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

121–130 of 134 posts

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

#121

Post by b0rsuk »

jedsmith wrote: post #67
timtadh wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The issue here is you disagree with FSF over the meaning of the word free. Don't worry this is a common occurrence! To RMS free means freedom to use software without violating his "golden rule." RMS believes that if a neighbor wants to use software you are using you should be able to give it to him. Just as you would neighborly share flour or a rake. I am not going to debate RMSs ethical philosophy, I just want to po…

> 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…

Am I the only person to notice the parallels between GPL and government ? BSD-style licenses can be compared to anarchism. Everyone can do what he wants. I haven't heard about anarchism producing nice societies except on small scale.*

However, a lot of people don't think a community without rules is a healthy or safe one. Freedom of one person ends where freedom of another person starts. So we sacrifice some freedom by agreeing to comply with the law. Law limits people, sure, but few argue it shouldn't exist. Only parts of it are debated (the implementation).

I think sacrificing some software rights GPL-style is good in the long term ! "I want to have the code for myself" vs "Everyone should have the code". GPL is just the more altruistic license. Not all restrictions are pointless just like we probably all agree law is beneficial for society at large. We should spend more time thinking what are the results of GPL restrictions, not automatically wave it away "it's a restriction, therefore it's wrong".

* I would really like to know some examples of successful anarchistic communities. The bigger, the better. You can make anything work on small scale.

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

#122

Post by rbanffy »

rbanffy wrote: post #99
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…

Let me put it in simple words. GPL is not about freedom for developers. It's about freedom for users. MIT and BSD-like languages don't care about user rights. They don't even care that much about the rights of programmers. All they demand is some form of recognition. GPL, on the other hand, allows you to build upon the work of others, provided you respect their wishes as to how you should use their work - that you do…

s/languages/licenses/

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

#123

Post by stuhacking »

mkr-hn wrote: post #98
stuhacking wrote: post #61

Does warranty come into this at all? There are terms in a lot of Free Software licenses that remove the obligation to provide support, accept liability for the product or even to guarantee its fitness for purpose. It seems to me that these aspects introduce a gap in the level of support Microsoft can offer for a product distributed on its platform since it doesn't necessarily have a way to delegate responsibility bac…

I think that's standard for both EULAs and free software licenses.

Thanks, maybe I should read a EULA sometime. ;-)

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

#124

Post by mkr-hn »

stuhacking wrote: post #123
mkr-hn wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think that's standard for both EULAs and free software licenses.

Thanks, maybe I should read a EULA sometime. ;-)

Read one, and you've read most of the rest. I've thought about reading one carefully, making notes, and running a diff on new ones.

Saves time and avoids risk.

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

#125

Post by btipling »

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 was not trolling. The GPL nominally stands for freedom but yet the means by which it forces restrictions is the opposite of freedom. I say if you want people to do something, do so by setting an example, not by writing weasel-worded legalese that ties peoples hands. Write code, release it under MIT, and let people do what they want with your code, and by doing that you're setting an example and encouraging others to do the same. You'll also encourage participation by businesses who would like to make use of your code in their proprietary system and everyone benefits when they contribute back because they don't have to worry about the stringent restrictions of the GPL.

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

#126

Post by zem »

unfasten wrote: post #113
zem wrote: post #32

as long as they don't require all software to come from the marketplace (a la apple), i have no problem with that.

As best as I can tell, they are requiring everything to come from Windows Marketplace. Developers can side load up to 10 applications on their phone, but it seems Microsoft even borrowed Apple's $99 yearly developer fee model. Developer side loading: http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ff769512(v=VS.92).as... $99 Annual fee: http://create.msdn.com/en-us/home/membership

that's sad. they might make some money in the short term, but i think they'll bleed mindshare in the long term. of course, it might work out the other way, where developers flock to them the way they did to the apple store, because there's a chance they'll make more money that way.

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

#127

Post by rbanffy »

koko775 wrote: post #117
rbanffy wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Given that most people are developers, not users In what universe?

In the universe where I accidentally transpose words. I meant that using BSD is better for developers than for users, I prefer to release code under licenses more permissive than the GPL.

But, if your universe is like mine and there are many more users than developers (who also happen to be users), it makes more sense to use *GPL-like licenses because they protect the rights of a majority.

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

#128

Post by metageek »

jedsmith wrote: post #68
metageek wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

GPL and BSD are both mechanisms to promote freedom. One is the freedom of a bill of rights, the other is the freedom of anarchy.

> One is the freedom of a bill of rights, the other is the freedom of anarchy. How is that even remotely a good analogy? Both of them are licenses that let you read the source, redistribute it, and modify it. They differ in what you have to do when you redistribute.

>How is that even remotely a good analogy?

Because the GPL binds you to preserve the freedom of your users, too; BSD says "do what thou wilt". Both ways have their advantages.

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

#129

Post by jasonlotito »

derleth wrote: post #101
jasonlotito wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

It's my understanding that in the past, things have lapsed into the public domain as copyright expired. However, laws changed, and these public domain items were put back under copyright protection. I cannot remember where I read it, or under what context.

That being said, what I said was, afaik, incorrect. If something is specially put into the public domain, it's there. The things I read about weren't explicitly put into the public domain by the copyright owner. They just fell out of copyright.

My apologies.

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

#130

Post by jasonlotito »

jedsmith wrote: post #80
jasonlotito wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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,…

> (Actually, I think their is a license that basically does with you'd think putting something into the pubic domain does, I just forget the name). CC0? https://creativecommons.org/choose/zero/ > This is true of pretty much all licensed code, including BSD. Couldn't agree more. Don't call it Free, and don't try to associate Free with the GPL at the expense of everything else (which seems to be the push). Libre too. B…

I believe it's: http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/mark/1.0/ though I don't really remember.

> the GPL is more restrictive than alternative licenses.

So, you don't like the GPL. That's fair. However, not everyone has the same goals as you.

Your main contention at the start, if I understood you correct, was that, we should be sharing and not repeating ourselves. I write something, publish it, share it, and you should be able to use it for your project without having to worry about licenses. And you see that as more free then with licenses that have arduous restrictions, like the GPL (Because, while the BSD does have restrictions, they are fairly easy to overcome). If I'm wrong with your overall view here, apologies.

Essentially, you want what people who use the GPL want: a community of sharing. You want it via choice, GPL users want it enforced. And that's where GPL users see the value in a license: they help push your agenda. So while BSD gives other people more freedom to do what they want with the code, it does nothing directly to push people toward that way of thinking.

My personal opinion is it's all fairly annoying. I just want to program. =)

Post reply on HN