31–40 of 46 posts
Right off the bat there's a pretty serious error: > There’s been a lot of discussion about licensing in the news, with Red Hat and now Hashicorp notably adjusting their licensing models to be more “business friendly,” and Codecov (proudly, and mistakenly) pronouncing they are now “open source.” Red Hat has not adjusted any of their "licensing models." They've simply stopped publishing the RHEL sources publicly. They'…
Is GPL vs. MIT even relevant in this case? GPL only requires providing sources with the distributed binary, but for server-side code you don't distribute the binary so don't have to publish sources. The whole point behind the AGPL is to close this loophole. Further I don't think the change to GPL even fixed the author's original concern of something like AWS taking it and standing up a service on it. The GPL wouldn't…
The concept of derived work in copyright law has nothing to do with how the binaries are linked together nor is an entire work derived from a GPL library just because they happen to call it at one point. Lawyers look at this very differently.
I looked at OP's account. No comments at all, and every submission leads to his own website. Many of them marked as [dead]. I thought this was strictly against HN guidelines?
"Guidelines" are never "strict." Guideline: "Please don't use HN primarily for promotion. It's ok to post your own stuff part of the time, but the primary use of the site should be for curiosity." OP has made 5 submissions in 7 months. All for blog posts tangential to their product, not even direct product offerings, not even directly pitching their product. (I read the posts and still don't know what they actually s…
Is GPL vs. MIT even relevant in this case? GPL only requires providing sources with the distributed binary, but for server-side code you don't distribute the binary so don't have to publish sources. The whole point behind the AGPL is to close this loophole. Further I don't think the change to GPL even fixed the author's original concern of something like AWS taking it and standing up a service on it. The GPL wouldn't…
https://github.com/goauthentik/authentik/commit/4671d4afb4d3...
I looked at OP's account. No comments at all, and every submission leads to his own website. Many of them marked as [dead]. I thought this was strictly against HN guidelines?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not arguing. But in practice there’s some number of large orgs hostile to GPL (which strikes me as bass-ackwards, but there you have it).
Indeed, I don't understand it, especially when it's a back-end service they're running, not even something they are modifying and reselling. The GPL is completely safe for that.
>The drawback of building commercially on top of open source software using GPL is that the copyleft aspect can put some people off. Not every person or business wants to have to expose their code for every minor change or bug fix they may add... That's the entire point of copyleft licenses. Businesses want to benefit from the community without giving back.
>The drawback of building commercially on top of open source software using GPL is that the copyleft aspect can put some people off. Not every person or business wants to have to expose their code for every minor change or bug fix they may add... That's the entire point of copyleft licenses. Businesses want to benefit from the community without giving back.
Copyleft doesn't seem to cause businesses to give more back, but does seem to prevent them from benefiting from the community, which is a shame.
>The drawback of building commercially on top of open source software using GPL is that the copyleft aspect can put some people off. Not every person or business wants to have to expose their code for every minor change or bug fix they may add... That's the entire point of copyleft licenses. Businesses want to benefit from the community without giving back.
Copyleft doesn't seem to cause businesses to give more back, but does seem to prevent them from benefiting from the community, which is a shame.
Do you think so many of those Linux drivers would have their code available if the kernel weren't copyleft licensed?
GPLv3 doesn't protect SaaS users anyway! That's the whole point of AGPL. lol
IOW, GPLv3 doesn't prevent Amazon or Google or Microsoft from offering a hosted version of your project without sharing source code changes with customers.