51–60 of 83 posts
Good on you for going GPLv3 as your free software license. I think it's really funny to see people here going "b-but you should use my favourite license" instead of "that's a cool thing you've built there".
Good on you for going GPLv3 as your free software license. I think it's really funny to see people here going "b-but you should use my favourite license" instead of "that's a cool thing you've built there".
> "b-but you should use my favourite license" instead of "that's a cool thing you've built there". First of all, "that's cool" and "license issues" aren't mutually exclusive. Second of all, it's a case of picking an applicable license for the place the software fits into a project. This is a low-level library (cool or not); if an author wishes to "protect" their code, LGPL was built explicitly for this purpose. To co…
I can't think of any good use case for GPL3. Nobody should use it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> "b-but you should use my favourite license" instead of "that's a cool thing you've built there". First of all, "that's cool" and "license issues" aren't mutually exclusive. Second of all, it's a case of picking an applicable license for the place the software fits into a project. This is a low-level library (cool or not); if an author wishes to "protect" their code, LGPL was built explicitly for this purpose. To co…
What disgusting arrogance. There is no objective standard of "applicability" of any particular license to any particular piece of software. The LGPL is not "built explicitly for this purpose". The LGPL is a compromise license that exists for strategic reasons. There is no clear reason it should be applied here. That some people may not want or be able to use this library because of its license choice may matter to yo…
Would you seriously consider using (or even trying) a new library that has not even proved to be better than others yet, if you had to comply with GPLv3? I wouldn't.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I appreciate the sentiment, but I was looking forward to using this until I saw that part. I (like I assume many others) cannot use a GPL3 library (and I'm in academia). If you want any sort of traction for a library, GPL3 is not the way to go. This is why the LGPL was created, so that you can have modifications done on your library be free-as-in-speech, but still make the library as a whole useable for a wide variet…
> I (like I assume many others) cannot use a GPL3 library (and I'm in academia). Is it copyleft in general, or the patent grant that hinders your work in in Academia? I not sure why you should be using other peoples work for free, but then go around and sue anyone who copies or improves on your work. The project wrote down exactly what they wanted to do with their work on their license page. I say good for them. More…
My stance is that since they did the work, the authors of the library can license it however they'd like. But, if they wanted to get more people using their library, I think that they should rethink their approach. LGPL is more appropriate for a library, where you can still have your copyleft approach for the code you wrote, while still promoting wider use.
Here's an extreme edge case... as they said, if they get tired of supporting the email to get a free-as-in-beer license, they will just open it up with an MIT/BSD style license and be done with it. That's great. But what if someone gets hit by a bus? Or someone leaves the project and moves to Antarctica? There would be no practical way to release an unencumbered version.
Really though, they can do what they want - it's their code. But licensing is one of those areas that you really shouldn't try to be clever.
Is it accurate to describe this as a faster Redis that doesn't have all of the useful data structures like lists, sets, etc?
Yes, somewhat. It's also different from Redis because Redis is intended to be ran as a server (it stands for Remote Dictionary Server). This is ran entirely as a process and communicates via IPC; other machines can't reach the database, only the local machine. This is a big reason for why it's very fast. However, it also means you can't distribute the database across multiple servers. You could think of it like a ver…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> "b-but you should use my favourite license" instead of "that's a cool thing you've built there". First of all, "that's cool" and "license issues" aren't mutually exclusive. Second of all, it's a case of picking an applicable license for the place the software fits into a project. This is a low-level library (cool or not); if an author wishes to "protect" their code, LGPL was built explicitly for this purpose. To co…
Agreed, most devs that choose GPL3 don't know the first thing about licenses, and just pick it because they will do whatever Stallman tells them to do. I can't think of any good use case for GPL3. Nobody should use it.
When coding open source software.
For everyone else that wants to make money with the free work of others, a commercial license can always be asked for.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What disgusting arrogance. There is no objective standard of "applicability" of any particular license to any particular piece of software. The LGPL is not "built explicitly for this purpose". The LGPL is a compromise license that exists for strategic reasons. There is no clear reason it should be applied here. That some people may not want or be able to use this library because of its license choice may matter to yo…
He's just letting the author know that the library is unusable with this license. So either people won't use it, or they will use it and violate the license. Would you seriously consider using (or even trying) a new library that has not even proved to be better than others yet, if you had to comply with GPLv3? I wouldn't.
Those that want to get money with the free work of others, should give something back and most authors do offer commercial licenses when asked for.
With licenses like BSD, the living proof is that most companies are leechers.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> "b-but you should use my favourite license" instead of "that's a cool thing you've built there". First of all, "that's cool" and "license issues" aren't mutually exclusive. Second of all, it's a case of picking an applicable license for the place the software fits into a project. This is a low-level library (cool or not); if an author wishes to "protect" their code, LGPL was built explicitly for this purpose. To co…
What disgusting arrogance. There is no objective standard of "applicability" of any particular license to any particular piece of software. The LGPL is not "built explicitly for this purpose". The LGPL is a compromise license that exists for strategic reasons. There is no clear reason it should be applied here. That some people may not want or be able to use this library because of its license choice may matter to yo…
What disgusting arrogance.