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

61–70 of 138 posts

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

#61

Post by scott_s »

jakobe wrote: post #41
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 compatibi…

Those are still biased terms, similar to how people highlight the positive for characterizing their political stances. (I've never met someone who considered themselves "anti-life" or "anti-choice.") Someone could equally say that what you call "restrictive" licenses are "freedom preserving."

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

#62

Post by technoweenie »

phaylon wrote: post #38

GitHub already parses README files of various formats. I wonder how hard it would be to just parse a LICENSE/COPYRIGHT file if it's available. This would make sure the licenses are distributed with the code. If the license file couldn't be parsed, a "Custom License" link to the corresponding license file could be a good general fallback too.

GitHub detects the presence of README files by file name. It'd be pretty easy to do that for LICENSE files too of course. Look for LICENSE, MIT-LICENSE, etc.

The trick is actually identifying what type of license it is.

Pop quiz: What license is this?

https://github.com/sinatra/sinatra/blob/master/LICENSE

This problem would be perfect for a tiny ruby script like Linguist: https://github.com/github/linguist. Just something simple that's given some filenames and contents that can return the license type.

It'd also be nice to handle non software licenses, such as creative commons. I'm not sure what the convention is for specifying that in Git repositories, however.

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

#63

Post by jmillikin »

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.

No, this is not true. If you include GPL'd code in your code, then your code's license is unchanged. You do not have to license your code under the GPL just to use GPL'd code.

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

#64

Post by jakobe »

phillmv wrote: post #53
jakobe wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

1. This only kicks in if you're distributing the program. If you're building a web service, you're good to go. It's only an issue if you're using the Affero GPL. 2. You're using free code off the internet . If you don't like the license terms, don't use it. It's within the author's prerogative to set his or her own license to his or her own code. (The most you can do is send them a politely worded email on how you wa…

"You are using free code". It's not free. The cost for this "free" code is that I apply the same license to my own code.

Of course the original author can put whatever license on their code. But the license effectively renders the code useless to me. Not because I dislike the GPL, but because I use a different license.

And it's simply very disappointing when I see that someone has already solved a problem I'm struggling with, and advertises their "free" solution, that then turns out to be not free for me.

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

#65

Post by rubyruy »

DannyBee wrote: post #34
rubyruy wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The license/copying file that is actually distributed with the code still is what you have to go by. Without license information you MUST assume full copyright sadly.

I agree. Sadly, we also run into plenty of cases distributing LICENSE files that don't match file headers, etc.

Yeah it's just unfortunate. It's effectively like attempting to distribute a broken library. People simply can't use it, and even though it may have had the workings of a good solution for many people, you're just not going to get any users/contributors. shrug

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

#66

Post by kevindication »

jmillikin wrote: post #63
jakobe wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

No, this is not true. If you include GPL'd code in your code, then your code's license is unchanged. You do not have to license your code under the GPL just to use GPL'd code.

Except that the GPL linking exception exists because of the taint that can be introduced by using GPL'd code.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GPL_linking_exception

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

#67

Post by phillmv »

jakobe wrote: post #64
phillmv wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

1. This only kicks in if you're distributing the program. If you're building a web service, you're good to go. It's only an issue if you're using the Affero GPL. 2. You're using free code off the internet . If you don't like the license terms, don't use it. It's within the author's prerogative to set his or her own license to his or her own code. (The most you can do is send them a politely worded email on how you wa…

"You are using free code". It's not free. The cost for this "free" code is that I apply the same license to my own code. Of course the original author can put whatever license on their code. But the license effectively renders the code useless to me. Not because I dislike the GPL, but because I use a different license. And it's simply very disappointing when I see that someone has already solved a problem I'm struggl…

>Of course the original author can put whatever license on their code. But the license effectively renders the code useless to me. Not because I dislike the GPL, but because I use a different license.

I've learned through much harsher experiences than the one you describe that life is unfair.

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

#68

Post by jakobe »

lmm wrote: post #59
jakobe wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 compatibi…

The BSD license prohibits you from falsely claiming authorship of the code it covers, so I guess that's going to be filed under "restrictive" too? Licenses are complicated, and what people want to do with code is complicated too; "restrictive" vs. "permissive" cannot be defined well. "copyleft" represents a well-defined, understandable concept; while not without edge cases, it makes it fairly clear what kind of licen…

It might be difficult to find a formal and logically coherent definition of "restrictive" vs. "permissive", but I was thinking in more pragmatic terms. Like with porn, "I know it when I see it". As I see it, required attribution somewhere in the docs is not very restrictive. On the other hand, 20 pages of legal mumbo jumbo concerning distribution are restrictive.

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

#69

Post by jballanc »

More annoying than people that choose licenses in an uneducated fashion, are people that do not choose a license at all. Under the Bern Convention, your work is copyrighted by default. If you don't add a license, I cannot use it. Period.

At the very least, it would be nice if Github could provide a warning to that effect. Github is doing a wonderful job of growing the open source movement from an infrastructure angle. I would love to see them also grow the movement from a community/education angle as well.

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

#70

Post by stephencanon »

snotrockets wrote: post #44
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.

I don't know anyone who complains about GPL forcing them to give back.

I know many people who cannot touch GPL3 code because of corporate legal departments' fears (especially with regard to patent clauses) and the absence of test cases, but who frequently contribute back to BSD/Apache/MIT/etc-licensed projects.

Post reply on HN