Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Concord, our GPL outliner

scripting.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 63 posts

Re: Concord, our GPL outliner

#31

Post by benatkin »

tedivm wrote: post #11
AaronFriel wrote: post #6

GPL? How does this interact (legally) with other running JavaScript? Do I have to make the rest of my site's JavaScript "GPL" as a result? I'm curious, does the dynamic nature of JavaScript make browser-based GPL Javascript essentially LGPL? Any lawyers or FSF advocates out there know?

I've never seen a good answer to that question. I've emailed the FSF and others and they all tell me to consult a lawyer for how the license works (if they respond at all).

I've never seen a good answer either, despite searching for one. I've also seen a lot of smart people that are confused by the GPL despite reading a lot about it. I've seen much less of this confusion with other copyleft licenses, like the EPL in the Clojure community.

The GPL sucks, full stop.

Re: Concord, our GPL outliner

#33

Post by Steltek »

goldfeld wrote: post #25
AaronFriel wrote: post #6

GPL? How does this interact (legally) with other running JavaScript? Do I have to make the rest of my site's JavaScript "GPL" as a result? I'm curious, does the dynamic nature of JavaScript make browser-based GPL Javascript essentially LGPL? Any lawyers or FSF advocates out there know?

I have no problems with the GPL or releasing software under it. But if I'm also using MIT code, should I simply release the result as GPL? And could I upgrade that up to an AGPL (which the outliner could have used, being serviceable online.)

IANAL, yadda yadda and hypothetical implementation details (linkage, etc) could make arguments to the contrary. From GPLv3/Wikipedia:

'A compilation of a covered work with other separate and independent works, which are not by their nature extensions of the covered work, and which are not combined with it such as to form a larger program, in or on a volume of a storage or distribution medium, is called an "aggregate" if the compilation and its resulting copyright are not used to limit the access or legal rights of the compilation's users beyond what the individual works permit. Inclusion of a covered work in an aggregate does not cause this License to apply to the other parts of the aggregate.'

In other words, your MIT library is an independent work and does not limit the rights imparted by the other pieces (namely, the GPL pieces). This is somewhat important since you (presumably) don't own the copyright to that MIT work and so your options for relicensing it are limited.

Meanwhile, your code is a direct, derivative work of the GPL code and at a minimum, must be made available under the GPL. You can additionally release under other licenses, provided that those licenses do not conflict with the GPL. A "public domain" non-license might work. And again, you must always offer a GPL option.

I don't know how the AGPL applies here. I would guess that it's pretty much the same except you acquire those above GPL rights just by consuming the output of the code (e.g. visiting the webpage).

Re: Concord, our GPL outliner

#34

Post by gahahaha »

benatkin wrote: post #31
tedivm wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've never seen a good answer to that question. I've emailed the FSF and others and they all tell me to consult a lawyer for how the license works (if they respond at all).

I've never seen a good answer either, despite searching for one. I've also seen a lot of smart people that are confused by the GPL despite reading a lot about it. I've seen much less of this confusion with other copyleft licenses, like the EPL in the Clojure community. The GPL sucks, full stop.

The GPL is not about being practical, it's about freedom. That's why it's the only licence I would consider releasing software under.

Re: Concord, our GPL outliner

#36

Post by tedivm »

gahahaha wrote: post #34
benatkin wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've never seen a good answer either, despite searching for one. I've also seen a lot of smart people that are confused by the GPL despite reading a lot about it. I've seen much less of this confusion with other copyleft licenses, like the EPL in the Clojure community. The GPL sucks, full stop.

The GPL is not about being practical, it's about freedom. That's why it's the only licence I would consider releasing software under.

It's not about freedom, and I'm a bit sick of that Orwellian categorization (War is Peace, Freedom is Slavery, Ignorance is Strength). Unlike other open source licenses which outline your rights, the GPL is a document that is filled with taking rights away. It's also ridiculously complicated, to the point where no one is completely clear on what is or isn't allowed (and the LGPL is even worse).

It's not practical and it's not free. That's why I'd never consider releasing software under it.

Re: Concord, our GPL outliner

#38

Post by the_mitsuhiko »

vx-k wrote: post #35
the_mitsuhiko wrote: post #4

I think more project should be this obvious with their choice of GPL, makes it easier to dismiss :-)

I think more comments should be this obvious with their trolling & stupidity, makes it easier to flag :-)

Might not have been the highest quality comment but there are lots of companies out there that outright forbid GPLv3 code to be used for anything really.

Re: Concord, our GPL outliner

#39

Post by davexunit »

It's crazy to me that there seems to be a backlash against this project being licensed under the GPL. Thank you for choosing copyleft.

Also, if I got it right, an outliner is a note taking application? The best note-taking application I know of is, by far, org-mode in Emacs.

Re: Concord, our GPL outliner

#40

Post by davewiner »

kemayo wrote: post #15

Should really have a demo link somewhere. You can click through to github, to be told that it's what their Fargo tool is based on, and from there you can click through to that... to be told that you have to link it to your dropbox account before you can even try it.

There are links to two demos in the readme.md file in the repository.

https://github.com/scripting/concord/blob/master/README.md

Post reply on HN