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

101–110 of 249 posts

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

#101

Post by Igelau »

CyberRabbi wrote: post #93
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.”

For all extensive porpoises it means the same thing }:^)>

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

#102

Post by kodah »

bo1024 wrote: post #92
kodah wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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".

Yeap, you're right. There are lots of terms to describe free and non-free software. I meant "free" in any capacity, for clarification.

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

#103

Post by icedchai »

jamesjansson wrote: post #74
bouk wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Pretty funny right?

No, don't screw around with people legally. It makes you look dishonest.

How is he screwing around with anyone legally? Has anyone been sued over this? Most of this stuff is unenforceable in any meaningful way. Worst case is really some nasty emails.

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

#104

Post by tptacek »

wheybags wrote: post #47

Side note, but for all the people saying this is absolutely godawful and the license is OK because no one in their right mind would use it in production, this project from MS does basically the same thing: https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/research/project/detours/ Recently open sourced, but has been used for twenty years in real products from MS and others. It's not so crazy as you might think! An example of a real us…

I've done a lot of work with Detours and have written my own trampoline injection thingies in Python and Ruby, and this approach is not really a reasonable way to build production software. A proof-of-concept Detours implementation posted as an illustration for an amusing blog post may be the most perfect possible use case for a "you are not allowed to use this for anything" license, maybe rivaled only by the code you post for a cipher you designed yourself.

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

#105

Post by dcminter »

CyberRabbi wrote: post #93
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.”

Where on earth did you get that notion from? Just because you use a particular phrase does not make it the only or the definitive version.

On a lark, for a lark, as a lark, larking about, and so on are all common. It's not some obscure quotation or meaning, it's just a simile comparing with the bird (perceived as happy).

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

#106

Post by tptacek »

jamesjansson wrote: post #74
bouk wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Pretty funny right?

No, don't screw around with people legally. It makes you look dishonest.

He does not look dishonest. He looks like the hero we all deserve. Dial it back a bit, would you?

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

#108

Post by tptacek »

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 idea that the Github terms of service negate "All rights reserved" in any public repository is a bold claim indeed.

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

#109

Post by nzmsv »

josephcsible wrote: post #59
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.

Instead of doing that, why not dual-license your program under CC-BY-NC and AGPLv3, and then sell exceptions?

A lot of legal departments have a mental image of AGPL (and GPL) as a bogeyman that will steal all the company's code if allowed anywhere near the building. I've sat through a presentation one time that tried to paint these licenses as something only basement dwellers use for personal projects. I spoke to the presenter afterwards and told them about projects like Linux and Mongo, and how even AGPL is not as scary as they thought.

The lawyer seemed genuinely surprised and said they would read up on it. I'm pretty sure my bringing this up in a friendly manner caused them to question their assumptions. Had I picked a fight during the presentation I'd just be labeled a basement dweller.

However, this lawyer also told me something interesting. To some extent it doesn't matter whether I was able to change his mind. As long as other lawyers in the field have this bogeyman concept in mind, the use of GPL will get flagged in due diligence, etc. and it's easier to simply not use a component with strong copyleft when developing a product (unless it's as irreplaceable as Linux).

This is a long-winded way of saying that selling exceptions will likely scare off potential purchasers long before they are in a position to consider the purchase. Most shops have a blanket "no GPL ever" policy and a dev won't even bother with the component even for a prototype.

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

#110

Post by user5994461 »

user5994461 wrote: post #91
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 ed…

update: hit the jackpot

the library is currently in use by Heroku/SalesForce to build deploy java apps (or something like that) https://github.com/heroku/java-buildpack/blob/master/go.mod

I wonder what sort of settlement you could get if you were to send them a lawyer for real.

Post reply on HN