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

81–90 of 138 posts

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

#81

Post by gte910h »

pygy_ wrote: post #57
madrobby wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> So what if there's an uproar? It would be boneheaded from a PR stand point, and it is insulting towards the GPL. > Other license writers could also want to be treated specially. You seem to have a serious gripe with the GPL. The GPL (its unnamed ancestor, to be pedantic) is the mother of open source licenses. It enables Freedom, with a capital "f" for its users, at the expense of obligations for people who distribu…

I'd love to release source, and USE gpl software, and even make a unsigned binary available that if you could hack your own hardware to run, you could. But even if I did, the GPL would prevent me from releasing said software using GPLed libraries, as the actual binary they get has to be trivially copyable. That's crap. That's restrictive. Why can't I supply you with an alternative binary on a website just like I can with the source?

Restrictive isn't hate. It's a description. GPL licensed code is useless code to people who develop for top tier gaming platforms other than the PC.

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

#82

Post by gte910h »

DannyBee wrote: post #32
madrobby wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's actually really simple: "Permissive": anything that is generally MIT/BSD/WTF/Apache 2.0 "Restrictive": anything that is GPL or requires you to pay for or share all sources Given that the vast majority of software use only one of a handful of licenses, I think that's a non-issue (tho there may be edge cases, I agree with that). For stuff that is not categorized, people can just put in "other". (Do you have a list…

Okay, so let's start simple: Where does LGPL fit into these two? (LGPL is in the top 5 licenses, so it's important) So, vast majority depends on how you look at it. If you are talking about organized software projects, yes, the vast majority use about 20 licenses (I cut off the count at 90%) If you are talking about code that is out there and has a license marking, "Other" is the #3 category, and we classify over 100…

Restrictive is primarily the case because they don't allowed DRM binaries to be used. The LGPL doesn't have that flaw.

You can't use GPLed code on Apple, Nintendo, Sony or Microsoft gaming platforms due to the binary copy restriction.

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

#83

Post by gte910h »

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.

Or who code for the Xbox, Sony, Apple or Nintendo platforms, where you can't turn off the DRM on your binary, so can't use GPLed code in your project even if you release the entire project as source/art/whatever.

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

#84

Post by smackjer »

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…

And it's other people's prerogative if they choose to not use that code due to the license.

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

#85

Post by jnbiche »

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.

I've done this twice with GPL code, when I was writing a library and/or library bindings that I specifically wanted to be available for use by all developers, including those working on proprietary products. Both times I've been turned down. One of them was a abandonware. Great C code that the author explicitly disowned. Now it will bitrot.

On the other hand, I have asked several developers who released code without a license if they would mind licensing their code under a permissive license, and each time they have been glad to do so.

Just some anecdotal data...

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

#86

Post by mrsteveman1 »

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 don't think 'giving back' is the only practical difference with the GPL even if you open source your own code and hand it out freely.

The FSF's position as of November 2010 is that you can't comply with the GPL's terms if you distribute that code as part of something else on the iOS app store.

http://mailman.videolan.org/pipermail/vlc-devel/2010-Novembe...

Perhaps that has changed, but I doubt it. Binaries are still encrypted, still tied to a specific account, and still can't be re-distributed as the GPL specifically requires, because they won't work.

I don't want to argue the commercial vs open, 'stealing code' vs giving back thing all over again, those are just the facts. According to the people who wrote the GPL, it can't be used on the App Store, so I avoid it when working on something for that platform.

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

#87

Post by insertnickname »

technoweenie wrote: post #62
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 som…

That's the MIT license.

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

#88

Post by jakobe »

scott_s wrote: post #61
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…

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."

I don't understand how anybody can complain that "restrictive" is a bad adjective for a license that contains hundreds of restrictions. "Freedom preserving" sounds a bit like Orwellian double speak.

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

#90

Post by pygy_ »

gte910h wrote: post #81
pygy_ wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> So what if there's an uproar? It would be boneheaded from a PR stand point, and it is insulting towards the GPL. > Other license writers could also want to be treated specially. You seem to have a serious gripe with the GPL. The GPL (its unnamed ancestor, to be pedantic) is the mother of open source licenses. It enables Freedom, with a capital "f" for its users, at the expense of obligations for people who distribu…

I'd love to release source, and USE gpl software, and even make a unsigned binary available that if you could hack your own hardware to run, you could. But even if I did, the GPL would prevent me from releasing said software using GPLed libraries, as the actual binary they get has to be trivially copyable. That's crap. That's restrictive. Why can't I supply you with an alternative binary on a website just like I can…

> I'd love to release source, and USE gpl software, and even make a unsigned binary available that if you could hack your own hardware to run, you could. But even if I did, the GPL would prevent me from releasing said software using GPLed libraries, as the actual binary they get has to be trivially copyable. That's crap. That's restrictive. Why can't I supply you with an alternative binary on a website just like I can with the source?

I'm afraid I don't understand your point... You can distribute GPLed software as binaries, but you must provide the source on request.

Edit: Perhaps you mean that you want to release your source code under another license?

> Restrictive isn't hate. It's a description.

My point is that all licenses are restrictive in a way or another.

Even WTF-type licenses or the public domain have implicit restrictions.

Singling out the GPL as restrictive is insulting, because its restrictions are designed to enable the freedom for people to check the source code for vulnerabilities or user hostile features (how many backdoors for the US govt. are there in Windows?).

> GPL licensed code is useless code to people who develop for top tier gaming platforms other than the PC.

... because of restrictions imposed by the SDK user agreement.

Post reply on HN