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

Why I’d like a “license type” setting for GitHub projects

mir.aculo.us

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 138 posts

Re: Why I’d like a “license type” setting for GitHub projects

#41

Post by jakobe »

mindcrime wrote: post #5

For "GPL type" licenses, it would probably be better to use the term "copyleft" rather than "restrictive" since their copyleft nature is really what's particular about them. That said, I'd almost prefer a setting that lets you specify the exact license. The problem is, what do you do about dual/multi licensed projects, or projects which contain code that's under a mixture of licenses? I suppose you could argue that i…

No. "Restrictive" vs. "permissive" captures exactly the relevant information. If I look for some code to include in my project, I don't care if the license is "copyleft" or "copyright" or whatever. I just need to know if including the code puts legal restrictions on my project.

For example, both GPL and CC-NC are "restrictive", but GPL is "copyleft" while CC-NC is not.

Also, "copyleft" would somehow suggest compatibility, but this is not the case: GPL and CC-SA are definitely not compatible, so "restrictive" would also be a good adjective in that case.

Re: Why I’d like a “license type” setting for GitHub projects

#42

Post by superalloy »

bmelton wrote: post #19
orta wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This happened to me yesterday, and it was the only type of code of it's ilk I could find. Real shame, probably going to have to write my own version.

Have you considered emailing the author? I know that personally, I've relicensed code to be more permissive on request. Of course, you have to ask, but sending an email might be less work than writing your own version.

Yeah that’s definitely the right course.

The downside is, of course, that you probably need it at the time you come across it, so time wise I often have to roll my own in these cases. That’s why I hope this would make that more clear.

On that note, we need this for gists as well (maybe even more). Could be on an account-wide basis in my case.

Re: Why I’d like a “license type” setting for GitHub projects

#43

Post by phillmv »

madrobby wrote: post #30
pygy_ wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Prepare for an uproar if an entity the size of GitHub summarizes the GPL as "restrictive". The GPL enables freedom for the end user, who's entitled to obtain and modify the source of the programs he uses. It offers some protection against repressive governments and monopolistic companies, a much broader scope than what permissive licenses enable (freedom for the developers). "Copyleft" is well defined and easy to goo…

So what if there's an uproar? Other license writers could also want to be treated specially. This is just about a general filter, into "proprietary", "do whatever you want to", and "restrictive" open source licenses; for developers when they choose which projects on GitHub might be a good fit for their needs. If you read the GPL it puts a lot of restrictions on what you can do as a developer. So do other licenses (fo…

You do understand how there are people who would disagree with your characterization, and thus the more neutral term 'copyleft' is the most… let's call it politically-safe term to use. Let's not even touch lumping the copyleft licenses with non-commercial-only licenses.

The gradation of rights and privileges goes farther than "Public Domain, Sort of Public Domain, Restrictive".

The best way is to just have a dropdown that lists the name of the license.

Re: Why I’d like a “license type” setting for GitHub projects

#44

Post by snotrockets »

nknight wrote: post #29

The unnecessary editorializing is annoying. The point, which I agree with, could have been made without the self-centered snipes at licenses you happen to dislike.

I'm usually in favour of modified BSD or a similar permissive license; but whenever I read someone who is bitching about the GPL because it is too restrictive (i.e. it forces them to give back as they were given,) I consider only adhering to the GPL in the future.

Re: Why I’d like a “license type” setting for GitHub projects

#45

Post by jakobe »

phillmv wrote: post #36

Why on earth would the GPL ruin your day? What's with all the fear mongering? The only practical difference is you're forced to put up your patches somewhere… which you've probably already done when you hit 'fork' on Github.

I can't include code under GPL in my own code without changing my own code to GPL. That's why it ruins my day.

Re: Why I’d like a “license type” setting for GitHub projects

#46

Post by mkup »

madrobby wrote: post #10
mindcrime wrote: post #5

For "GPL type" licenses, it would probably be better to use the term "copyleft" rather than "restrictive" since their copyleft nature is really what's particular about them. That said, I'd almost prefer a setting that lets you specify the exact license. The problem is, what do you do about dual/multi licensed projects, or projects which contain code that's under a mixture of licenses? I suppose you could argue that i…

Many people don't know what "copyleft" is, so "restrictive" makes more sense. There are more restrictions. For complex situations, you can always choose "other". As stated in my article, this isn't a replacement for a project's LICENSE file.

I don't understand why are you being downvoted, as GPL does actually impose some restrictions in comparison to BSD/MIT.

These restrictions may be for copyleft, for benefit of end users, pro bono, for whatever else, but there are restrictions, and the term "restrictive open source" captures the essense of this license.

Also, these restrictions won't disappear no matter how low your (or mine) comment is downvoted here on HN.

Re: Why I’d like a “license type” setting for GitHub projects

#47

Post by bitdiddle »

nknight wrote: post #29

The unnecessary editorializing is annoying. The point, which I agree with, could have been made without the self-centered snipes at licenses you happen to dislike.

Very much so. I like the idea but the author's snarky remarks are really off putting.

Re: Why I’d like a “license type” setting for GitHub projects

#49

Post by mindcrime »

madrobby wrote: post #10
mindcrime wrote: post #5

For "GPL type" licenses, it would probably be better to use the term "copyleft" rather than "restrictive" since their copyleft nature is really what's particular about them. That said, I'd almost prefer a setting that lets you specify the exact license. The problem is, what do you do about dual/multi licensed projects, or projects which contain code that's under a mixture of licenses? I suppose you could argue that i…

Many people don't know what "copyleft" is, so "restrictive" makes more sense. There are more restrictions. For complex situations, you can always choose "other". As stated in my article, this isn't a replacement for a project's LICENSE file.

Many people don't know what "copyleft" is, so "restrictive" makes more sense.

I could see that holding true among the general population, but among developers? What developer who's going to be browsing Github doesn't know what copyleft means?

There are more restrictions.

Yes and no. Even licenses like the Apache License do impose restrictions of sorts, and the whole "permissive" vs "restrictive" thing is hardly a binary proposition. It's a continuum... and that's not even considering that saying "restrictive" raise the issue of "restrictive for who?" Yes, arguably the GPL is more restrictive in terms of how a developer can interact with GPL'd code, but from an end-user perspective the GPL is "more free" in a sense.

All of that said, I get the point behind a simple binary "restrictive/permissive" flag, and I think most people would intuitively grok the general sense of it. I'm not opposed to it, but I think we could do better.

Hmmm... that raises an interesting point... does Github have any sort of notion of explicit support for DOAP[1] files? Encouraging people to use DOAP files might be a better answer anyway.

[1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Description_of_a_Project

Re: Why I’d like a “license type” setting for GitHub projects

#50

Post by nileshtrivedi »

jakobe wrote: post #45
phillmv wrote: post #36

Why on earth would the GPL ruin your day? What's with all the fear mongering? The only practical difference is you're forced to put up your patches somewhere… which you've probably already done when you hit 'fork' on Github.

I can't include code under GPL in my own code without changing my own code to GPL. That's why it ruins my day.

Only if you are distributing the combined work and not giving the source code along with it. Preventing that is the whole point of GPL.
Post reply on HN