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

311–320 of 468 posts

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

#311

Post by tzs »

AnIdiotOnTheNet wrote: post #256
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?…

> 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. You think that's frustrating, try watching an expert talk about economics.

> You think that's frustrating, try watching an expert talk about economics.

Physics, too. I once mentioned on a forum that at least as the fat guy in my group of friends I coasted down a slope faster on my bicycle than did my skinny friends. (It was quite noticeable, too).

The number of people who jumped in to tell me I was wrong and attempted to do that math using their first semester freshman physics knowledge to prove it was astounding.

They did a decent job--for bicyclists on the Moon. For bicyclists on Earth--not so good. They all neglected wind resistance.

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

#312

Post by keonix »

stavros wrote: post #214
jbluepolarbear wrote: post #211

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It really bothers me how you gpl assholes think you own everything that touches your shit. Your toxic code has been intertwined so deeply with software and operating systems that it’s a literal minefield. You and people like you have cost countless headaches, lawyer fees, stress because you fee your code needs to be used and contributed to. It’s a fucking narcissistic license.

I'm sorry that my choice of license has prevented you from using my code without giving anything back to me. Well, I say "sorry", I more mean "very happy, because that's exactly what I wanted".

Oh boy, that was a fun thread to read! Thanks for a laugh at GP expense

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

#313

Post by temac »

bluGill wrote: post #284
wildmanx wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the key property of the GPL is its virality. It's part of the vision that if I can use some software, I can also change it, to adapt it to my needs, to learn from it, to build something on top of it. I can disassemble my bike, re-assemble it, change it, build on top of it. I want to do that with my browser, my OS kernel and my image viewer too. That this is connected to how "valuable" code is, is in a sense a…

> It allows you to reuse code but does not require the re-user to allow the above mentioned openness That is the dogma, but in practice it is false. Khtml was GPL, that didn't stop Apple from forking it in such a way that their changes couldn't be reused. In practice many who change BSD software find it worth while to contribute their changes back - so they can continue to use the latest version instead of maintainin…

khtml was and is still LGPLv2.1, webkit still is, and contains major work from Apple that obviously could and has been reused...

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

#315

Post by shadowgovt »

saurik wrote: post #69
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…

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…

That's the standard interpretation of the Four Freedoms. Unfortunately, I think it ignores that most users can't code. The Four Freedoms, practically, protect developers and the freedom to hack. These are good things to protect, but it's not the same as protecting the interests of users.

It can be argued that GPL'd code (in contrast to a license such as BSD) is less a net positive for users because the constraints the GPL places on how code may be used (requiring any user to expose modifications made to the GPL'd code along with a subset of the code connected to the modified code) means that some developers may not choose to use that code in their application. This results in fewer applications, which means fewer ways for users to solve their problems.

For Carmack in particular, I think that's the argument he's making. Carmack's goal isn't to guarantee developers maximum freedom to hack; his goal is to get his code in as many places as possible (because he prides himself on being the smartest guy in the room, and the more people use his code the more proof there is of that assertion). Maximal code adoption is not served by a GPL license; the GPL license sacrifices a bit of that opportunity to protect the developers' freedom to hack.

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

#316

Post by pgcj_poster »

alexeldeib wrote: post #210
eurg wrote: post #169

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teaching_grandmother_to_suck_e...

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

#317

Post by shadowgovt »

enriquto wrote: post #288

> The best aspects of GPL work didn't manifest That's strongly from the point of view of people who are mainly developers. But the main beneficiaries of the GPL are not developers but users : users of GPL software have the right to view and modify the code that runs on their computers. On the contrary, users of BSD-licensed software may have had this right stripped by middlemen between the author of the software and…

I don't think it does. A user who cannot have an application to solve their problem (because no developer they can find to pay will write it for them because some key ingredient of the solution is in a GPL'd library) is not happier than a user who has a solution built of closed-source code combined with BSD-licensed code.

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

#318

Post by nextaccountic »

gameswithgo wrote: post #298
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?…

Linus Torvalds has similar conversations with gpl advocates regularly. “no, i am happy for companies to use linux this way”. And the people just can’t handle this idea. Like suggesting that god doesn’t exist to someone devout.

But Linux is GPL! And Linus himself believes Linux wouldn't have become what it is now if it weren't for GPL.

In the context of Linus values, open source means basically the right of forking software, but copyleft means the right of merging back worthwhile patches from downstream forks. This is absolutely critical in an industry full of binary blobs: this is basically the reason we have any kind of source code for Android kernel drivers, routers, and many other products.

What Linus doesn't value is the goals of free software movement: empowering the user of the computer. He just wants the code. That's why he doesn't care about tivoization, but he cares a lot about GPL.

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

#319

Post by seoaeu »

jasode wrote: post #255
belorn wrote: post #231

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The best aspects of GPL work didn't manifest Did someone get sued for downloading a copy of a game with the quake source code in it? Did someone release a game with quake code in it, only to go after users for patent infringement? DRM locked devices built on the quake code? A license is simply the condition for which an author allows others to do things for which copyright law make illegal. There is also a culture…

>A license is simply the condition [...] I don't think reducing it to that actually helps the discussion. A license/law/policy can't be analyzed via its bare verbatim text. One also has to look at its unintended effects in the real world. Yes, the GPL license has noble intentions but that doesn't mean it's immune from causing actions that indirectly contradict its goal . (Wikipedia article on that phenomenon: https:/…

One problem with arguing that something is an unintended consequence is that you have to prove that they're not among the intended consequences for the creator. I'm really not convinced that the original GPL authors weren't aware that their license would somewhat reduced openness (relative to permissive licenses) in its pursuit of other goals.

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

#320

Post by whoknowswhat11 »

gameswithgo wrote: post #298
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?…

Linus Torvalds has similar conversations with gpl advocates regularly. “no, i am happy for companies to use linux this way”. And the people just can’t handle this idea. Like suggesting that god doesn’t exist to someone devout.

This was part of the v3 fight - he wanted software free, but also so you were free to use it. Didn't mind that you could use it with locked down hardware (TiVo / cars / phones / med devices / security etc)- still had to release source
Post reply on HN