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

Light Table 0.7.0

lighttable.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–109 of 109 posts

Re: Light Table 0.7.0

#101

Post by djur »

pbreit wrote: post #100
djur wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why would people not feel comfortable modifying GPL code? The entire goal of the license is to allow people to make and distribute modified versions.

Because you're required to participate in some sort of re-distribution activity that is unrelated to your primary goal.

That isn't true. All the GPL requires is that if you distribute a modified version of something licensed under it, you must also make your modifications available to users under the same terms. If you don't distribute your modified version, the license doesn't apply to you at all.

From the perspective of someone contributing code to an open source project, there is no difference between a MIT-licensed or GPL-licensed project -- your contributions are covered under the same license as the project as a whole.

Re: Light Table 0.7.0

#103

Post by pbreit »

djur wrote: post #101
pbreit wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because you're required to participate in some sort of re-distribution activity that is unrelated to your primary goal.

That isn't true. All the GPL requires is that if you distribute a modified version of something licensed under it, you must also make your modifications available to users under the same terms. If you don't distribute your modified version, the license doesn't apply to you at all. From the perspective of someone contributing code to an open source project, there is no difference between a MIT-licensed or GPL-licensed…

OP specifically cited companies that were wary of the license requirements with respect to code modifications. Not sure how it can get much clearer. The licenses are not even similar.

Re: Light Table 0.7.0

#105

Post by djur »

pbreit wrote: post #103
djur wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That isn't true. All the GPL requires is that if you distribute a modified version of something licensed under it, you must also make your modifications available to users under the same terms. If you don't distribute your modified version, the license doesn't apply to you at all. From the perspective of someone contributing code to an open source project, there is no difference between a MIT-licensed or GPL-licensed…

OP specifically cited companies that were wary of the license requirements with respect to code modifications. Not sure how it can get much clearer. The licenses are not even similar.

I just don't see where "comfort" comes into it, unless it refers to people wanting to release proprietary modified versions or extensions. If that's the case, "please change your license, because I would like to distribute proprietary derivations of your software" is a different argument than "Please change your license, because I do not feel comfortable modifying GPL code". The latter makes it sound like GPL code has copyleft cooties that jump out of the code and onto developers.

Re: Light Table 0.7.0

#106

Post by djur »

Someone wrote: post #48
pnathan wrote: post #9

What issue could possibly exist for using a GPL editor? It's not being shipped from a company...

I don't think 'shipped' has been clearly defined in court. Let say you extend it in-house, contractors move in, and you let them install the modified development environment on their laptops. Do you have to give them your changes upon request, licensed under the GPL? Also, if you make a web-based product based on this, and a customer insists on hosting it in its cloud (many do because they do not want to, or in pract…

You should already be tracking the licenses of the code you use. The BSD and MIT licenses both require attribution to the original copyright holders.

Re: Light Table 0.7.0

#107

Post by pbreit »

djur wrote: post #105
pbreit wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

OP specifically cited companies that were wary of the license requirements with respect to code modifications. Not sure how it can get much clearer. The licenses are not even similar.

I just don't see where "comfort" comes into it, unless it refers to people wanting to release proprietary modified versions or extensions. If that's the case, "please change your license, because I would like to distribute proprietary derivations of your software" is a different argument than "Please change your license, because I do not feel comfortable modifying GPL code". The latter makes it sound like GPL code ha…

Yes, that's exactly the baggage that GPL carries.

Re: Light Table 0.7.0

#108

Post by peterashford »

zurn wrote: post #47

It would be cool to see some videos of the current LightTable, since it was the demo videos of the original prototype that made its name originally. FWIW I remember trying LT once post-open sourcing and ran out of enthusiasm before I could figure out how to see any of the "cool stuff from the video".

Yup. I started trying to use it and found I couldn't do something as simple as change the font. I recall the help system referred me to the web page which referred me to a video about editing a config file. Which was when I decided that if doing something so simple was so convoluted then this wasn't the editor for me.

Re: Light Table 0.7.0

#109

Post by guscost »

johnsmith32 wrote: post #88
guscost wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In most cases, if I've written some open source code I would rather see someone exploit it for profit than see someone prevented from using it because they can't meet the license terms. I don't claim to speak for anyone else but that is the logic.

I support your idea, start a school of philosophy on this? Crowdsourced capitalism?

That sounds like a lot of work, and I'm sure a lot of folks have expressed or at least agree with the sentiment. But I'll consider writing about it in more detail.
Post reply on HN