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

71–80 of 138 posts

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

#71

Post by nknight »

stephencanon wrote: post #70
snotrockets wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

You haven't been browsing HN long enough. People go off on rants about the GPL restricting their freedom and just generally being evil all the time, has nothing to do with corporate lawyers.

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

#72

Post by JOnAgain »

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.

Having anything with GPL in it in a startup is a red flag during diligence. Goes double for Enterprise level. For that reason, most companies won't use GPL software or, if they do, they have it all "fire-walled" from all their other software. The fear is that someone inadvertently includes it in the companies other code and causes a huge legal mess. Or you patch something, and now you need a way to open source stuff -- companies are built to prevent code from leaving, getting stuff going the other way is a bureaucratic nightmare.

Overall, even if you're complying with the GPL (using the software in an approved manner), it's not usually worth the hassle of proving you're complying with the GPL _in a way that is legally defensible_.

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

#73

Post by DHowett »

stephencanon wrote: post #70
snotrockets wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Absence of test cases? Surely this is not a function of the license in use, correct? There can be shitty BSD-licensed swill with no test cases just as easily as there can be that as GPLv3.

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

#74

Post by kl4m »

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…

It has no restrictions for developers, only for redistributors.

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

#75

Post by stephencanon »

DHowett wrote: post #73
stephencanon wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Absence of test cases? Surely this is not a function of the license in use, correct? There can be shitty BSD-licensed swill with no test cases just as easily as there can be that as GPLv3.

Legal test cases for the provisions of the license that scare the lawyers. Not software tests.

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

#76

Post by tptacek »

there wrote: post #51
tptacek wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just seems like a source of potentially expensive misunderstandings.

Sourceforge and Google Code have had these license options available to show on project pages forever. I think it'll be fine.

Fair enough!

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

#77

Post by dave1010uk »

madrobby wrote: post #8
simpleascouldbe wrote: post #6

I think having a hard-coded drop down for actual licenses is a good idea, because then we can do the searching and filtering you suggest. I don't like grouping them into 'types'. I think that's too much of a value judgement. Any enterprise's legal department is going to approve or disapprove of specific licenses, so that's what developers like me will be looking for. Potential issues: * Modified licenses (eg: JSLint'…

A list of every type if license can't work, because it needs to be constantly updated and people may want to write their own, etc. That's why the general type makes much more sense for a quick glimpse if some code is probably suitable license-wise for your project.

List the most popular licences and have an "Other" option. Simple.

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

#78

Post by gte910h »

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.

It's not possible to distribute GPLed software on all platforms, which it the hitch for many of my customers.

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

#79

Post by DHowett »

stephencanon wrote: post #75
DHowett wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Absence of test cases? Surely this is not a function of the license in use, correct? There can be shitty BSD-licensed swill with no test cases just as easily as there can be that as GPLv3.

Legal test cases for the provisions of the license that scare the lawyers. Not software tests.

Oh. That makes a lot more sense. Thanks :P

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

#80

Post by gte910h »

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…

They are restrictive: It is impossible to release Apple Mac Appstore or iOS Appstore with them even if you release your source, as the binaries can't even have DRM on them even if you're giving away the source.

The license needs changing. It isn't protecting anyone with the requirement that the binary that someone gets isn't DRMed. There are many software channels (Apple, Xbox, Sony/PS3, Nintendo, just to name a couple big names) that don't have a DRM free way to run them.

Post reply on HN