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

91–100 of 138 posts

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

#91

Post by HerraBRE »

gte910h wrote: post #80
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 cou…

You've got it backwards. Apple, and anyone else who forces DRM on their users, needs changing.

IMHO. :-)

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

#92

Post by schrototo »

gte910h wrote: post #80
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 cou…

Isn't that precisely the point of the GPL? To create as much software as possible that cannot be run in DRM environments so that eventually it's the DRM environments that have to die?

It's pretty much a pipe dream of course...

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

#93

Post by jmillikin »

kevindication wrote: post #66
jmillikin wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

No, the GPL linking exception exists to allow proprietary code to link against GPL'd code.

It is a common myth (propagated by anti-GPL activists) that using GPL'd code in your software requires you to put your software under the GPL. In reality, your code can be under nearly any open-source license.

I often receive emails from users asking me to re-license one of my libraries from GPL to BSD/MIT so they can use it in their own open-source projects. These users are often confused when I tell them that they can have a BSD/MIT project depend on GPL'd code.

Everyone who cares about the health of Free software (and open-source in general) should be careful not to fall prey to this misinformation campaign.

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

#95

Post by technomancy »

insertnickname wrote: post #87
technoweenie wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

MIT-X11 license to be precise; MIT has spawned a number of licenses.

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

#96

Post by guelo »

gte910h wrote: post #80
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 cou…

This is why we need more indispensable GPL software, to make these jailed sandboxes less palatable.

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

#97

Post by dfox »

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…

GPL actually does not care about binaries, it only stipulates that if you are distributing binaries you have to distribute matching GPL licensed source code with it.

The fact that it implies that you cannot disallow users to produce and distribute additional copies is the whole point of GPL.

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

#98

Post by dfox »

smackjer wrote: post #84
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…

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

So they just shouldn't use the code. Not go off complaining how GPL if unfair and how it ruined their day.

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

#100

Post by jwr »

If I could only spend all my karma on upvotes for this, I would.

I regularly look at various projects that I can use. And the first thing I check is whether the license is MIT/BSD/Apache/EPL. If it's GPL I won't even look at it, if it's LGPL I might consider it, but it would have to bring huge benefits. If there is no license, I have to contact the author and ask him to include one.

I'd love to be able to just set a filter "never show me any projects which do not have a license in my preferred set".

Please note that I am not editorializing here, nor am I discussing any values. This post is about facts and about what would make my life easier.

Post reply on HN