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

131–138 of 138 posts

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

#131

Post by gte910h »

snotrockets wrote: post #116
gte910h wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 librar…

You can use most libraries on Nintendo, just not the GPL, because you have to release source code that is nintendo IP.

I'm happy you've decided I'm a spoiled brat when I give back fixes, libraries and presentations all the time, and this includes several Linux kernel drivers.

Either way, the GPL is intentionally restrictive, in part to thwart these platforms you do not like, so perhaps we should label it so to be forthright and honest with developers so they don't find out thousands of dollars later in some GPL violation suit? Perhaps "Restrictive to persuade others to do software our way"? Or just "Restrictive"?

Software was better before source was hidden away. While the LGPL has gone far (and I contend the Linux kernel is far closer to the LGPL than pure GPL), the GPL is still a bit too idealistic to fit the practical nature of some projects.

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

#132

Post by gte910h »

pygy_ wrote: post #90
gte910h wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 ca…

Section 6 of GPLv2 says:

> Each time you redistribute the Program (or any work based on the Program), the recipient automatically receives a license from the original licensor to copy, distribute or modify the Program subject to these terms and conditions. You may not impose any further restrictions on the recipients’ exercise of the rights granted herein.

This is the issue: You HAVE to put Fairplay on the programs (aka, drm, aka, Further Restrictions).

It is not Apple's licensing agreement, but instead the uniform Fairplay system on the device.

This is the same issue on Nintendo, Sony, and Xbox (although some platforms have source provided libraries which likely would have to be GPLed as well, and you can't under NDAs, the uniform DRM makes GPL2 incompatable with those platforms).

GPL3 has changed this area, which I take to be admission of the flaw there. Then again, GPL 3 added a ton of stuff people disliked as well, so it's adoption is less than full.

You can meander back and forth that many licenses are restrictive or not, but the GPL is designed to force certain actions from users of the code. That's fine that they release their code that way, but the fact they're trying to do more then get attribution and not get sued with the license, or even get fixes back for their own parts of the code, means people should be warned about this.

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

#133

Post by gte910h »

pygy_ wrote: post #20
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.

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…

Yes, the GPL (specifically GPL2) is powerful enough to empower users on those systems to never have to worry about using a program with any GPLed code in it.

What a benefit for them.

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

#134

Post by gte910h »

nknight wrote: post #115
gte910h wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Sure, I'd happily truthfully label both the GPL and the Apple iOS platform as restrictive.

Many parents love that part of it.

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

#135

Post by gte910h »

dfox wrote: post #97
gte910h wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

GPL 2 does. Look at my response to the sister post to yours.

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

#136

Post by snotrockets »

gte910h wrote: post #131
snotrockets wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 librar…

You can use most libraries on Nintendo, just not the GPL, because you have to release source code that is nintendo IP. I'm happy you've decided I'm a spoiled brat when I give back fixes, libraries and presentations all the time, and this includes several Linux kernel drivers. Either way, the GPL is intentionally restrictive, in part to thwart these platforms you do not like, so perhaps we should label it so to be for…

I've stated earlier that I'm more of a fan of the BSD license than of the GPL.

But no matter what philanthropic tasks you or I may have done, in software or otherwise, I don't feel as if others should make their code available to us under my preferred license.

Therefore, unlike some commenters here, I don't bitch when I can't use a piece of code due to its license, or go on tirades about how people release their own work under a license not to my liking, even if I think they are choosing the wrong license.

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

#137

Post by [deleted] »

snotrockets wrote: post #136
gte910h wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can use most libraries on Nintendo, just not the GPL, because you have to release source code that is nintendo IP. I'm happy you've decided I'm a spoiled brat when I give back fixes, libraries and presentations all the time, and this includes several Linux kernel drivers. Either way, the GPL is intentionally restrictive, in part to thwart these platforms you do not like, so perhaps we should label it so to be for…

I've stated earlier that I'm more of a fan of the BSD license than of the GPL. But no matter what philanthropic tasks you or I may have done, in software or otherwise, I don't feel as if others should make their code available to us under my preferred license. Therefore, unlike some commenters here, I don't bitch when I can't use a piece of code due to its license, or go on tirades about how people release their own…

[deleted]

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

#138

Post by gte910h »

snotrockets wrote: post #136
gte910h wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can use most libraries on Nintendo, just not the GPL, because you have to release source code that is nintendo IP. I'm happy you've decided I'm a spoiled brat when I give back fixes, libraries and presentations all the time, and this includes several Linux kernel drivers. Either way, the GPL is intentionally restrictive, in part to thwart these platforms you do not like, so perhaps we should label it so to be for…

I've stated earlier that I'm more of a fan of the BSD license than of the GPL. But no matter what philanthropic tasks you or I may have done, in software or otherwise, I don't feel as if others should make their code available to us under my preferred license. Therefore, unlike some commenters here, I don't bitch when I can't use a piece of code due to its license, or go on tirades about how people release their own…

I'm happy all of this is your opinion, but I haven't done any of those things

I just say "restrictive" is a fair description of the Apple appstore, Sony's Approval process of the PS3 game catelog, and the GPL, and labeling it as such is a worthwhile service vs permissive licences that almost everyone can use the code of.

For a service such as github, which is about social coding, it's okay to point out some people being idealistic and somewhat slightly less inclined to share.

Post reply on HN