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

461–468 of 468 posts

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

#461

Post by renewiltord »

trasz wrote: post #441
renewiltord wrote: post #382

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is wrong. 3-clause BSD requires reproduction of copyright notice. You cannot distribute commercial derivatives of BSD-licensed code without including attribution. It’s literally clause two.

That’s why I’ve asked about the modern BSD license, the one without the advertising clause. But even with the old one, having to add one more disclaimer to the usual page of disclaimers somewhere in the documentation is not a problem, while meeting requirements of copyleft licenses - even non-viral ones - can be problematic.

2-clause BSD also requires reproduction of the copyright notice. It’s clause two.

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

#462

Post by matkoniecz »

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) it helps their competitors

2) they may change their mind

3) they may pay for dual licensing (in case of work by a single author)

In general interests of unfriendly corporations and mine are more likely to be opposite than shared.

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

#463

Post by ric2b »

ClumsyPilot wrote: post #230
elevader wrote: post #157

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd guess that most simply don't care as this is really just an issue for the company, not the author. If the project is licensed with MIT/BSD it still isn't really likely that the company will contribute/donate/whatever. So I'd argue that companies not wanting to negotiate doesn't really change anything for >90% of OS projects, they would not gain anything with a more permissive license either.

Companies certainly are to blame, but most OSS projects need support and I want to support them, but they make it impossible. Why do you want to negotiate? Large corps are burocracies. I can only get mine to donate to a registered charity, is your project one? To pay a bill is easier. There are few people that have authority to negotiate and their time is expensive. If they spend two hours to "negotiate", they are ch…

> There are few people that have authority to negotiate and their time is expensive. If they spend two hours to "negotiate", they are charging a pile of money the company could have paid you instead.

Right, but making my code MIT won't get me paid either.

I will just spend more of my free time offering free support to some large enterprise that can't even figure out how to make a 1h negotiation happen without wasting boatloads of money.

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

#464

Post by ric2b »

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?

Less time wasted on free support requests would be one way.

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

#465

Post by ric2b »

trasz wrote: post #362
drran wrote: post #204

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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)?

Because - as it happens fairly frequently in BSD land - said corp might change their minds and contribute back, code and/or money.

Ok, when they change their minds they can start using GPL code with no issues.

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

#466

Post by ric2b »

trasz wrote: post #145
tpoacher wrote: post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, especially if the code not being GPL means the bad actor can create a product which then makes your code useless, or worse, evil (via a monopoly, bundled telemetry, or otherwise)

Can you show a scenario demonstrating how GPL prevents this from happening?

Here's a very recent example, the Audacity fork without all the new telemetry and related issues: https://github.com/tenacityteam/tenacity

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

#467

Post by ric2b »

benhurmarcel wrote: post #247
CyberRabbi wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why do people feel entitled to GPL-licensed work? If you are producing code for a commercial purpose then you have the resources to pay for the code to be written. Just because GPL code is in the open does not mean it’s wasted if companies can’t use it for their own profit.

If you make a cake and smash it on the floor, I can call it a waste without feeling entitled to get some.

Awful comparison. GPL is more like a group of people that meet regularly to share cake recipes with the agreement that if anyone has new ideas for those recipes they should share them with whoever they bake cakes for instead of keeping them secret.

And then along comes CakeCompany LTD, complaining that they just want to be part of the group to learn recipes for free without sharing any ideas back, because it would be bad for business, and calling the group a bunch of idiot zealots that are wasting cake recipes by not letting CakeCompany LTD add some nicotine to one of the group's recipes without letting their customers know what their modified recipe is.

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

#468

Post by rStar »

eeegnu wrote: post #66
rStar wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

i don’t see that. i see carmac reminiscing as, wouldn’t it have been nice if this had happened rather than that, while clearly acknowledging that his business partners would not have gone along with ‘that’. the implication I draw, having no more info than these tweets, is that, after some discussion, JC and Id compromised on using the GPL to license the DOOM source, versus not releasing the DOOM source. The GPL allow…

You're correctly inferring what JC is saying, but missing the point the other poster made; which was to imagine that history had gone differently, BSD was approved as the license, the source code was still publicly available, and how that would have benefited (or been detriment) to the widespread usage of the source code.

i'm dismissing the point the other poster made, because what I see as important is what actually happened. what I see as important about what actually happened is that the BSD license was incompatible with the situation, and if only the BSD/MIT whatever license was available, no one outside of Id or one of their contractors would ever have seen the doom source. I see that availability of the DOOM source as a great good for humanity which wouldn't have happened in a world where no GPL exists.
Post reply on HN