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

101–110 of 134 posts

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

#101

Post by derleth »

jasonlotito wrote: post #79
jedsmith wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If some wants to use it in proprietary software they cannot, because if they did they would be unable to then share it with their neighbor. So he isn't free to do what he wishes with the software. Free is one of the most overloaded words in the English language, and I know that at least some of the Free Software movement agrees due to the prevalence of libre software (as if switching to French somehow makes it more…

The problem is people attack the GPL hold up the BSD as if it's without restrictions. But it is (granted, the restrictions are fairly simple to address, their are restrictions places on you, and if you don't follow them, you are in the same boat as the GPL). > There is no free with restrictions In this case, the only option is to write it yourself, as even things put into the public domain can have a catch (Actually,…

> as even things put into the public domain can have a catch

This is, by definition, untrue: If something is in the public domain, it is without an owner. It is unowned. Anybody can do anything they want with it, including using it in proprietary software for money and passing it off as their own work. (Assuming nobody is enforcing a code that bans plagiarism, which is totally orthogonal to copyright.)

If there is a catch, then the work is not in the public domain at all. Being owned by someone but released under a liberal license does not put something into the public domain, as the work is still under copyright.

In short: Public domain vs. copyrighted is a binary distinction. 'Freedom' is a continuum on multiple axes.

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

#102

Post by sedachv »

jonny_eh wrote: post #31

They're only preventing GPLv3 (and its ilk). There's a reason they mention GPLv3 and not GPLv2. GPLv2 just requires the sharing of source code for a given binary. GPLv3 takes it a lot farther and requires that a mechanism also be provided to use derivative works. So if a car manufacturer uses GPLv3 code, they not only have to distribute the source code (which may or not be an issue), they also have to allow people to…

This is why everyone should be switching to GPLv3. Software isn't just there to be looked at.

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

#103

Post by rbanffy »

hxa7241 wrote: post #87
jedsmith wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 with…

> 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? Well, that is pretty much the purpose of GPL, isn't it. It sets up a co-operative rule: if you want to gain from GPL software, then you must give someth…

Not exactly. He may gain from the use of the GPL and give nothing back if he doesn't pass along his software based on GPL software. In that sense, the focus of the GPL is not the upstream developer, but the downstream user.

That's more or less what happened at the start of WebKit. Apple got KHTML, changed a lot of its inhards and published the whole thing back when Safari was launched. A lot of KHTML developers complained Apple's code was very Mac-specific and a pain to integrate back into KHTML.

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

#104

Post by rbanffy »

koko775 wrote: post #91
timwiseman wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Also GPL style licenses are a virus that while they promote freedom, in reality they take it away. " The only freedom the GPL takes away, or even could take away, is freedom that you never had. Remember, you have no right to view code, modify, or distribute software unless you get that right by either being given it or buying it from the creator. BSD-style software simply gives these things to you as a gift, and is…

Ah, but that's the thing - it is a trade-off. While both the GPL and BSD (and other Free Software licenses) are certainly better than closed-source, the GPL is a promise to the user at the expense of the developer (a reasonable expense, to be sure), whereas the BSD and BSD-like licenses are promises to the developer, perhaps at some expense to the user (i.e. if something uses it it's not guaranteed to be Free Softwar…

> Given that most people are developers, not users

In what universe?

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

#105

Post by Natsu »

tzs wrote: post #58
Fice wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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...

That article is too riddle errors to be great. Consider his paragraph on OOXML. He says that ODF does the same work as OOXML in 1/10th the size. First of all, it does not do the same work. OOXML includes hundreds of pages covering spreadsheet formulas, giving mathematical definitions of them, sample input and output, and detailed descriptions. ODF omits spreadsheet formulas. ODF, as passed by ISO, barely deserves to…

> First of all, it does not do the same work. OOXML includes hundreds of pages covering spreadsheet formulas, giving mathematical definitions of them, sample input and output, and detailed descriptions

It's very detailed, down to mandating that you reproduce some old bugs with certain dates that come from Excel.

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

#107

Post by sedachv »

chc wrote: post #88
cosgroveb wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

How is that any more free than closed-source, proprietary software? You could just as easily say, "Don't like the terms of Photoshop's license? Go write your own then!" And unlike a GPL software vendor, Adobe couldn't turn around and sue you for creating a derivative work (because your brain hasn't been infected by any virally licensed source code). Anyway, the question of freedom between GPL and BSD is this: Does fr…

Arguing the GPL is restricting your freedom to steal other's work is exactly the same as arguing that the 13th Amendment is restricting your freedom to own slaves.

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

#108

Post by chc »

sedachv wrote: post #107
chc wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How is that any more free than closed-source, proprietary software? You could just as easily say, "Don't like the terms of Photoshop's license? Go write your own then!" And unlike a GPL software vendor, Adobe couldn't turn around and sue you for creating a derivative work (because your brain hasn't been infected by any virally licensed source code). Anyway, the question of freedom between GPL and BSD is this: Does fr…

Arguing the GPL is restricting your freedom to steal other's work is exactly the same as arguing that the 13th Amendment is restricting your freedom to own slaves.

The 13th amendment is restricting your freedom. It's called a tradeoff. That's my point.

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

#109

Post by guelo »

jedsmith wrote: post #25
skore wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 Interne…

You're being deliberately trollish bringing in religion, it's a dumb insult and I could turn around and call your arguments religious and it wouldn't have any meaning either.

Why is GPL so hard to understand? Plain and simple, GPL is an attack on closed source systems. And if you knew anything about computing history in the last 20 years you should be extremely grateful to RMS and what the license has accomplished.

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

#110

Post by fleitz »

They don't want to put in place the infrastructure to distribute source code, nor do they want the legal requirements to do so. Thus GPLv3 prevents Microsoft from exercising its freedom to not put in place a source code distribution system that will appeal to exactly none of its customers.
Post reply on HN