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

141–150 of 468 posts

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

#141

Post by simion314 »

drran wrote: post #58
simion314 wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>your project, your project automatically has to become GPL licensed, whether you want and realize or not. This is not exactly true, GPL is not magic that automatically re-licenses your code behind your back. What actually happens is your are in violation of the GPL , one way to solve the violation is that you re-license your code (so you have to do it, it is not happening behind your back automatically). I am not aw…

NeXT (now Apple) has this experience: > The C compiler in use at the time was GCC, which was released under the GPL. To avoid the restrictions of this code, NeXT provided its front end as a library that end users would link against GCC, thereby avoiding the GPL (which only applies to distribution of the software, not how you use it). This little legal maneuver didn't work, however, so NeXT was forced to release the c…

Can you provide a link on the "forced" part ? Maybe they realized that is fucking OK to respect the license , they would not like it if someone fucks with their proprietary code either.

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

#142

Post by drran »

quickthrower2 wrote: post #27
rStar wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would never have had the opportunity to read the DOOM source if JC had insisted on using BSD, because, as JC tweets, his business partners at Id soft would not have gone for it. ipso facto the GPL + Id + JC are responsible for this privilege being available to us all.

Can’t it be rereleased with a BSD license now if the copyright holder agree?

Copyright holder can do anything he wants with his code, so yes, John can rerererererelease his own code under different license. However, you cannot do that, even if the copyright holder told you something. He may change his mind tomorrow, or in a year, so you will have no legal ground for this act of piracy then.

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

#143

Post by lmm »

trasz wrote: post #123
drran wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Which is very useful feature for me, the author of GPL'ed code.

Making your code useless to some of potential users is a useful feature?

I'd rather an end user not get my code at all than they get a frozen binary that they can never fix bugs in.

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

#144

Post by happymellon »

EdSchouten wrote: post #49
happymellon wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is the fundamental difference between BSD and GPL. GPL is is Open Source but for you to benefit, you have to make derivative works GPL. BSD is Open Source and you can close derivatives so that you benefit and you don't have to share back. I'm not sure how you don't see how an auto-suggest tool that inserts GPL code into yours is different to BSD.

Does Copilot in its current form auto-inject copyright notices for all BSD licensed code from which output is derived? As far as I know, it does not. This means that authors of BSD licensed code have their rights violated to the same degree as those of GPL licensed code.

Yes, in this case the licence is violated by default, by all code that CoPilot generates.

The point was that you can fix attribution errors pretty simply once they are uncovered, its a lot harder to pull GPL code out of your project to prevent you from having to relicence.

It doesn't sound like it is fit for purpose.

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

#145

Post by trasz »

tpoacher wrote: post #138
trasz wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Making your code useless to some of potential users is a useful feature?

Yes, especially if the code not being GPL means the bad actor can create a product which then makes your code useless, or worse, evil (via a monopoly, bundled telemetry, or otherwise)

Can you show a scenario demonstrating how GPL prevents this from happening?

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

#146

Post by malka »

trasz wrote: post #139
malka wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I do not care if "potential user" is big corp that do not intend to contribute back. So yeah, it is a feature.

Still, how preventing said corp from using this software help you, or anyone else?

The answer is in the question.

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

#147

Post by deallocator »

epaga wrote: post #83
matkoniecz wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why GPL makes them useless? In my view, if your business requires leeching on unpaid work without contributing back I am happy about my code being useless for you.

GPL makes "them" (especially small one-off libraries) useless because even the smallest part can not be used without therefore needing to "contribute back" the ENTIRE app. (edited to clarify I don't mean ALL projects become useless through GPL)

Sure you can, you just have to pay for the dual (commercial) license

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

#148

Post by rvnx »

malka wrote: post #120

> "but tons of opportunities to just copy-paste-modify were lost due to license concerns". Well, that's the point. GPL is working as intented.

It doesn't solve the issue. GPL people would have taken the BSD code, do a minor change, and force everyone to redistribute the source-code under GPL.

Really terrible license.

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

#149

Post by hankman86 »

Let’s face it: the GPL is becoming irrelevant and is displaced by permissive licenses. Projects using the GPL are increasingly held back and are losing favour among developers. Like LLVM is a very active and innovative platform, whereas GCC is essentially stuck in its original scope.

Why? Because the world is more complicated than the FSF ideologues want it to be. Developers do not collectively or exclusively want to work for free and live a life of poverty.

Not to mention that the GPL is simply too risky and expensive to use in any commercial context. There are countless lawyers consulting organisations on how to avoid the viral aspects of GPL-licensed code. And since case law is scarce, more often than not the advice will be: avoid the (A)GPL like the plague.

The only meaningful and morally acceptable “copyleft” license is the LGPL, which asks you to give back without being the license cancer that is the (A)GPL.

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

#150

Post by 0dayz »

I think that the issue at hand is that there is no middle ground license that is made for the community and for businesses in mind and instead its either one extreme or the other.

Also its really annoying people say gpl is some anti corporation license or a license for the community, since Stallman has been explicitly clear its about giving "freedom" to the end user

Post reply on HN