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

“I wish I could have licensed the Id source code releases as BSD”

twitter.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 468 posts

Re: “I wish I could have licensed the Id source code releases as BSD”

#101

Post by [deleted] »

epaga wrote: post #85
CorrectHorseBat wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why does the GPL license make it "useless for any commercial projects whatsoever"? Many commercial projects use GPL software. The only thing you have to do is provide sources under the same license if you release binaries. If you're not even willing to do that I understand some people rather have you not use their software.

"Not even"? This is a huge requirement for most cases. A small GPL library for, say, some statistics calculation, would mean an entire product's source code would need to be released if it used the library.

[deleted]

Re: “I wish I could have licensed the Id source code releases as BSD”

#102

Post by wsc981 »

kelnos wrote: post #74
wsc981 wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> There is no empirical evidence in what he says Didn't Apple remove all GPL-based code from the whole iOS and macOS dev infrastructure at some point due to GPL licensing concerns? I also believe Apple sticked for a very long time to an older version of GCC in the past, due to licensing concerns of newer versions of GCC [0]. That was, until Apple replaced GCC with Clang. And I am not sure if GPL-based code can even b…

> As a dev I always avoided GPL-based code in my iOS apps with the exception of GPL2 licensed static libraries (which to my understanding are ok to distribute as part of an app without licensing concerns). That... does not sound correct to me at all, unless they were actually LGPL2, and not GPL2.

Ah yes it was LGPL2 indeed.

Re: “I wish I could have licensed the Id source code releases as BSD”

#103

Post by bruce343434 »

epaga wrote: post #48

I'm still bummed out that for years, GPL was the "standard" go-to open source license. So many projects became useless for any commercial projects whatsoever. GPL advocates say it's so that your code isn't exploited by corporations. But I'd say that choosing GPL means it's more important to you that your code "is not exploited by corporations" than that it can be used for good by people with commercial interests. Tho…

Yeah right, you like to make money of off my work that I made available for free? You can buy the commercial license.

Re: “I wish I could have licensed the Id source code releases as BSD”

#104

Post by globular-toast »

I dislike people calling the GPL "viral". The thing that is viral is copyright. Copyright is baked into law and nobody can escape it. If you relinquish your own copyright then as soon as someone modifies the work copyright comes back. Copyleft is the only antidote we have for copyright. All Stallman et al really want is to "switch off" copyright. That would be obvious if people would listen to his talks. But instead we get a bunch of people thinking the GPL is "more restrictive" but what they really mean is "I want copyright for myself but not for you". Maybe copyleft was a mistake and we should really just fight copyright directly.

Re: “I wish I could have licensed the Id source code releases as BSD”

#105

Post by belorn »

epaga wrote: post #48

I'm still bummed out that for years, GPL was the "standard" go-to open source license. So many projects became useless for any commercial projects whatsoever. GPL advocates say it's so that your code isn't exploited by corporations. But I'd say that choosing GPL means it's more important to you that your code "is not exploited by corporations" than that it can be used for good by people with commercial interests. Tho…

Licenses are about choices. I do not want 7 year old girls to be sued. I don't want people to go to jail for helping others to take part in culture and enjoy art.

I want children (or everyone?) to have access to all of culture, knowledge and art regardless of their parents wealth. I want that researcher has access to research papers and software technology in order to enable the improvement of the human race, especially on the medical side.

I want life-critical and life-saving technology to be transparent and verifiable. I want technology that can be repaired and not arbitrary prevented from being repaired. I want that people have the ability to remove malicious code from devices that they own.

I do not want 20 years long government enforced monopolies on vague concepts. I do not want multiple lifetimes worth of government enforced monopolies on concrete art, culture and life-improving technologies.

People who want to use code for good with commercial interests could sign an agreement that follow those above wishes, including additional corner cases or obvious bad behavior which I might have forgotten. Alternative I can use a license that get me as close as I can using preexisting understanding of those licenses.

Re: “I wish I could have licensed the Id source code releases as BSD”

#106

Post by [deleted] »

[deleted] wrote: post #101
epaga wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Not even"? This is a huge requirement for most cases. A small GPL library for, say, some statistics calculation, would mean an entire product's source code would need to be released if it used the library.

[deleted]

[deleted]

Re: “I wish I could have licensed the Id source code releases as BSD”

#107

Post by dspillett »

epaga wrote: post #85
CorrectHorseBat wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why does the GPL license make it "useless for any commercial projects whatsoever"? Many commercial projects use GPL software. The only thing you have to do is provide sources under the same license if you release binaries. If you're not even willing to do that I understand some people rather have you not use their software.

"Not even"? This is a huge requirement for most cases. A small GPL library for, say, some statistics calculation, would mean an entire product's source code would need to be released if it used the library.

Exactly as intended, by most people choosing GPL. For a small libraries like that there is probably the option of negotiating a different license for your use.

If the larger software is so much more expansive than the little GPL covered work and so valuable, then the commercial interest presumably has the resources to either write their own or license a commercial variant.

I find a lot of complaints about the GPL come down to "why can't I do what I want to do with your stuff?" and the obvious answer, started before the question is even asked, is "because that is what we don't want". It isn't one extreme getting in the way and being a bad guy, it is the two ends of the spectrum being incompatible by default. This can be dealt with amicably by either negotiation or moving on and leaving the other "side" to do their thing without you. IMO trying to frame it, as some very much do with comments about viral licensing and such, as good-vs-bad, is either naive, entitled, or bad in itself, or some mix of the three.

Re: “I wish I could have licensed the Id source code releases as BSD”

#108

Post by epaga »

bruce343434 wrote: post #103
epaga wrote: post #48

I'm still bummed out that for years, GPL was the "standard" go-to open source license. So many projects became useless for any commercial projects whatsoever. GPL advocates say it's so that your code isn't exploited by corporations. But I'd say that choosing GPL means it's more important to you that your code "is not exploited by corporations" than that it can be used for good by people with commercial interests. Tho…

Yeah right, you like to make money of off my work that I made available for free? You can buy the commercial license.

Not at all. I don't feel entitled to anything.

Here's where I think the misunderstanding is, and maybe I should have made this point in my original comment: I do think there can absolutely be cases where a dual license of GPL / commercial can make a ton of sense. I think those cases tend to be for projects like Linux, Blender, etc.

But what I'm saying I personally think is a bummer is that for years, most open source projects - down to even small but useful libraries - were put under GPL simply because it was "the thing to do".

Like Carmack says, in my mind that is a net negative, since these libraries then were not able to be used by projects which were under other licenses, due to their copy-left viral nature.

Re: “I wish I could have licensed the Id source code releases as BSD”

#109

Post by [deleted] »

3np wrote: post #99
epaga wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Not even"? This is a huge requirement for most cases. A small GPL library for, say, some statistics calculation, would mean an entire product's source code would need to be released if it used the library.

In that case you’re very free to not use such a GPL library.

[deleted]

Re: “I wish I could have licensed the Id source code releases as BSD”

#110

Post by cblconfederate »

epaga wrote: post #48

I'm still bummed out that for years, GPL was the "standard" go-to open source license. So many projects became useless for any commercial projects whatsoever. GPL advocates say it's so that your code isn't exploited by corporations. But I'd say that choosing GPL means it's more important to you that your code "is not exploited by corporations" than that it can be used for good by people with commercial interests. Tho…

there is value to keeping something public in itself, like with parks and roads. If anything i d say that todays feudal state of tech proves that gpl was right

it s hard to deny that the most-used OSS software, is GPL

Post reply on HN