Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

LLVM relicensing update and call for help

blog.llvm.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 198 posts

Re: LLVM relicensing update and call for help

#81

Post by bawolff »

jfrunyon wrote: post #65
pengaru wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not exactly hidden when it's clearly stated in the license, and relatively common practice to omit that clause.

I don't think most people expect the next version of the license to ... lead to a completely different license.

Its not totally different - cc-by-sa is pretty similar in spirit to gfdl with no cover text, non-derrivative sections etc.

Of course practically speaking, being able to legally print out a wikipedia article without printing out the entire gfdl is a pretty big difference. To the point where i am aware of people licensing photos under gfdl to claim its open source while in practise its impossoble to reuse practically.

I mean your point still stands that its weird to release a new license just for wikipedia.

Re: LLVM relicensing update and call for help

#82

Post by chayleaf »

dagmx wrote: post #55
still_grokking wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

GPL software, and extensions to it, are free and will stay like that. That can't be said about software under the above mentioned licenses.

I'm not sure how the GPL guarantees that it will stay like that anymore than those other licenses? You can always relicense GPL content as long as everyone agrees. You can also change it to source on request versus always accessible.

key is "as long as everyone agrees"

Re: LLVM relicensing update and call for help

#83

Post by bawolff »

ajkjk wrote: post #27

This kind of thing feels like such a waste of humanity's time. Is there an approach you can choose early in a project on that prevents ever getting in trouble later? I guess if I start some big library I will hope that everyone assigns the copyright for their contributions entirely to the project so that I never have to go through that nonsense. But I guess that has other ramifications.

I think rolling your own license is like rolling your own crypto: just say no.

Re: LLVM relicensing update and call for help

#85

Post by shakna »

asdfasgasdgasdg wrote: post #56
shakna wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think you've quite understood the risk, here. > Fair enough, a Polish contributor might possibly demand that their code be taken out of a projects with a year's notice. It seems unlikely that many Polish devs will exercise this right, since, if their contributions are significant, it would probably result in blacklisting, and if not significant, it would probably not be worth it. But I suppose it could happen…

> This is the same for Australian developers. I don't see any sign of this being the case in my searching. This document ( https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=628b5bca-b7d5... ) suggests that Australia does recognize perpetual licenses ("Does the law in your jurisdiction recognise the validity of ‘perpetual’ software licences? ... Yes."). Would you provide a citation? > For example, it is conceivable that…

> As noted above, I'm skeptical that this right exists in Australia.

The right to control the integrity of one's work is a Moral Right, and moral rights fall outside of copyrights in Australia. A very basic introduction is here [0].

Granting the use of a work in perpetuity is permitted, but revoking that perpetuity is also permitted and cannot be limited.

> But if it does, the worst that would happen is that a person's contributions would need to be removed from Linux.

In the example I gave, Linux wouldn't need to make that change, as the revocation only occurred for a single sublicensee. The Foundation might choose to make that change, but they also might not.

> because you'd need a dev with plenty of wealth to pay lawyers, who also really hates some company beyond any practical economic extent, and also contributed a lot to Linux as a private individual. I don't know how many of that type of person you're going to find.

Individuals like Richard Stallman? He may not have direct wealth, but he has the means to obtain it. And the ideology necessary to become a thorn in the side of a particular corporation if he so chooses.

[0] https://www.copyright.org.au/browse/book/ACC-Moral-Rights-IN...

Re: LLVM relicensing update and call for help

#87

Post by Seirdy »

systemvoltage wrote: post #42
still_grokking wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Developers are scared away by lGPL. I see GPL as a sign of quality and am attracted by projects using it. It's a promise nobody will ever take that thing away from me once I've started using it. I'm a developer, by the way. :-) Edit: Not to mention that some people even using GCC, Linux and Java.

> I see GPL as a sign of quality Personal opinion is that BSD > GPL. Free as in properly free. I always donate to BSD license folks. When corporations use BSD software, they usually get engaged in the BSD community - under the stilts of management, suited lawyers and spreadsheet bean counters, it's just us programmer folk... you know. We like tinkering things and BSD software tends to have a different philosophy. Ver…

With few exceptions, I generally view the purpose of permissive licenses as "encouraging derivative software with EULAs and other restrictions", and the purpose of copyleft licenses as only allowing derivatives that don't restrict such freedoms.

Copyleft software therefore guarantees more freedom than permissively licensed software.

Re: LLVM relicensing update and call for help

#89

Post by rocqua »

purple_turtle wrote: post #51
dagmx wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Out of curiosity, how does the GPL promise that versus the other common open source licenses? E.g MIT, BSD or Apache?

As I understand it: MIT code can be freely taken into proprietary fork, with software modified and sold and no patches contributed. Not sure how often it happens? Has it actually happened and is it a plausible attack? Nowadays at least AGPL is needed to defang "and we will sell it as service rather than selling software" workaround for GPL.

Apple's OS is a fork of BSD without the fork being open source.

Re: LLVM relicensing update and call for help

#90

Post by Doctor_Fegg »

vortico wrote: post #3

This might be the largest contributor relicensing project of any IP category: 2800 people and companies. 94% progress is impressive.

OpenStreetMap’s relicensing (from CC-BY-SA to the Open Database Licence) involved more contributors and, unlike Wikipedia’s, wasn’t assisted by a licence hack.
Post reply on HN