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

191–200 of 249 posts

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

#191

Post by CyberRabbi »

handelaar wrote: post #187
CyberRabbi wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

"On a lark" is something I (a native English speaker, from London, which is in England, after which the language is named ) have never heard or seen written -- anywhere -- before your ill-considered and wholly-incorrect posts on this thread. Shush.

Not sure why new information has provoked such a personal response from you. As a native English speaker from London, have you heard of “as a lark”?

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

#192

Post by CyberRabbi »

dcminter wrote: post #179
CyberRabbi wrote: post #172

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> prescriptive approaches to language have a long history of being used to enforce class, ethnicity and geography based discrimination. This is a sloppy argument. Nothing about teaching correct English enforces discrimination and in fact it does the opposite by leveling the playing field. If one day teachers stopped teaching grammar, that would only worsen the linguistic shift across the races and classes, allowing t…

Rant all you want, but if P.G.Wodehouse uses a phrase it's good enough for me.

P.G.Wodehouse cites “for a lark” which is correct. He does not cite “as a lark” nor does your other source.

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

#193

Post by mananaysiempre »

smsm42 wrote: post #190
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.

License aren't computer code, they are social code. That matters more, not less, than computer code, at least until we're all disembodied brains in a large VR matrix - because usually people run code for people purposes, not the reverse. Coders frequently ignore this aspect, but not everybody has this luxury.

I see no reason why disembodied brains wouldn’t find a need for social agreements as well, it’s not like the absence of élan vital would cause them to cease being social. The content and mode of expression of those agreements might be quite different, of course.

(We fleshbags could probably use more widespread application and understanding of formal language and notation as well—the most cumbersome description of linear interpolation I’ve ever seen was in the section on a real estate tax hike in the tax code; it had paragraphs! I mean, I feel for those who didn’t have a good time in high-school algebra, but I don’t see how they could reasonably deal with that monstrosity either.)

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

#194

Post by robocat »

nzmsv wrote: post #109
josephcsible wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

My personal experience as a developer and owner is that it is very difficult and time consuming to understand the risks and to comprehend the *GPL licences.

For example, using an LGPL based JavaScript library just leaves me confused every time. I read the LGPL 3.0, read some stack overflow answers, and read the GNU website. Yet I am left without being 100% certain that I can minify the LGPL JavaScript into a single file with my own source code (because JavaScript is not object code, and because sending JavaScript to the browser is distribution).

With BSD/MIT licences everything is clear and less ambiguous, and if I get something wrong then it is usually something easy to fix.

If I were a general counsel, I wouldn’t trust all my developers to follow the GPL licenses properly nor would I trust developers to correctly avoid simple mistakes. A default ban limits liability, reduces risks of negative publicity, and anyone that needs an exception has to justify it.

Idealistically, I love the GPL, and I truely believe in the goal of share and share alike.

Practically I understand why following the *GPL licences is difficult and that it involves multiple risks for a business, and so many commercial businesses sensibly prefer to avoid the costs.

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

#195

Post by R0b0t1 »

jopsen wrote: post #166
user5994461 wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I'm no lawyer, but don't you usually have to show damages?

Damages would be loss of revenue. He was deprived of the ability to negotiate terms of use for payment.

This is why the GPL is more developer friendly than other licenses. If a business doesn't like the GPL you can offer to relicense your code, ... for money. And money is the restitution you seek when the license is violated.

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

#196

Post by Macha »

maxerickson wrote: post #169
user5994461 wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

They will be happy to cease use of the code. The damages probably amount to $0. "Don't use this code, no seriously don't" isn't exactly an advertisement of the value it provide.

They may already have, looks like that archived repository has been replaced with: https://github.com/heroku/heroku-buildpack-java

which doesn't even use go.

And they'd like you to even move away from that replacement to an ever newer replacement: https://github.com/heroku/buildpacks-jvm

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

#197

Post by nhutton1 »

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?

I think so. There is also second-order funnyness from all of the very serious nerds who don't find it funny at all. I'm loving it ahah!

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

#198

Post by secondaryacct »

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.

He can but it's still mean. It's like I can call you an autist bitch and still be mean :(

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

#199

Post by jatone »

gpm wrote: post #53
nerdponx wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The license forbids use . The project is (or was) clearly using it. GitHub is irrelevant.

The license has no legal authority to forbid that which is not forbidden by law and/or permitted by other licenses the author has granted. (See other discussions here for arguments as to whether or not it has that legal authority)

github TOS do not grant you use of others code. it grants distribution. those are two very different things.
Post reply on HN