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

191–200 of 468 posts

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

#191

Post by [deleted] »

fao_ wrote: post #172
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.

[deleted]

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

#193

Post by jbluepolarbear »

stavros wrote: post #174
jbluepolarbear wrote: post #170

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

That was the intention on the GPL? To discourage use and sharing code? Because people still share a lot of code, they just choose a better license. I say better because the GPL is bad, it is the worst part of the Linux ecosystem and the worst part of embedded systems tool chains. I’ve contributed to a few open source project, but never a gpl one. Smug programmers like you are the worst part of open source.

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

#194

Post by globular-toast »

trasz wrote: post #178
globular-toast wrote: post #168

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The GPL is only as powerful as copyright. GPL relies on copyright to "spread". Copyright is the virus. GPL just uses the virus against itself in a very clever way.

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

#195

Post by pavlov »

mikevm wrote: post #187

What is the point in releasing your code as GPL anyway? If you've solved some interesting problem, then people can read your code to figure it out and then reimplement it, and no one will ever find out.

If the code base is large and popular enough, like the Linux kernel or Emacs or FFMPEG, then such “dirty-room reverse engineering” doesn’t really help you much — your product still wouldn’t be compatible without conspicuous amounts of GPL code.

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

#196

Post by mannerheim »

trasz wrote: post #178
globular-toast wrote: post #168

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

GPL 'spreads' via linking because copyright spreads via linking. If you write a program and I link to it, we both own the resulting work. Your copyright has 'infected' the work. The license in this case can be anything, even a proprietary one, so it isn't the GPL that's special here.

License incompatibilities are certainly possible with proprietary licenses, there's nothing special about the GPL (or copyleft) from other copyright licenses that grants it magical incompatibility properties. Someone could license you software only to use in industry A while somebody else forbids you from using their software in that industry. There are also plenty of non-free licenses that require use to be non-commercial that could face a similar problem.

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

#197

Post by hankman86 »

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…

I think one of the reasons for why the GPL as once more popular than other licenses has to do with the fact that it was created for the GNU operating system, basically a collection of simple command line utilities. No one would think of using these in other ways than to run them on the command line (or in a batch file), which is explicitly excluded from the “derivative work” concept of the GPL.

Things got complicated once people put libraries under the GPL, which is when all the legal uncertainties cropped up about what constitutes derivative work.

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

#198

Post by stavros »

jbluepolarbear wrote: post #193
stavros wrote: post #174

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

That was the intention on the GPL? To discourage use and sharing code? Because people still share a lot of code, they just choose a better license. I say better because the GPL is bad, it is the worst part of the Linux ecosystem and the worst part of embedded systems tool chains. I’ve contributed to a few open source project, but never a gpl one. Smug programmers like you are the worst part of open source.

> That was the intention on the GPL? To discourage use and sharing code?

Yes, the intention was very explicitly to discourage use and sharing to people who didn't intend to share alike.

> Smug programmers like you are the worst part of open source.

I'm smug because I want you to share your changes to my code back? Good to know, I guess.

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

#199

Post by jbluepolarbear »

oliwarner wrote: post #184
jbluepolarbear wrote: post #170

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

It's easier and more cost effective to buy a proprietary license from the author.

That’s only if their project hasn’t been tainted by other gpl poison contributions. Cause I’d then have to find that person and get a license and so on.

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

#200

Post by drran »

simion314 wrote: post #47
horstmeyer wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My understanding is that when Copilot automatically inserts some GPL licensed code fragment into your project, your project automatically has to become GPL licensed, whether you want and realize or not.

>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…

Few cases are listed here: https://wiki.fsfe.org/Migrated/GPL%20Enforcement%20Cases .
Post reply on HN