Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Project includes a dependancy that has a license that forbids its use

github.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 249 posts

Re: Project includes a dependancy that has a license that forbids its use

#61

Post by bhaak »

zdw wrote: post #31
bouk wrote: post #25

I love that all the discussion here is about the license I wrote and not about the actual project, which is a completely terrible idea and something I created as a lark. Why did I not spell this out in the blog post? For my own amusement. I also think it shows that licenses really don't matter all that much as some people think, they are not computer code.

I've considered making a license that is basically MIT/BSD, but requires that anyone using an automated license checking/compliance system (any corporate users) to pay a fee to use the software.

Why do you think that only corporate users use an automated license checking/compliance system?

If you do personal projects that are open source it's equally important to know what licenses your dependencies have if you release those projects to the public.

Re: Project includes a dependancy that has a license that forbids its use

#62

Post by cxr »

Y_Y wrote: post #18
boomboomsubban wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The conflicting license states >I do not give anyone permissions to use this tool for any purpose. Don't use it. So no use rights either.

But the granting of rights to redistribute is governed by the applicable copyright law, as far as I know there is no equivalent body of law governing usage. You can't give someone information but attach conditions to its use, except in specific circumstances. You can certainly make someone sign a contract before agreeing to give them the information, but that's not what's occurring here.

> as far as I know there is no equivalent body of law governing usage. You can't give someone information but attach conditions to its use

There is, and you can. It's called patent law. If the author of this license also had a patent, they could deny others the ability to use it. But unlike copyright, you are not automatically granted a patent for your creations.

Re: Project includes a dependancy that has a license that forbids its use

#63

Post by bhaak »

bouk wrote: post #24
gpas wrote: post #13

From the explaining blog post [0] > If you’re not interested in how it works and you just want to do monkey patching, then you can find the library here. Also > Wrapping it up in a nice library > I took the above code and put it in an easy to use library. It supports 32 bit, reversing patches, and patching instance methods. I wrote a couple of examples and put those in the README. Then in the README[1]: > Make sure y…

It's satirical

Satire doesn't work very well on the internet in textual context. That's why emoticons were invented.

Re: Project includes a dependancy that has a license that forbids its use

#64

Post by gpm »

antoinealb wrote: post #57
gpm wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I do wonder about things like the linux kernel being uploaded to github though... it doesn't seem like all the contributors consented to giving GitHub this license.

Those rights are a subset of those granted by the GPL2, aren't they ?

I don't believe so, since the GPL (like most licenses) conditions those rights on things like keeping the license intact. Also the GPL doesn't actually say anything about performance or display (which may or may not matter).

Re: Project includes a dependancy that has a license that forbids its use

#65

Post by gpm »

michaelt wrote: post #60
Y_Y wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But the granting of rights to redistribute is governed by the applicable copyright law, as far as I know there is no equivalent body of law governing usage. You can't give someone information but attach conditions to its use, except in specific circumstances. You can certainly make someone sign a contract before agreeing to give them the information, but that's not what's occurring here.

I have heard lawyers argue that, because to run a computer program (or play a DVD or whatever) it must be copied into memory, software that doesn't grant you the right to use it cannot legally be used.

This argument doesn't make sense to me (under US law) given that

> (a) Making of Additional Copy or Adaptation by Owner of Copy.—Notwithstanding the provisions of section 106, it is not an infringement for the owner of a copy of a computer program to make or authorize the making of another copy or adaptation of that computer program provided:

> (1) that such a new copy or adaptation is created as an essential step in the utilization of the computer program in conjunction with a machine and that it is used in no other manner, or

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/117

Re: Project includes a dependancy that has a license that forbids its use

#67

Post by cxr »

gpm wrote: post #7

I am not a lawyer... There may be an argument here that 1. GitHub has a valid license to distribute it (as a result of their TOS) 2. Running the downloaded code is not copyright infringement (or not obviously so, and hasn't been established as so in any court that I am aware of) 3. Using the APIs is not copyright infringement (see Oracle v Google, if that was fair use this almost certainly is) Thus no copyright infri…

This would have been a mostly benign comment had you not thrown in the bad take about Oracle v. Google. There are enough of those on the Internet already.

Re: Project includes a dependancy that has a license that forbids its use

#68

Post by eurasiantiger »

bouk wrote: post #41
nextaccountic wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It seems that you're not interested in suing anyone over this. However, you still don't give people permission to use, not even in small throwaway tests. Which is fair. But your blog post[0] language suggests that you are okay with and even incentivizes people trying this out (even if trying it out might be technically illegal, because it infringes your rights). I think you should have mentioned something about the l…

Pretty funny right?

Not in the slightest, but I guess that’s your kick.

Re: Project includes a dependancy that has a license that forbids its use

#69

Post by llimos »

gpas wrote: post #13

From the explaining blog post [0] > If you’re not interested in how it works and you just want to do monkey patching, then you can find the library here. Also > Wrapping it up in a nice library > I took the above code and put it in an easy to use library. It supports 32 bit, reversing patches, and patching instance methods. I wrote a couple of examples and put those in the README. Then in the README[1]: > Make sure y…

Presumably revision 697673d58359af7ebdcad66f99b81d011359d8ef and earlier is perfectly fine to use, lacking a LICENSE.txt and with the README encouraging use

Re: Project includes a dependancy that has a license that forbids its use

#70

Post by gpm »

cxr wrote: post #67
gpm wrote: post #7

I am not a lawyer... There may be an argument here that 1. GitHub has a valid license to distribute it (as a result of their TOS) 2. Running the downloaded code is not copyright infringement (or not obviously so, and hasn't been established as so in any court that I am aware of) 3. Using the APIs is not copyright infringement (see Oracle v Google, if that was fair use this almost certainly is) Thus no copyright infri…

This would have been a mostly benign comment had you not thrown in the bad take about Oracle v. Google. There are enough of those on the Internet already.

Care to share your objection to it?
Post reply on HN