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

111–120 of 138 posts

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

#111

Post by armandososa »

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're using free code off the internet. If you don't like the license terms, don't use it
That's what the OP is addressing. There should be an easy way to filter out code with licenses I'm not going to like.

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

#112

Post by jabkobob »

jmillikin wrote: post #93
kevindication wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

So are you saying I can copy and paste some useful functions from your GPL code into my BSD code? And then the next person can use my code (with the pasted code from your project) in their proprietary software, given they stick to the requirements from my BSD license?

As far as I understand, the viral nature of the GPL does not allow this.

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

#113

Post by benmanns »

bmelton wrote: post #40
tommi wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Does it make you more vulnerable to law suits if the author says no and you decide to code/acquire something similar?

Honestly, I don't know. I'd suppose it depends more on the sort of thing we're talking about than anything. If it's something like "Obtvse", or a fully formed system and you're copying it outwardly, then probably yes. If it's a ilbrary that fetches RSS feeds as part of a larger system, I'm guessing no. Of course, it also depends significantly on the author. If it's a public git repository, one assumes that it's somet…

Yes, however, GitHub's Terms of Service section F.1. (http://help.github.com/terms-of-service/#f_copyright_and_con...) specifies "By setting your repositories to be viewed publicly, you agree to allow others to view and fork your repositories."

I suppose you could write a license that allows others to view and copy your code, but not make any modifications, as fork doesn't seem to be defined to include modification.

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

#114

Post by reidrac »

binarycrusader wrote: post #110
reidrac wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Besides the blog content license is CC BY-NC-SA. That's copyleft, isn't it? Interesting choice for a person with a strong opinion against the GPL.

1) his blog content isn't software 2) the general issue with GPL isn't copyleft; it's the patent clauses (in GPLv3), and all of the various distribution requirements, plus the essential forbiddance of DRM (in GPLv3) So no, it isn't so interesting.

That's a good argumentation (I don't fully agree with 1, it may ruin someone's good mood anyway).

I got distracted by the way he wrote the post.

Edit: typo

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

#115

Post by nknight »

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…

Your gripe seems to be with the restrictive Apple ecosystem, not the GPL.

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

#116

Post by snotrockets »

gte910h wrote: post #83
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.

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.

Copyleft tries to discourage closed platforms. As such, you wouldn't expect Copyleft-ists to support those platforms by making developing for them easier/cheaper.

They give you the carrot of free code; the stick is the viral nature of the license. Expecting to reap the fruit without giving anything is best left to spoiled brats, not clear thinking developers.

In fact, the FSF proudly claim that by keeping some libraries GPLed, instead of LGPLed, they caused some software that used those libraries become FOSS, where it wouldn't be released as such had those libraries been licensed under a more permissive license.

PS You can not distribute GPLed software for Nintendo's platforms not just because it would go against the GPL, but also because it would also go against Nintendo's SDK license, which prohibits use of FOSS with their code. See: http://sev-notes.blogspot.com/2009/06/gpl-scummvm-and-violat...

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

#117

Post by anonymoushn »

jmillikin wrote: post #93
kevindication wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

My impression is that I cannot license derivative works of GPL works under a permissive license. Is this incorrect?

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

#118

Post by alexyoung »

I've been thinking about this for a while, because I write about several open source projects a week and like to mention the license in my articles. It's often hard to find the license: it might be in the readme, a license file, or in a boilerplate comment at the top of a source file.

Sometimes a license file is included, but the name of the license is not, so I have to try searching for fragments of the text to figure out what license it actually is (I have quite a few memorised now).

It's possible GitHub could solve this by interpreting files intended for packaging systems like package.json. For example, I occasionally find authors of Node modules actually include a 'licenses' property in their package.json but don't mention the license anywhere else.

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

#119

Post by Natsu »

jakobe wrote: post #68
lmm wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> "I know it when I see it"

Categories which are dependent on the user's own viewpoint are not suitable for a wide audience because the people are too different.

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

#120

Post by nkassis »

mindcrime wrote: post #49
madrobby wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 bin…

"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."

This is an important point. How many people know that they should list their changes when using EDIT:Some licenses or the patent stuff in the Apache license etc...

These tags don't really make sense.

Post reply on HN