“I wish I could have licensed the Id source code releases as BSD” • Hacker News Board

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

#171

Post by andrey_utkin » Tue, Jul 06, 2021, 9:03 AM UTC

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…

On behalf of FOSS developers, I am very sorry for the dysfunctions of your employer.

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

#172

Post by fao_ » Tue, Jul 06, 2021, 9:04 AM UTC

PoignardAzur wrote: post #156

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?…

> Dismissing empirical evidence by clinging to philosophical assertions?

Small nitpick -- Carmack's assertions are anecdotal, not empirical.

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

#173

Post by namdnay » Tue, Jul 06, 2021, 9:04 AM UTC

PoignardAzur wrote: post #156

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?…

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

Faith? Zealotry?

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

#174

Post by stavros » Tue, Jul 06, 2021, 9:08 AM UTC

jbluepolarbear wrote: post #170

stavros wrote: post #152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 sound like a great person to be around. Why would I pay you to use your foss when I can read it, understand it, improve it, and never even let you know about it because I decided to write my own version instead. Happens all the time because GPL is so restrictive. It’s easier and more cost effective to just rewrite the whole library than use a GPL one.

> You sound like a great person to be around.

Thanks!

> Why would I pay you to use your foss when I can [..] never even let you know about it because I decided to write my own version instead.

You wouldn't, and that's exactly what I want.

> It’s easier and more cost effective to just rewrite the whole library than use a GPL one.

Which is exactly as intended.

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

#175

Post by yosamino » Tue, Jul 06, 2021, 9:09 AM UTC

vsw02 wrote: post #121

saurik wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The GNU Foundation--and the GPL--put one thing at its most important focus: that "users"--the people who are actually using the software and entrusting it with their data or their lives--have guaranteed freedoms. People--such as myself--who use the GPL believe that these freedoms are extremely important: that "users" should be able to get access to the source code for programs and be able to modify them (...and befor…

You kind of gave up the game by pointing out that GPL-folk distinguish between developers and users. It’s the key flaw in the GPL approach and all you need do is scroll a little bit to find a developer being told to fuck off for merely questioning the source disclosure requirement of GPL. Why do the authors of software command less respect than users thereof from those ostensibly working to elevate software? Develope…

> Developers are users too. They use code.

The whole point of the GPL is that the reverse is true as well. If I - the user of the software - wants to become a developer of this software I can only do so if I have access to the source code.

That is not "mandating behaviour", if you are the original developer of a piece of software, you are free to take it closed source any time you wish.

If you benefitted from having the code of your software available to you, why would you want the right to prevent someone else to benefit in the same way ?

I am genuinely curious why that makes you feel so attacked.

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

#176

Post by lucian1900 » Tue, Jul 06, 2021, 9:11 AM UTC

globular-toast wrote: post #104

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…

Absolutely.

It’s not the only antidote to copyright, though. Dismantling the current legal system that is designed to protect profits above human need could solve the problem more permanently.

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

#177

Post by oliwarner » Tue, Jul 06, 2021, 9:11 AM UTC

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…

It's pretty disparaging that there are people on HN who feel confident enough to enter into discussions about software licencing —albeit on a throwaway account— but don't understand that software can have more than one license.

I'd like to think I do understand all sides of this, but I will admit AGPL does give me pause for thought. It makes sense for standalone projects which don't have to be integrated. But at component and library level, when there's so much MIT/BSD/etc on npm/pypi/etc, I don't have to think about it.

Does make me wonder why there isn't an ALGPL: "Use my network-expressed component as you like, but if you alter its source, you also need to redistribute the changes under the same license"…

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

#178

Post by trasz » Tue, Jul 06, 2021, 9:11 AM UTC

globular-toast wrote: post #168

trasz wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Erm, but it is GPL that’s being viral. Not copyright, and also not other Open Source licenses - just GPL. That’s why you won’t get a license incompatibility problem without GPL in the mix.

If you modify a public domain work, copyright comes back. If we're using virus analogies then copyright is like a retrovirus. Forever baked into the "DNA" of our legal systems and you can never be rid of it. I think, like many people, you consider copyright to be like some unquestionable right. But it's not. It was invented about 400 years ago and it's way out of date. We can and should question it. If you can't thin…

Does that copyright, coming back, have any actual consequences?

What people mean by virality is not some copyright coming back; it's the fact that GPL "spreads" via linking. And that does have consequences: it's where license incompatibility comes from, and it's also why you can't use GPL-ed code with code under other (Open Source) licenses.

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

#179

Post by trasz » Tue, Jul 06, 2021, 9:12 AM UTC

malka wrote: post #146

trasz wrote: post #139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

The answer is in the question.

Not really.

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

#180

Post by hankman86 » Tue, Jul 06, 2021, 9:12 AM UTC

fnord123 wrote: post #159

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…

That’s a fair argument to make, even though my counter point would be that first and foremost the (A)GPL excludes a community of developers who need to earn a living with their work. In fact, the FSF will call this “morally tainted”. That being said, the free software purists aren’t a particularly tolerant community.

And again, I actually like and endorse copyleft in the form of the LGPL. So basically a license that can co-exist with others and doesn’t force it’s ideology on other people and their work.