They aren't prohibiting "Free Software", they are prohibiting software that is under a license that requires the distributor to pass certain rights along to the recipient. Hence GPL like licenses that require distribution of source code, and that you grant redistribution rights to everyone you distribute it to are being explicitly prohibited. (And in fairness I can see why those licenses would cause problems for Micr…

Exactly. Also GPL style licenses are a virus that while they promote freedom, in reality they take it away. It assumes that people are naturally untrustworthy and thus forces them to act in a way the creators of GPL see as the right way. Because of how the GPL licenses are worded, especially insane versions like the AGPL, everything they touch may be affected negatively. MIT and BSD style licenses on the other hand a…

I'm not going to comment on whether GPL style licenses actually have the effect of promoting freedom like they say, but I don't see at all how they take it away. An author is free to write code and distribute it under the GPL. Likewise anyone else is free to fork it, or use it in their own codebase so long as they honor the terms of the license.

How does that take away anyone's freedom? Don't like the terms of an author's library? Go write your own then.

Re: Microsoft: No GPLv3 Software for Windows Phone and Xbox Apps.

#24

Post by elehack »

wladimir wrote: post #18

I don't want my platform to restrict what software I can run, especially not based on license. Is there any mobile platform these days that doesn't try to be your nanny as well?

Maemo/MeeGo, but its future is, err, uncertain.

WebOS might be good in that regard, but its supported development model is limited to web apps so far as I know.

Re: Microsoft: No GPLv3 Software for Windows Phone and Xbox Apps.

#25

Post by jedsmith »

skore wrote: post #16
btipling wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Exactly. Also GPL style licenses are a virus that while they promote freedom, in reality they take it away. It assumes that people are naturally untrustworthy and thus forces them to act in a way the creators of GPL see as the right way. Because of how the GPL licenses are worded, especially insane versions like the AGPL, everything they touch may be affected negatively. MIT and BSD style licenses on the other hand a…

You're probably just trolling, but it needs to be said every time: The freedom that the GPL takes away is the freedom to bring down the system. It keeps people in check and prevents corruption. If you enjoy the freedoms of MIT and BSD style licenses - why do you complain about the GPL? It seems that it only takes "freedoms" away that you don't appear to be interested in anyways?

I feel the same way about the GPL, in that it dictates very strong boundaries about what can and cannot be done with the code you are distributing. I don't personally feel that the tradeoff is acceptable to achieve a goal of preventing corruption, as you say, and it can be argued that the license indeed does prevent many freedoms to do what you will.

If I write software and distribute it as open-source on the Internet, I'm not interested in (a) suing those who don't follow my license to the letter à la gpl-violations.org, and (b) requiring you to release the source code to your product simply because you use mine. For those reasons, I will never apply the GPL to any of the software that I start, period.

It is my not job, as a software developer, to impose my beliefs upon you. The religious fervor in the GPL debates springs an interesting comparison to mind: the GPL is similar to publishing a book about Christ, and requiring those who read it to adopt Christianity. Viral open-source and the majority of the "free software beliefs" are just that, beliefs; I respect everyone's right to believe differently, and I will not mandate a belief in my software.

Why is a negative opinion about the GPL automatically assumed by you to be trolling? It does have flaws, and the GP simply expressed his distaste of them (perhaps not in the best way).

Re: Microsoft: No GPLv3 Software for Windows Phone and Xbox Apps.

#26

Post by nolok »

skore wrote: post #16
btipling wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Exactly. Also GPL style licenses are a virus that while they promote freedom, in reality they take it away. It assumes that people are naturally untrustworthy and thus forces them to act in a way the creators of GPL see as the right way. Because of how the GPL licenses are worded, especially insane versions like the AGPL, everything they touch may be affected negatively. MIT and BSD style licenses on the other hand a…

You're probably just trolling, but it needs to be said every time: The freedom that the GPL takes away is the freedom to bring down the system. It keeps people in check and prevents corruption. If you enjoy the freedoms of MIT and BSD style licenses - why do you complain about the GPL? It seems that it only takes "freedoms" away that you don't appear to be interested in anyways?

Because freedom also means freedom to use my code and keep it to yourself if you want to. There isn't any corruption in that. Tons of software here are using bsd/mit licensed code and not releasing their change, that has nothing to do with corruption (or you don't understand what corruption is, go read a definition).

Using the GPL means you're free to use my code ... As long as the result is under gpl too. You lose your freedom to chose a license. You lose your freedom to keep changes to yourself if you release the resulting binary (why ? because you want to). You lose your freedom to use other piece of code that are not gpl compatible.

I have nothing against the gpl and I use tons of software using it, but it is a fact that it cuts down some of your freedoms compared to other licenses.

Re: Microsoft: No GPLv3 Software for Windows Phone and Xbox Apps.

#27

Post by cosgroveb »

dagw wrote: post #3

Looks like they're trying to preempt the whole "can you distribute GPLed programs via the app store" problem that Apple's been facing.

Agreed. I kind of doubt this is an ideological decision. Just like the app store, there is no mechanism for someone who has downloaded an app to redistribute it to others.

Re: Microsoft: No GPLv3 Software for Windows Phone and Xbox Apps.

#28

Post by bitwize »

wladimir wrote: post #18

I don't want my platform to restrict what software I can run, especially not based on license. Is there any mobile platform these days that doesn't try to be your nanny as well?

You haven't cracked root on your Android phone yet?

Re: Microsoft: No GPLv3 Software for Windows Phone and Xbox Apps.

#29

Post by _delirium »

btipling wrote: post #15
SimonPStevens wrote: post #12

They aren't prohibiting "Free Software", they are prohibiting software that is under a license that requires the distributor to pass certain rights along to the recipient. Hence GPL like licenses that require distribution of source code, and that you grant redistribution rights to everyone you distribute it to are being explicitly prohibited. (And in fairness I can see why those licenses would cause problems for Micr…

Exactly. Also GPL style licenses are a virus that while they promote freedom, in reality they take it away. It assumes that people are naturally untrustworthy and thus forces them to act in a way the creators of GPL see as the right way. Because of how the GPL licenses are worded, especially insane versions like the AGPL, everything they touch may be affected negatively. MIT and BSD style licenses on the other hand a…

Does your post have anything to do with the subject of the article or the comment you're replying to (Microsoft banning GPL'd apps on its platforms), or was this just a convenient opportunity for a generic anti-GPL rant?

It seems unlikely that Microsoft's decision has anything to do with objecting to restrictive licenses, anyway, since proprietary apps are not being banned, not even proprietary apps with restrictive EULAs.

Re: Microsoft: No GPLv3 Software for Windows Phone and Xbox Apps.

#30

Post by jedsmith »

cosgroveb wrote: post #23
btipling wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Exactly. Also GPL style licenses are a virus that while they promote freedom, in reality they take it away. It assumes that people are naturally untrustworthy and thus forces them to act in a way the creators of GPL see as the right way. Because of how the GPL licenses are worded, especially insane versions like the AGPL, everything they touch may be affected negatively. MIT and BSD style licenses on the other hand a…

I'm not going to comment on whether GPL style licenses actually have the effect of promoting freedom like they say, but I don't see at all how they take it away. An author is free to write code and distribute it under the GPL. Likewise anyone else is free to fork it, or use it in their own codebase so long as they honor the terms of the license . How does that take away anyone's freedom? Don't like the terms of an au…

> Don't like the terms of an author's library? Go write your own then.

I really hate this attitude. Isn't one of the advantages of the Internet bringing developers together to work on things? Can't we put our collective capabilities toward improving things instead of rewriting them from scratch simply because they're not our favorite license or favorite language? Gnote springs to mind.

Edit: Wow, three downvotes within 30 seconds for appealing to working together instead of segregating computing into those who agree with your license and those who do not. This comment wasn't even about the GPL, it was about the OP's demonstrated attitude (and, importantly, not about the OP himself). If you're voting me down, at least man up and disagree with me with prose. It's things like this that make me wonder why I spend so much time contributing to HN.

Post reply on HN