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

151–160 of 468 posts

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

#151

Post by zanny »

belorn wrote: post #105
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, especia…

> to use code for good with commercial interests

You can use GPL code commercially. You just have to publish source on anything it touches. It that makes your business model nonviable, the amount of good you were doing is... questionable.

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

#152

Post by stavros »

hankman86 wrote: post #149

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…

> the GPL is becoming irrelevant and is displaced by permissive licenses

Is it really? I've recently switched to AGPL because I specifically don't want you using my stuff if you aren't going to give back. If you want to make money off something, feel free to pay for the initial investment, instead of using my work for free.

> Developers do not collectively or exclusively want to work for free and live a life of poverty.

Which is why I use the AGPL. If you want to make money off my work, pay me.

> Not to mention that the GPL is simply too risky and expensive to use in any commercial context.

Good! At this point, I'd be happier if everyone who wanted to contribut to OSS played in one sandbox, and everyone who just wanted to use OSS for gain without giving anything back went somewhere else.

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

#153

Post by drran »

foxes wrote: post #55

Why is a few snippets of code so valuable anyway? We don't GPL scientific research, you expect people to cite you, and then build off your work, the licensing in a sense is far more permissive. You don't GPL maths text books and then require proofs to be licensed back. Other knowledge doesn't seem to propagate in society like this. The human element of the programmer who can understand, adapt and develop some program…

1) Your analogy is wrong, because none of the software licenses forces a user to have a license for his work. Moreover, a math book has strong copyright protection. You cannot just copy the math book and sell it as your own. GPL allows that.

2) Yep, the whole idea of GPL is to allow those good sources to propagate freely and get reused. Read the license, please.

3) Citation model is the core of BSD license, so use it for your own code.

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

#154

Post by hankman86 »

0dayz wrote: post #150

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

Actually there is. The LGPL is sort of a middle ground. It still requires you to share changes that you may make to some library. But it won’t easily infect the rest of your stack, so it’s basically the GPL with the viral bits removed.

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

#155

Post by stavros »

ClumsyPilot wrote: post #128
dspillett wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 com…

"there is probably the option of negotiating a different license for your use." I feel most people don't understand that their projects are unbillable and "negotiating" is not an option. If you project is avaliable through AWS/GCP console I could "pay" at my discresion. If there was a clear price and billing details, I can email my boss and get it authorised If something needs to be negotiated, we have to get senior…

This is a great point, and something that definitely needs to change. However, as you say, the solution to "you don't have an easy way for me to pay you" isn't best solved by "so make your stuff free".

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

#156

Post by PoignardAzur »

I'm very frustrated by some of the answers here and on Twitter. Carmack says:

> The GPL virality wound up being a net negative, and more value would have come from BSD. [...] The best aspects of GPL work didn't manifest, but tons of opportunities to just copy-paste-modify were lost due to license concerns.

One of the answers on Twitter:

> Then what if it's being exploited by big techs and make your work proprietary? GPL preserves the four essential freedoms, BSD does not.

Yes. Okay. Carmack is aware of that.

When he says "The best aspects of GPL work didn't manifest", he specifically addressing those concerns, and saying that he basically saw no benefit from "not being exploited by big techs".

Like, I find it intensely frustrating that, when an industry veteran says "I've heard the pros and cons of each approach and I found that in my real-life experience GPL was a net negative", people answer with a 101 on the philosophy of GPL.

Is there a word for that? Dismissing empirical evidence by clinging to philosophical assertions?

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

#157

Post by elevader »

ClumsyPilot wrote: post #128
dspillett wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 com…

"there is probably the option of negotiating a different license for your use." I feel most people don't understand that their projects are unbillable and "negotiating" is not an option. If you project is avaliable through AWS/GCP console I could "pay" at my discresion. If there was a clear price and billing details, I can email my boss and get it authorised If something needs to be negotiated, we have to get senior…

I'd guess that most simply don't care as this is really just an issue for the company, not the author. If the project is licensed with MIT/BSD it still isn't really likely that the company will contribute/donate/whatever. So I'd argue that companies not wanting to negotiate doesn't really change anything for >90% of OS projects, they would not gain anything with a more permissive license either.

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

#158

Post by hankman86 »

stavros wrote: post #152
hankman86 wrote: post #149

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…

> the GPL is becoming irrelevant and is displaced by permissive licenses Is it really? I've recently switched to AGPL because I specifically don't want you using my stuff if you aren't going to give back. If you want to make money off something, feel free to pay for the initial investment, instead of using my work for free. > Developers do not collectively or exclusively want to work for free and live a life of pover…

You’re basically using the AGPL like a “freemium” upselling business model. I’ve got no issues with that, it’s your property after all. Just don’t tell the world that you sign up to the FSF nonsense about software freedom.

And be prepared that this may not work out for you. The AGPL is particularly nasty and even infects across network boundaries (not tested in court though). No one with a sane state of mind will even come close to AGPL software - unless they’re a not for-profit entity.

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

#159

Post by fnord123 »

hankman86 wrote: post #149

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…

>which asks you to give back without being the license cancer that is the (A)GPL.

fwiw, cancer isn't contagious, so if you touch (A)GPL 'cancer' then you wouldn't get 'cancer'. If you wanted to disparage it, call it license herpes. Or license genital warts. Or license gonorrhoea (and you can flex that you know how to spell it).

Personally, I hope you can be convinced, some day, to see licenses as a tool for building communities. Some tools are appropriate for some communities and other tools for others. Nothing for everybody, something for everyone.

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

#160

Post by malka »

ClumsyPilot wrote: post #128
dspillett wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 com…

"there is probably the option of negotiating a different license for your use." I feel most people don't understand that their projects are unbillable and "negotiating" is not an option. If you project is avaliable through AWS/GCP console I could "pay" at my discresion. If there was a clear price and billing details, I can email my boss and get it authorised If something needs to be negotiated, we have to get senior…

then write it yourself, we do now owe you anything.
Post reply on HN