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

411–420 of 468 posts

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

#411

Post by jbluepolarbear »

oliwarner wrote: post #257
jbluepolarbear wrote: post #208

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

What you're both saying is there is licensing ignorance. People read "open source" ignore the small print, get in trouble. GPL isn't special there, EULAs and enterprise software licenses are horrible, but I can understand the broader point that GPL makes you think, and thinking hurts. The point I maintain is, in Id's position at the time, a MIT/BSD license would have just cost them their engine business. Their code w…

I’ve been in software a long time and I’ve had to navigate the gpl and it derivatives the entire time. I primarily work in games and I’ve run into a lot of issues with gpl along my career. For most of my career lawyers dictate what is and isn’t acceptable for software licenses and gpl is always the biggest issue. Which gpl license? Is there a single license holder? I feel the gpl was enacted with good intentions, but I feel the wrong people enacted it. Too radical in many ways, too restrictive, and so aggressively enforced that it at least makes using gpl libraries a hard decision.

I think that open source projects, that aren’t gpl, have proved that you can build software and still money from it. Godot, React, Chromium, and Node to name a few. Active development is worth much more than the actual code and encouraging your users to contribute back without the cost of giving away their product has allowed these and similar projects to grow.

I think ID would have had a similar experience had they gone with a different license.

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

#412

Post by drran »

simion314 wrote: post #376
drran wrote: post #332

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you are looking for the smallest case, then look at Oracle vs Google multibillion debate about this function: private static void rangeCheck(int arrayLen, int fromIndex, int toIndex) { if (fromIndex > toIndex) throw new IllegalArgumentException("fromIndex(" + fromIndex + ") > toIndex(" + toIndex+")"); if (fromIndex arrayLen) throw new ArrayIndexOutOfBoundsException(toIndex); } https://www.copperpodip.com/post/orac…

That big case was about APIs but I found that of course copy pasting code is a lcense violation, but the judge/jury did not force any re-licensing "Alsup did agree with the jury that the rangeCheck function and eight security files were a copyright infringement, but the only relief available was statutory damages up to a maximum of US$150,000" So your argument is exactly my point, the license is not infecting your pr…

Of course, it's not a magic, because everything is written in clear text, but it works:

> However, in this case, Donald writes, "with Cisco, years of trying to work through their predecessor's compliance problems didn't generate the progress we were hoping for, so we had filed a lawsuit. It was quickly settled, and compliance was achieved." > > There’s an even brighter silver lining to this story: Cisco later became a contributor to the GNU Project. "It really is a success story in bringing a violator into the free software community," Donald wrote.

For a proprietary code, it doesn't work because a commercial company is looking for profit.

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

#413

Post by yosamino »

vsw02 wrote: post #385
yosamino wrote: post #222

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I apologize for misunderstanding you. I read you writing of commanding less respect as a developer and being "the second class in this picture" as feeling attacked. If I am honest, I did not understand your point, then. Your start-off was that the GPL segments between users and developers and disagreeing with that. What I tried to offer as a counterpoint, is that the GPL does not actually segment between the two, it…

Right, understood. You can’t have your beliefs without excluding mine. Totally understand where you’re coming from. I refer you back to the pointless battle to understand why this is the last time we will speak. I gave you room to do your thing, pointed out people could have different priorities, and you still spent half your comment telling me how my behavior is wrong . What are you expecting? My gosh, you’re right,…

> you’d have known the shaming sermon with a lot of “you” thrown in

Hmm, I am not trying to shame you into anything. I was using "you" in the generic sense. Like this here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generic_you I can understand, though, how you might have misunderstood me here. Even though I am just a stranger . That was not the clearest of way to speak, even though I have spoken it for a long time, English is not my first language. Then again, it is usually best to try and assume good intent.

I do have a feeling (possibly incorrectly) that your (vsw02´s) usage of "you" is directed at me (yosamino) directly, though. And since you have clearly deduced that I do not even know what I am doing, and I am clearly too stupid to understand the point that you are making, while you already know all of mine, I would like to agree: it's best this ends here.

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

#414

Post by Crespyl »

tgsovlerkhgsel wrote: post #391
enriquto wrote: post #303

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And what is your point? It's a freedom that they still have. They can always hire some developer to help them.

That it is reasonable to prioritize freedoms that are actually exercised to freedoms that are nice in theory but never used.

I also own a car for which I have almost none of the skills to meaningfully maintain and repair, but frequently exercise my right to contract a third party to do that work for me.

The same is true for software, and I benefit even if I'm not the one paying for the work myself. The modern internet would look very different if KHTML hadn't been a GPL/LGPL project and Apple had been allowed to hold their changes in WebKit as a proprietary secret, and the same for Chrome/Blink. Companies can be users too, and the virality ensures that every user sees the benefits.

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

#415

Post by VectorLock »

defaultname wrote: post #407
VectorLock wrote: post #383

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thats where the "sour grapes" come from. When another person takes a valuable thing that someone else made and turns it into monetary gain they feel like that is "stealing." It is less obvious because its not as directly and easily measurable when a direct dollar sign is put on a product. The same feeling happens when big tech builds huge profit machines using something a person made and gave away as a cog without co…

"You call it sour grapes and then describe how someone is stealing something of value." This is absurd, and this is just circular. I feel like many of the open source arguments, particularly GPL-based, are predicated on detached bullshit.

When something doesn't have a precise dollar value attached to it, does it not quality as stealing?

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

#416

Post by belorn »

tzs wrote: post #302
belorn wrote: post #235

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Scientific research is patented and exclusively copyrighted under publisher. If all scientific research were public and accessible we would not have sci-hub, and they would not currently be in court. We would also not live in a world where scientist has to work around patents and in some cases chose alternative research areas just because they can't afford (or use the result) because of patents. In addition there is…

> Scientific research is patented and exclusively copyrighted under publisher. Research is not copyrighted. Particular write-ups of the research are copyrighted.

I am not sure I understand your point of distinction. Yes, Die Gedanken Sind Frei, the knowledge that exist in the researcher head is not copyrighted. The knowledge written down in the research paper by the researcher is. The knowledge in the head can however be patented, and so rendered unusable until the property owner has gotten paid.

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

#417

Post by tzs »

donkeybeer wrote: post #394
tzs wrote: post #311

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

Wind resistance should slow down the larger person more.

The force from wind resistance should be more on the larger person. It should be proportional, at a given wind speed, to the ratio of their cross sectional areas.

The acceleration from a given force is inversely proportional to the mass of the body it is applied to.

The larger person has more mass and a larger cross sectional area. The question then is this:

Is Mf/Ms > Af/As,

where Mf and Ms are the masses of the fat and skinny persons, and Af and As are the cross sectional areas of the fat and skinny persons?

If Mf/Ms > Af/As then the fat person will feel less force from wind resistance at a given speed than will the skinny person.

Let's say my mass was 50% higher than my friend's mass. Unless my cross sectional area is also 50% higher than theirs, I'll experience less acceleration from wind resistance than they do at a given velocity.

If my increased mass came from just being bigger in all dimensions, I'd be 14% bigger in all dimensions, and have 31% more cross sectional area.

In reality, the increase in cross sectional area is even less than that. When you get fat you don't get taller. You get wider, but not as much as you get longer. Height and width are the ones that matter for cross sectional area assuming you aren't ridding side saddle.

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

#418

Post by simion314 »

drran wrote: post #412
simion314 wrote: post #376

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That big case was about APIs but I found that of course copy pasting code is a lcense violation, but the judge/jury did not force any re-licensing "Alsup did agree with the jury that the rangeCheck function and eight security files were a copyright infringement, but the only relief available was statutory damages up to a maximum of US$150,000" So your argument is exactly my point, the license is not infecting your pr…

Of course, it's not a magic, because everything is written in clear text, but it works: > However, in this case, Donald writes, "with Cisco, years of trying to work through their predecessor's compliance problems didn't generate the progress we were hoping for, so we had filed a lawsuit. It was quickly settled, and compliance was achieved." > > There’s an even brighter silver lining to this story: Cisco later became…

>For a proprietary code, it doesn't work because a commercial company is looking for profit.

So you would prefer you had by mistake infringed on MS/Google or Oracle code then some dude's GPL shitty left pad ? For me it seems that the license is not important but who exactly you upset.

Anyway the point is the license did not infected Google code, Google had to pay damages and it could have been GPL or other proprietary license.

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

#419

Post by moonchild »

Jyaif wrote: post #349
moonchild wrote: post #186

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The profit does not come from the source code, but from the assets. There are games which are fully opensource, but where you have to pay for the assets (and where the source code was released at the same time as the rest of the game). This was not the case for doom, but the demo for doom was free and came out at the same time; the engine was always freely available.

> The profit does not come from the source code, but from the assets. Which is why Unity and the Unreal Engine are free. Oh wait...

Yes, unity and unreal engine are game engines which are sold to game developers. Doom is a game which was sold to end users, and whose engine was free. Clearly those are different...
Post reply on HN