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

81–90 of 249 posts

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

#81

Post by kodah »

dahart wrote: post #44
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.

The blog post and the README both seem to encourage use of the project. And a license that prevents all use including personal is very rare and not exactly in the spirit of GitHub. So I’m curious why both the blog and your README don’t mention explicitly that you don’t want allow use or explain why. Would it be worth putting something at the top of the README?

> And a license that prevents all use including personal is very rare and not exactly in the spirit of GitHub

Non-free licensed code has been on GitHub for quite some time. It's not only about free software and you should not assume so, as in all software.

Edit: changed FOSS to "free"

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

#82

Post by kodah »

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.

Individuals run license checkers too.

I would describe an end user count, revenue size, etc in order to apply special circumstances to corporations. Drone.io does a great job of this.

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

#83

Post by pessimizer »

I never imagined that there would be a license designed so that only copyright violators have access to your project, but I support it and will probably use it. Any project I write that I think would be useful but is bad and I would never want to see shitting up Debian repos might get this.

I like a license that says that I reserve the right to sue whoever I feel like suing. If you use it, make sure I don't feel like suing you (e.g. make no money) or that I can't catch you (i.e. be an outlaw.)

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

#84

Post by cxr »

gpm wrote: post #70
cxr wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Not particularly. For further inquiries, refer to the about section of my HN profile.

You can also refer to this thread and pay particular attention to toyg's response.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27687960>

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

#85

Post by oaiey »

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.

License checking is like code coverage. A part of our profession. It is not only for corporate users.

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

#86

Post by SeanLuke »

bscphil wrote: post #56
oaiey wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No it does not. This statement is exclusively for the fact that GitHub and a reader is not liable for showing/reading your copyrighted code. The only weak spot is GitHub Actions/Code spaces/etc for dev tools I guess. Because that falls under "GitHub service" and is a functionality of it.

No, this would also seem to protect users who click the "fork" button on Github. It would not , however, allow them to clone the software to their local computer or use it for any other purpose.

The Github terms do not indicate that the license is transferable. Github can display the code, but even if someone downloads from Github, they still can't use it.

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

#87

Post by Vinnl »

bhaak wrote: post #61
zdw wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The primary difference is that as an individual, you can easily add that new licence to your allowlist. In an enterprise, it might be easier to fork over the money rather than convincing legal to allow your use of the software.

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

#88

Post by Vinnl »

akiselev wrote: post #71
bouk wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Pretty funny right?

Has anyone ever tested in court whether a license has to be made in good faith to be binding?

An open source licence generally only gives additional rights. If it's not binding, then default copyright would apply, meaning you're still not allowed to use it.

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

#89

Post by gpm »

cxr wrote: post #84
gpm wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Care to share your objection to it?

Not particularly. For further inquiries, refer to the about section of my HN profile. You can also refer to this thread and pay particular attention to toyg's response. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27687960 >

> Unlikely to respond to replies. (A tip for the intellectually dishonest: you can seize this opportunity to get the last word in.)

Lol (quoting your profile here since I think it's fair to give other people the expectation that you won't engage)

> toyg's response.

I both agree with his reponse and would categorize my use of the case here as within that (the only code copied out of the dependency is API related).

I can't force you to debate this, but I also have to say I don't think casting vague aspirations without an explanation is a useful form of comment.

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

#90

Post by Vinnl »

Shank wrote: post #75
llimos wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

If no license is present, the default is actually “all rights reserved.” This is the same level of restriction. https://choosealicense.com/no-permission/

That said,

> If you publish your source code in a public repository on GitHub, according to the Terms of Service, other users of GitHub have the right to view and fork your repository.

https://docs.github.com/en/github/creating-cloning-and-archi...

Post reply on HN