The author of the Go diff library has just released it under the MIT license: https://github.com/seletskiy/godiff/commit/865648740d705a24a...
This Program is Illegally Packaged in 14 Distributions
91–100 of 110 posts
Re: This Program is Illegally Packaged in 14 Distributions
#92Haha, this is why I am using Unlicense license for almost everything. Licenses create unnecessary fuzz. As a technician I have no interest in them
It's my cursory understanding that the Unlicense is equivalent to "© iamcorpix, All rights reserved" in jurisdictions that don't have a legal mechanism to completely disclaim copyright (e.g. the United States). Essentially, you can dedicate your copyright interest to the public domain, but you will always retain the ability to revoke that dedication as the original author of the work. It's much easier to just use MIT…
While the OSI doesn't particularly like the Unlicense, they say
> There was some discussion about the legal effectiveness of the document, in particular how it would operate in a jurisdiction where one cannot dedicate a work to the public domain. The lawyers who opined on the issue, both US and non-US, agreed that the document would most likely be interpreted as a license and that the license met the OSD.
And for that reason, the Unlicense is an approved open source license.
https://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review_lists....
Re: This Program is Illegally Packaged in 14 Distributions
#93Earlier quoted context omitted.
I believe speeding tickets are generally civil summary offenses. Criminal summary offenses are apparently even called "non-traffic summary offenses" in some places to distinguish them. Every speeding ticket I've ever gotten specifically noted that it was a civil infraction. When a police error resulted a summons for attaching license plates to a car they weren't registered to, the ticket in the mail specifically said…
In Texas traffic tickets are criminal offenses, generally class C misdemeanors. I don't think we're unique in that, either. For this reason many questions baout crimes you may have committed will ask "other than misdemeanor traffic offenses" or such...
Yes, surely there are exceptions.
Re: This Program is Illegally Packaged in 14 Distributions
#94Anyone think the new "SBoM" efforts won't have this problem? I don't. I think the SBoM's are likely to be full of horseshit entered by people just trying to get a job done, and rarely if ever reviewed and corrected.
Re: This Program is Illegally Packaged in 14 Distributions
#95Earlier quoted context omitted.
The encoding part is one concern, but what about ryu? Is “Apache-2.0 OR BSL-1.0” not accurate? Neither of those showed up in the grep for license lines? Sure, BSL is an obviously free license that is basically just a wording variant of MIT, but it is not showing up in that grep. Note: I’ve not actually read the copyright file, So perhaps It is clearly accounted for there, but is just not formatted in a way that the g…
I have verified that ryu is a dependency of json_serde, which is a dependency of ripgrep. Apache-2.0 OR BSL-1.0 is indeed the correct license for ryu. It is not included in the Debian copyright file. I suppose this is because the library is not included in the source package, and the BSL does not mandate notice preservation for a binary output. And Debian policy for the copyright file is that only notices or info tha…
Funny, I initially thought that BSL was the infamous Business Source License, a proprietary source-available license with an automatic switch to (usually) Apache 2.0 four years after each release. But no, it was the Boost Software License.
Re: This Program is Illegally Packaged in 14 Distributions
#96Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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…
> 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. Please explain how you are viewing this unlicensed reply without downloading 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 w…
> Please explain how HN is not taking my unlicensed reply and using it in their commercial HTML code sent to your web browser
Nothing unlicensed about your reply. From HN's Terms of Use:
> By uploading any User Content you hereby grant and will grant Y Combinator and its affiliated companies a nonexclusive, worldwide, royalty free, fully paid up, transferable, sublicensable, perpetual, irrevocable license to copy, display, upload, perform, distribute, store, modify and otherwise use your User Content for any Y Combinator-related purpose in any form, medium or technology now known or later developed
Re: This Program is Illegally Packaged in 14 Distributions
#97Earlier quoted context omitted.
The Amazon package was on the front porch for like two hours... There was nothing that said it wasn't available to anyone outside the house. It's like they wanted us to take it. A work with no license file is private by default, even if you can see it.
Wrong. If the work were unpublished however then that would be a very different situation.
They’re not wrong. In countries with implicit copyright (those following TRIPS[0]), barring any license to the contrary, you have no right to the copyrighted work published online. In other words, unlicensed code is “all rights reserved, no exceptions.”
[0]: TRIPS Article 9 Section 1: https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Agreement_on_Trade-Related_As...
Re: This Program is Illegally Packaged in 14 Distributions
#98Earlier quoted context omitted.
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?
Because it can be fixed trivially, eliminating the threat? Literally, it already happened here:
https://github.com/seletskiy/godiff/commit/865648740d705a24a...
Just as described, the problem was raised and then fixed.
Now let's assume someone like Oracle goes and acquires 1000 unlicensed tiny open source projects, just to be a dick, and closes their source and begins copyright trolling. Here's what happens: people switch off of those projects. I'm not trying to diminish the usefulness of godiff; it is useful! But it's not literally irreplaceable; there may even already be other options in the ecosystem, and if there's not, it's not something that can't be removed temporarily, and replaced long-term.
This blog post is a little alarmist IMO, but people who do this kind of sleuthing are doing a service to the open source community, because yes, issues like this can just be mitigated.
Re: This Program is Illegally Packaged in 14 Distributions
#99Earlier 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 Amazon package was on the front porch for like two hours... There was nothing that said it wasn't available to anyone outside the house. It's like they wanted us to take it. A work with no license file is private by default, even if you can see it.
More like the Amazon package was left, opened, near the neighborhood book sharing drop where people customarily leave things to be taken for free.
A person should be able to recover that package, law enforcement might help recover the package, but it is unlikely a DA would prosecute for theft, and it would be very difficult to win damages if recovered.
Re: This Program is Illegally Packaged in 14 Distributions
#100Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
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…
> 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.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evo_Morales_grounding_incident