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

91–100 of 249 posts

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

#91

Post by user5994461 »

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 also think it shows that licenses really don't matter all that much as some people think, they are not computer code.

They matter as long you're willing to enforce them, and have the time and money to do so.

In that case, you may be able to submit some form of take down request to GitHub against that project and other projects who are using your library.

https://github.com/search?q=bouk%2Fmonkey&type=commits

edit: wow, one of the projects that depended on your library was arduino up to 2020. https://github.com/arduino/arduino-cli/commit/09b4e8804fbd61...

edit2: was also used by AWS up to last week when they removed it. https://github.com/awslabs/karpenter/commit/d84365e8c44178ea...

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

#92

Post by bo1024 »

kodah wrote: post #81
dahart wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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"

Just to clarify, FOSS has significant provisions above and beyond allowing personal use. The term non-free is very different from "not allowed to use at all".

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

#93

Post by CyberRabbi »

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.

“As a lark” would technically mean you did this while you were a bird. The correct idiom is “on a lark,” though because of so much misusage the average person excuses “as a lark.” Compare “I’m on line” vs “I’m in line,” or “as per usual” vs “per usual” or “as usual.”

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

#94

Post by [deleted] »

Vinnl wrote: post #88
akiselev wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

[deleted]

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

#95

Post by Macha »

Vinnl wrote: post #90
Shank wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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...

The actual term (D.5 from https://docs.github.com/en/github/site-policy/github-terms-o... )

> Any User-Generated Content you post publicly, including issues, comments, and contributions to other Users' repositories, may be viewed by others. By setting your repositories to be viewed publicly, you agree to allow others to view and "fork" your repositories (this means that others may make their own copies of Content from your repositories in repositories they control).

> If you set your pages and repositories to be viewed publicly, you grant each User of GitHub a nonexclusive, worldwide license to use, display, and perform Your Content through the GitHub Service and to reproduce Your Content solely on GitHub as permitted through GitHub's functionality (for example, through forking). You may grant further rights if you adopt a license. If you are uploading Content you did not create or own, you are responsible for ensuring that the Content you upload is licensed under terms that grant these permissions to other GitHub Users.

This allows you to browse and use the fork button to create a repository. It's unclear if the second paragraph is clarifying, or adding to the first term. If it's additive, then you might also have permission to host your own private repo off service.

Nowhere does it give you a license to _use_ the contents of the repository in your software. Nor does it allow you to publish the contents outside github - the first paragraph does not address publishing, and the second makes it clear that paragraph only applies "through Github's functionality".

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

#96

Post by Macha »

elric wrote: post #35
foreigner wrote: post #28

This is just mean! The documentation definitely reads like the library is meant for use, but the author forbids all use in the license.

Why is it mean? The author can use whatever license they like. If you don't like it, you're more than welcome to release your own code under a more permissive license.

It's misleading to present the project as being for use by others and then forbid any use in the legal print?

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

#97

Post by brighton36 »

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.

'Intellectual Property' is mostly just post-modern nonsense.

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

#98

Post by Thiez »

JackFr wrote: post #23
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.

If I put up a message on a billboard, with a copyright notice denying the permission to read it aloud, would that be legitimate license?

It would be a silly license. I imagine reading aloud a message on a billboard would be ruled fair use. Republishing of your message by an unauthorized party could be infringement, but your license doesn't change that; the default ("no license") is "all rights reserved" so redistribution is already forbidden.

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

#100

Post by [deleted] »

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.

[deleted]
Post reply on HN