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

121–130 of 249 posts

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

#121

Post by Thiez »

Macha wrote: post #96
elric wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Is it misleading to present a project as free and then have the (A)GPL license? Here I thought it was free, now suddenly there are all these conditions...

The "legal print" in this case is five lines long, written in (contrary to most licenses) very plain english, located in the root of the repository, in a file named 'LICENSE.md'. It's not exactly hidden where a reasonable person might overlook it. "We didn't know" isn't a very convincing defense.

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

#122

Post by CyberRabbi »

dcminter wrote: post #118
CyberRabbi wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

https://grammarist.com/phrase/on-a-lark/ The “lark” in the idiom “on a lark” has nothing to do with a simile to birds. It derives from an old Norse word which means “to play.” https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/lark#Etymology_2 Using correct terms helps to communicate effectively. What is wrong with promoting correct use of English? I always appreciate it when my coworkers promote correct programming idioms to me, it hel…

Note that your etymology link agrees with mine (via skylark). OED cites P.G.Wodehouse (for a lark), and J.Krantz (of a lark).

The homophone with lark (the bird) likely reinforced the idiom but was probably not the origin of it. “For a lark” is correct as well, OED does not cite “as a lark.”

The phrase “as a lark” probably emerges as a mixture of “as a joke” and “on a lark.”

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

#123

Post by WesolyKubeczek »

DangitBobby wrote: post #116
wejick wrote: post #107

Copyright Bouke van der Bijl I do not give anyone permissions to use this tool for any purpose. Don't use it. I’m not interested in changing this license. Please don’t ask.

https://github.com/bouk/monkey/blob/master/LICENSE.md Then why publish the blog post and put it into a package??

Look, don’t touch.

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

#124

Post by Twirrim »

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.”

"I did it as a lark" has been used as an expression for a long time already, well over a century.

To give a few examples, https://www.google.com/books/edition/The_Boy_s_Own_Annual/X7...

"Sure as goodness, I thought you both did it as a lark", from a book published in 1895, so it's reasonable to assume it was already in some level of common idiom by then. It's unlikely The Boys Own Annual was trail blazing in its use of language.

Or https://www.google.com/books/edition/The_Fortnightly_Review/... from 1929. "D you remember I got certified as a lunatic for trying to make a living by betting that one horse would reach a post before another, I admit it was silly, but I only did it as a lark"

Language changes and evolves over time. You're attempting to be King Canute, except maybe one apparently deluded enough to believe the courtiers, only not as the tide is on the way in, but as the tide is long past and you've almost drowned.

The ship sailed on the point you're making before you were even born.

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

#125

Post by CyberRabbi »

Twirrim wrote: post #124
CyberRabbi wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

“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.”

"I did it as a lark" has been used as an expression for a long time already, well over a century. To give a few examples, https://www.google.com/books/edition/The_Boy_s_Own_Annual/X7... "Sure as goodness, I thought you both did it as a lark", from a book published in 1895, so it's reasonable to assume it was already in some level of common idiom by then. It's unlikely The Boys Own Annual was trail blazing in its use…

A few exceptional Google books searches does not prove the rule. Using correct English increases the chances that others will understand what we are saying, improving the chances of accomplishing our goals. What is wrong with helping others in that?

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

#126

Post by whateveracct »

DangitBobby wrote: post #116
wejick wrote: post #107

Copyright Bouke van der Bijl I do not give anyone permissions to use this tool for any purpose. Don't use it. I’m not interested in changing this license. Please don’t ask.

https://github.com/bouk/monkey/blob/master/LICENSE.md Then why publish the blog post and put it into a package??

clearly satire

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

#127

Post by ivegotnoaccount »

ayewo wrote: post #112
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.

On the Internet, unless you sprinkle your words with emoticons, it is hard to convey irony or amusement using text alone. You absolutely have the power to end the controversy by switching to a more mainstream license then adding a clear disclaimer like “use at your own risk”. GitHub currently lists 465 projects that depend on your library, which means more than a handful of devs find it useful.

I'm all for FOSS, but I fail to see how saying something like "There would be no problem if you accepted to release it with a less restrictive license" differs from saying that to a GPL library developer because proprietary code was found using it. Why should the first be considered "a controversy" but not the second ?

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

#128

Post by concordDance »

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?

Yes, I had a chortle, particularly at the reactions in this thread. :D

Though I'm an anarchist who thinks people give the law as written far too much weight. (As opposed to what the population as a whole thinks is good or bad)

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

#129

Post by _t4sy »

wejick wrote: post #107

Copyright Bouke van der Bijl I do not give anyone permissions to use this tool for any purpose. Don't use it. I’m not interested in changing this license. Please don’t ask.

You have the right to use this project via git submodules. The GitHub terms of service requires code owners to allow forking and linking to their public repositories, regardless of license.

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

#130

Post by avodonosov »

Filligree wrote: post #80
avodonosov wrote: post #66

Is the "I do not give anyone permissions to use this tool for any purpose. Don't use it." actually a forbidding, strictly speaking?

The default is that you’re not allowed to use it. There needs to be an explicit grant of license to change that, and there’s not.

Do you refer any specific law?
Post reply on HN