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

181–190 of 198 posts

Re: LLVM relicensing update and call for help

#181

Post by josephcsible »

ajkjk wrote: post #178
josephcsible wrote: post #152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But users can do even less with non-free software than they can with copyleft software, so calling the latter "tyranny" while simultaneously being okay with the former makes no sense at all.

It really doesn't. You're pretending like non-free software has no value and that's clearly nonsense. There's no argument with that pretense because it has no bearing in reality.

> You're pretending like non-free software has no value

I'm not saying it has no value or that it should all go away. I'm saying that its value doesn't come from being non-free, so it would be better if it had to be free instead.

Re: LLVM relicensing update and call for help

#182

Post by chrismsimpson »

josephcsible wrote: post #181
ajkjk wrote: post #178

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It really doesn't. You're pretending like non-free software has no value and that's clearly nonsense. There's no argument with that pretense because it has no bearing in reality.

> You're pretending like non-free software has no value I'm not saying it has no value or that it should all go away. I'm saying that its value doesn't come from being non-free, so it would be better if it had to be free instead.

Blah, blah. Straw man, straw man. Typical HN comment. Copyleft is religious zealotry I can do without.

Re: LLVM relicensing update and call for help

#183

Post by sangnoir »

the_mitsuhiko wrote: post #167
WastingMyTime89 wrote: post #162

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The biggest risk of the GPL is in fact not companies but to you as a creator. If you plan on commercializing your work in any capacity, accepting contributions under the GPL will be the end of that. If you accept contributions, that’s not your work anymore. That’s your work and your contributors work. You are still perfectly free of removing said work and commercialise your own. You just can’t profite from the work…

Something does not stop being my work when it hat contributions from others but generally that’s besides the point. The main issue of GPL comes from the risk to the original creator itself. Others not using the software is less the concern.

> The main issue of GPL comes from the risk to the original creator itself

The risk of abiding by the license? The GPL ensures user have access to source code provided under the license, so I'm assuming by "commercializing" you mean hiding away source code that used to be public? The calculus is simple: if you want to make money by doing an open-source bait-and-switch, do not license your code under GPL.

Re: LLVM relicensing update and call for help

#184

Post by pests »

the_mitsuhiko wrote: post #167
WastingMyTime89 wrote: post #162

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The biggest risk of the GPL is in fact not companies but to you as a creator. If you plan on commercializing your work in any capacity, accepting contributions under the GPL will be the end of that. If you accept contributions, that’s not your work anymore. That’s your work and your contributors work. You are still perfectly free of removing said work and commercialise your own. You just can’t profite from the work…

Something does not stop being my work when it hat contributions from others but generally that’s besides the point. The main issue of GPL comes from the risk to the original creator itself. Others not using the software is less the concern.

If a single line was written and contributed without copyright assignment, than line is theirs. The project can be yours, but you no longer own 100% rights to it.

Re: LLVM relicensing update and call for help

#185

Post by pjmlp »

seabird wrote: post #174
pjmlp wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Something that keeps being forgotten, those legal issues were settled in 1994, after USL also getting a counter lawsuit for their own use of BSD code, while Linux itself was a target of a lawsuit a decade later thanks SCO.

It's not forgotten, it just doesn't matter in any meaningful way. We're talking about two years of legal issues that took place during one of the fastest moving eras in computer technology. In Linus' own words at the time that this was happening: "Actually, I have never even checked 386BSD out; when I started on Linux it wast available (although Bill Jolitz series on it in Dr. Dobbs Journal had started and were inter…

And a couple of years later everyone turns their back to the license that made Linux and its userspace in two years happen in first place, it is forgotten.

Re: LLVM relicensing update and call for help

#186

Post by the_mitsuhiko »

pests wrote: post #184
the_mitsuhiko wrote: post #167

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Something does not stop being my work when it hat contributions from others but generally that’s besides the point. The main issue of GPL comes from the risk to the original creator itself. Others not using the software is less the concern.

If a single line was written and contributed without copyright assignment, than line is theirs. The project can be yours, but you no longer own 100% rights to it.

Precisely. Which is why releasing code under the GPL requires a lot of up front consideration.

Re: LLVM relicensing update and call for help

#187

Post by the_mitsuhiko »

sangnoir wrote: post #183
the_mitsuhiko wrote: post #167

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Something does not stop being my work when it hat contributions from others but generally that’s besides the point. The main issue of GPL comes from the risk to the original creator itself. Others not using the software is less the concern.

> The main issue of GPL comes from the risk to the original creator itself The risk of abiding by the license? The GPL ensures user have access to source code provided under the license, so I'm assuming by "commercializing" you mean hiding away source code that used to be public? The calculus is simple: if you want to make money by doing an open-source bait-and-switch, do not license your code under GPL.

Commercializing can happen in many ways. GPL code in itself can’t even be published on the app store without violating the license. If you are not the complete copyright holder you can run into issues very quickly.

Re: LLVM relicensing update and call for help

#188

Post by WastingMyTime89 »

the_mitsuhiko wrote: post #167
WastingMyTime89 wrote: post #162

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The biggest risk of the GPL is in fact not companies but to you as a creator. If you plan on commercializing your work in any capacity, accepting contributions under the GPL will be the end of that. If you accept contributions, that’s not your work anymore. That’s your work and your contributors work. You are still perfectly free of removing said work and commercialise your own. You just can’t profite from the work…

Something does not stop being my work when it hat contributions from others but generally that’s besides the point. The main issue of GPL comes from the risk to the original creator itself. Others not using the software is less the concern.

> Something does not stop being my work when it hat contributions from others

Of course it does both from a legal and moral point of view. Composite work is the product of their authors plural. You are perfectly free to strip it from the contributions of others and relicense your actual work.

> The main issue of GPL comes from the risk to the original creator itself

You keep coming back to that but still have to explain what they are. Yes, the GPL prevents you from relicensing the work of your contributors. That's not a risk to the original creator itself.

Re: LLVM relicensing update and call for help

#189

Post by rocqua »

jimktrains2 wrote: post #144
rocqua wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think people who shy away from GPL are in favor of the free software movement. People who advocate for MIT like licenses like 'open source', but they usually explicitly reject the ideas from free software. Some of these concerns are simply commercial, and some are philosophical. I think people might have been convinced to dislike GPL. But I don't think that was misinformation or confusion. It might be fear-mo…

> Personally I dislike GPL because it limits developers like me, and because I find the (roughly true) idea 'you can only use GPL code if you're own code is GPL' too coercive. I don't think that is a virtuous method for improving the world. I have no idea what you're talking about. You can use gpl code without being the owner of said code. You're thinking in very selfish terms. The gpl is bot about safeguarding right…

> I have no idea what you're talking about. You can use gpl code without being the owner of said code.

When I use GPL code in my projects, that forces me to publish my projects under GPL. That limits my freedom as a developer. This is indeed thinking about my needs more than thinking about general needs.

> I think that safeguarding user rights is a virtuous method of improving the world.

I agree that the world would be better if more/all code were open source and user-modifiable. I do not agree that the ends (user freedom) justify the means (GPL or other copy-left licenses). I think the means are harmful because they are coercive. If we look at the effect of GPL on the ecosystem, e.g. ZFS, you see that people re-license to GPL because the alternative is untenable maintenance wise. This re-licensing is not happening because people agree with the license, but for practical reasons. Essentially a few people have decided "this is exactly how things need to be" and through copyleft licenses, they are twisting the arm of everyone else. That is not how I think it should be decided how intelectual propert rights should be improved.

In the ZFS case, essentially what GPL was meant to prevent happened. There was an open piece of software (ZFS), people were making improvements to that software (ZFS on Linux getting development), but they could not be used upstream.

GPL is a one-way street in the open source world. It sucks up code from other open source projects but it cannot give anything back. In some cases, I think this makes GPL a net negative for the open-source (using the wide definition) community. I think the only defense GPL can offer here is "but that part of the open-source community is wrong and harmful". I think it makes sense that the non-GPL parts of the open-source community are not happy about that stance.

In general "if you just do exactly as I want there is no problem" is not how we should treat each other in my opinion. We should leave room for different viewpoints and some form of discussion. Rather than saying "my way or the highway". If you take that stance, then don't be surprised people don't want to cooperate.

Re: LLVM relicensing update and call for help

#190

Post by snovv_crash »

rini17 wrote: post #124
snovv_crash wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"without giving back" is a bit of an exaggeration. You could have a giant 20M line proprietary codebase, and if you incorporate a 20-line function from a GPL source, GPL says you need to relicense the whole thing. I prefer the MPLv2, it lets commercial users actually use the code, but they still have to contribute back any changes they make.

So you would be actually fine with GPL if excerpts up to 1000 lines were not covered by copyleft?

No, the GPL is for what it's for, large codebases like Linux where you want to make sure it doesn't fragment too badly. Most code isn't this, though.
Post reply on HN