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

This Program is Illegally Packaged in 14 Distributions

artemis.sh

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 110 posts

Re: This Program is Illegally Packaged in 14 Distributions

#81

Post by rep_lodsb »

wink wrote: post #78
londons_explore wrote: post #76

I often deliberately publish code with no license. It means any hobbyist can play around with it, but no company with a legal team will touch it. It appears as an oversight rather than a deliberate decision to restrict who can do what. And often that's exactly what I want.

I don't think that's helpful, because that's just not how licenses work. Please at least add that sentence to the repo then. Unless your definition of "hobbyist playing around with it" also includes "oh, I accidentally made something useful which uses your code, but now I have to rewrite it because I can't in turn use a useful license".

It's the ultimate "contagious" license, and it doesn't waste the petabytes of disk space that are by now certainly taken up by copies of GPL-version-whatever!

To really make a point, one could include an empty file for the license (and code of conduct as well).

Re: This Program is Illegally Packaged in 14 Distributions

#82

Post by wink »

rep_lodsb wrote: post #81
wink wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think that's helpful, because that's just not how licenses work. Please at least add that sentence to the repo then. Unless your definition of "hobbyist playing around with it" also includes "oh, I accidentally made something useful which uses your code, but now I have to rewrite it because I can't in turn use a useful license".

It's the ultimate "contagious" license, and it doesn't waste the petabytes of disk space that are by now certainly taken up by copies of GPL-version-whatever! To really make a point, one could include an empty file for the license (and code of conduct as well).

I'm a big fan of being overcommunicative in this regard. I'd hazard a guess that 9 out of 10 people with small code repos without a license have not bothered, or forgot, or didn't know and 1 or less out of 10 want to convey an active non-license (All rights reserved?) as the parent commenter, that's why I am in favor of spelling that out explicitly.

Personal opinion of how useful toy code that you can look at but not use or even let you be inspired from is notwithstanding, but I'm not trying to argue here.

Re: This Program is Illegally Packaged in 14 Distributions

#83

Post by kuschku »

lionkor wrote: post #64
topkai22 wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I was thinking the same. It being published on GitHub makes it especially difficult to claim damages for reuse, as I think it’s fair to say the very act of publishing to GitHub implies a desire to share the code. The real issue would be if the author decides they want to close source it later, updates the license, and then demands everyone stop using it.

> the very act of publishing to GitHub implies a desire to share the code. No. Thats like saying the very act of sharing pictures online implies you want someone else to use them, or that printing your book and selling it somehow implies you want the world to copy it. You share on GitHub because its a source control platform, and your code may be interesting to others. This does NOT mean that you are okay with someon…

By uploading code to GitHub, you actually agree to certain terms which imply some level of sharing. You allow forking, and you allow any GitHub user to fork, reproduce and modify your code on GitHub.

Now, obviously, that doesn't necessarily imply that you grant the user the right to do the same outside of GitHub.

Re: This Program is Illegally Packaged in 14 Distributions

#84

Post by di4na »

On "what is happening here".

The legal rules of licensing and copyright are basically a pita for everyone and nearly impossible to apply them at scale.

So everyone in this field, IP holders and users have all tacitly agreed on a social contract that is quite different from the reality of the law.

This small niche of society is small enough and poor enough that the law have not had to catch up to it yet.

This is a ... typical thing to happen. If it grows big enough, the law may catch up. Or the social contract may have to catch up. Or more probably a mix. This is usually painful.

Consider that Free and Open Source Licences are kind of a hack to paper over that gap. It has been enough so far to keep the two worlds from colliding too hard. But it is a fundamentally limited way to bridge it.

Re: This Program is Illegally Packaged in 14 Distributions

#85

Post by seletskiy »

'seletskiy/godiff' author here.

In my judgment, the problem has been overstated. At the very least, with the 'tea,' it could be easily resolved by contacting me directly via e-mail, as mentioned in my GitHub profile.

I never intended for this code to be used by anyone else (there is no even a README file). But I'm delighted it helped someone attain their goals.

Anyway, I've stated that my code is MIT licensed.

Re: This Program is Illegally Packaged in 14 Distributions

#86

Post by 3np »

torstenvl wrote: post #67
3np wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

6/7/8: brokep, anakata, tiamo. It's still early to tell but we may have to add Aleksey Pertsev to this list :/ > 3. Edward Snowden U.S. citizen being hunted for acts committed on US soil so as terrible as prosecuting them is, I don't see how it's relevant here. Other than that, yes, my point is we should not be normalizing and shrugging this off as "the way things are". Individuals and businesses are doing right in t…

Giving one counterexample is sufficient to refute a categorical rule. Additionally, the fact that the code in question is hosted on GitHub (U.S.), a site owned by Microsoft (U.S.), and specifically how it came to be in Debian (U.S.) (started by Ian Murdock (U.S.) and assets held by Software in the Public Interest, Inc. (U.S.)) makes the U.S. an appropriate counterexample. Russia (home of the author of the software in…

> Additionally, the fact that the code in question is hosted on GitHub (U.S.), a site owned by Microsoft (U.S.), and specifically how it came to be in Debian (U.S.) (started by Ian Murdock (U.S.) and assets held by Software in the Public Interest, Inc. (U.S.)) makes the U.S. an appropriate counterexample.

That is indeed useful context and answers my question. My snark in the original still stands as it happens elsewhere on HN regularly. In some cases it may be an assumption on the commenter that anyone English-speaking is American, everything else is an exception and should be stated as such. It's obvious to see how that occurs spontaneously but it's not healthy or inclusive. Much like heteronormativity.

Personal attacks? Tirade? Come on, I already explicitly mentioned I am not implying bad faith on your part. Neither am I saying you are deceptive, just that your original comment had a deceptive framing, intentional or not. Frankly I'm not sure "deceptive" is really the best word here but nothing better really comes up without starting to write paragraphs. But here we are.

I don't have any beef with you or the US per se. I just want some autonomy and human rights for myself and others. Maybe even a fair and equal society. I am a firm believer that language plays a big part in shaping our view of reality, not only vice versa. I appreciate when others call me out in a similar way - we all have our blind spots.

Re: This Program is Illegally Packaged in 14 Distributions

#87

Post by rroot »

jchw wrote: post #57
rroot wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Its not a storm in a tea cup. A lot of people had relaxed attitude towards licensing text. Then SCO came a long, partially funded by Microsoft and threatened everyone using Linux due to alleged licensing issues. This was a major issue. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/SCO%E2%80%93Linux_disputes

That is quite a different beast in numerous ways, and I'm failing to see the connection.

Yes, because the beast grew to a behemoth. But the fundamental issue is the same: code with unknown/issues with licensing.

There is absolutely no reason to take that lightly. Yes it might turn into absolutely nothing.

What happens if years down the line someone like Oracle acquires code that 1000s of projects depend on?

Re: This Program is Illegally Packaged in 14 Distributions

#88

Post by Paradigma11 »

sidewndr46 wrote: post #44
3np wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Have you confirmed the physical location and applicable jurisdictions of the maintainers of those distros or why focus specifically on US law here? I know the US is trying (and often getting away with) unilaterally setting rules on the global stage but let's try to not play along.

I can think of at least a few individuals who might support the idea that US jurisdiction is either the only jurisdiction that matters, or at least covers the 90% of the Earth at minimum. Let's see: 1. Kim DotCom 2. Julian Assange 3. Edward Snowden 4. Henry Kissinger 5. Meng Wanzhou The list goes on I imagine, those are just the notable ones from my lifetime.

@Meng Wanzhou. She lied to companies to get them to unwittingly commit crimes on US soil. Seems reasonable that this is a crime in the US.

But many other did the same without any consequences so this might be a selective application of the law.

Re: This Program is Illegally Packaged in 14 Distributions

#89

Post by rep_lodsb »

wink wrote: post #82
rep_lodsb wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's the ultimate "contagious" license, and it doesn't waste the petabytes of disk space that are by now certainly taken up by copies of GPL-version-whatever! To really make a point, one could include an empty file for the license (and code of conduct as well).

I'm a big fan of being overcommunicative in this regard. I'd hazard a guess that 9 out of 10 people with small code repos without a license have not bothered, or forgot, or didn't know and 1 or less out of 10 want to convey an active non-license (All rights reserved?) as the parent commenter, that's why I am in favor of spelling that out explicitly. Personal opinion of how useful toy code that you can look at but not…

As long as there is no money involved, nobody will get sued for being inspired by - or even copying - that "toy code".

That is what *non-commercial* software should be about.

Re: This Program is Illegally Packaged in 14 Distributions

#90

Post by irdc »

londons_explore wrote: post #80
irdc wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It means any hobbyist can play around with it Not in legal terms it doesn't. In the absence of a licence, a copyrighted work may not be distributed in any way. So you could theoretically sue those hobbyists. Just bite the bullet and pick any of the common licenses. Sounds like you'd want one of CC-*-NC or perhaps AGPL.

Except no hobbyist seems to worry about such things. Occasionally I get messages asking me about the license, and I usually reply to them asking what they want to do/build and then I give them permission for whatever it is they want to make (for free).

> Except no hobbyist seems to worry about such things.

The hobbyists that you know or have contacted you don't seem to worry about these things. I can assure you this hobbyist takes licensing very seriously, and I'm not the only one. I may at some point want to distribute my work, and having a dependency without a license makes that pretty much impossible.

Post reply on HN