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

201–210 of 468 posts

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

#201

Post by paavohtl »

ognarb wrote: post #76
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…

Blender, Krita, Wordpress, Drupal, Nextcloud and many other projects are commercial and (A)GPL. As long as you share the sources of your modifications, you are free to use their code.

All of the projects you mentioned except Nextcloud are owned and developed by non-profits.

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

#202

Post by jbluepolarbear »

stavros wrote: post #198
jbluepolarbear wrote: post #193

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

No you’re smug because you want to own my changes that I made to facilitate my needs. Even worse if you feel my changes aren’t acceptable I’ll have to fork your project and maintain a divergence anyway. So yes GPL is bad and is a poison.

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

#203

Post by mannerheim »

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?

If you read between the lines, this is the very reason why Id released the source code as GPL instead of BSD: They didn't want their competitors to take their engine, make proprietary improvements, and deprive Id of revenue using their own work.

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

#204

Post by drran »

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?

1) If I and said did not collaborate, then it will not help me, or anyone else.

2) If said corp refuse to collaborate with me and will use my code for free instead, then it will not help me, or anyone else, except said corp.

Why I should care about (2)?

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

#205

Post by amelius »

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.

You can very well reason about licenses in a logical (mathematical) manner, so it is a bit strange to speak in terms of "empirical" or "anecdotal".

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

#206

Post by belorn »

tpoacher wrote: post #131
belorn wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

a.k.a. "For God's sake, think of the children!!!1!"

Many games are designed towards the younger part of the population.

But I am not sold on the idea that only children have a right to culture, art and knowledge regardless of social economic status. There is plenty of good arguments in favor of giving everyone equal access regardless of the ability to pay. The issue tend to come to how society should then go around incentivize and enable those who produce such culture, art and knowledge.

The struggle for economic justice and the equality of persons is not universally admired, so we have to start somewhere. Not suing children for accessing culture, art and knowledge is such start, and it would be great if the law recognized that.

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

#207

Post by paavohtl »

cblconfederate wrote: post #110
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

It's easy to deny, as long as we include libraries in the definition of "software". ZLib is bundled with macOS, iOS, basically every Linux distribution, every game console and even every Windows 10 installation [1] [2]. Same for extremely common libraries like libpng, Curl, SQLite, Boost and OpenSSL.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zlib [2] https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/legal/products/notices/win

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

#208

Post by jbluepolarbear »

oliwarner wrote: post #137
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…

Id engines —as well as many other projects— were dual licensed, GPL or Proprietary. If you wanted to make a game with one, it either had to be GPL too, or you paid for a traditional licence. This got Id paid and let modders and the open source gaming community go wild. What's the downside? Carmack's argument about perception, but his view is really about having had more people use his software. I think he's wrong. Br…

I know a lot of game developers that have never messed with Id tech because of the license, so what Carmack is saying makes sense. Yes I’ve read the Id tech code that’s been released but I’ve never thought for one second to use the code because of the license.

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

#209

Post by xunn0026 »

foxes wrote: post #96
xunn0026 wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Have you heard of... patents? Why is an idea written on paper so valuable? Why can't people just use it (or, as it often happens, independently rediscover it) and just cite the patent if recognition is required? As for scientific research, most of the software behind scientific paper is basically closed source. Which is another reason why there's a whole reproducibility problem with science papers: it's quite possibl…

I agree scientific papers should be open source. It is not acceptable there is a proliferation of bad practice. That seems a different issue however.

It's not a different issue. You used academic papers as the standard we could use for open source and it's provably worse.

Even copyright... isn't Elsevier a major copyright holder for all academic papers and thus causing all sorts of problems. It's not like it's all kumbaya out there. The academic world is much worse than GPL and open source on multiple dimensions.

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

#210

Post by alexeldeib »

eurg wrote: post #169
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?…

Mansplaining? It happens to men too, not just by. A bit generic, though.

I'd use mansplaining. I do find it funny there isn't an older (?) phrase for the same.
Post reply on HN