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

“I wish I could have licensed the Id source code releases as BSD”

twitter.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 468 posts

Re: “I wish I could have licensed the Id source code releases as BSD”

#121

Post by vsw02 »

saurik wrote: post #69
epaga wrote: post #48

I'm still bummed out that for years, GPL was the "standard" go-to open source license. So many projects became useless for any commercial projects whatsoever. GPL advocates say it's so that your code isn't exploited by corporations. But I'd say that choosing GPL means it's more important to you that your code "is not exploited by corporations" than that it can be used for good by people with commercial interests. Tho…

The GNU Foundation--and the GPL--put one thing at its most important focus: that "users"--the people who are actually using the software and entrusting it with their data or their lives--have guaranteed freedoms. People--such as myself--who use the GPL believe that these freedoms are extremely important: that "users" should be able to get access to the source code for programs and be able to modify them (...and befor…

You kind of gave up the game by pointing out that GPL-folk distinguish between developers and users. It’s the key flaw in the GPL approach and all you need do is scroll a little bit to find a developer being told to fuck off for merely questioning the source disclosure requirement of GPL. Why do the authors of software command less respect than users thereof from those ostensibly working to elevate software?

Developers are users too. They use code. The GPL community’s insistence on segmenting those two groups and valuing the needs of one over the other for the last thirty years has led to way more angry threads than the world has ever needed. A community built upon unassailable rights granted to one class whilst mandating behaviors in another is somewhat incongruent at its base because it doesn’t track with unconscious notions of fairness and equality that most people carry. It also explains why developers are usually the one chirping about it, because they’re the second class in this picture. How that remains elusive after all the bloodsport and drama over this license is something I’m not sure I’ll ever understand.

I say that understanding the entire rationale, by the way. I absolutely get why both sides say what they say and I’m not disputing what you’re fighting for. Negotiation at gunpoint is what it is (again, scroll), and despite fighting what is otherwise a good fight worth believing in, expecting those at gunpoint to go along with no complaints is a bit naive in itself and a shocking lack of communal social understanding among the free software community. “Why won’t they work with us? We are telling them exactly what to do” is a self-evident position.

So instead we do this thread on HN and Slashdot and whatever every few weeks and get it out of our systems, then go back to status quo of not understanding each other nor why either side is much interested in engaging the other. It’s honestly puzzling that people still try.

Re: “I wish I could have licensed the Id source code releases as BSD”

#122

Post by jeroenhd »

globular-toast wrote: post #104

I dislike people calling the GPL "viral". The thing that is viral is copyright. Copyright is baked into law and nobody can escape it. If you relinquish your own copyright then as soon as someone modifies the work copyright comes back. Copyleft is the only antidote we have for copyright. All Stallman et al really want is to "switch off" copyright. That would be obvious if people would listen to his talks. But instead…

I consider the viral thing of copyright a good thing, similar to a meme going viral. While technically the law, people were pretty upset when a "meme tax" was being discussed because the copyright owners of the sources of many memes were seeking compensation.

The idea of going viral as making it something everyone can partake in and something nobody can tell you not to do as long as you don't try to restrict others is pretty positive.

Companies and copyright firms will have us believe the "viral" just refers to the way COVID is viral, but it's become more than that.

Any company advocating against or complaining about GPL isn't worth paying attention to, in my opinion. In this case, the one of an individual developer, that's not the case though. Not everyone who chooses GPL wants to kill copyright, especially people in the game dev world whose entire business is that of copyright. For those people, GPL is the wrong license to release their source code by for many reasons, though it's also the right license to release their source code by for many others.

I've always seen copyleft as a fight against copyright, an abuse of the system meant to accumulate private wealth and restrictions, by forcing people to give up their private gains or make them reinvent the wheel if they wish to keep their IP to themselves.

Any patent owner will say IP is necessary for the market to stay competitive, anyone who's ever had to buy patents (media codecs, mobile communication, etc) or who's been sued by patent trolls will likely say that patents stifle innovation instead. It's all about what you gain personally.

I like the idea of copyright for individuals, but corporate copyright as a thing that can be sold, bought, or pooled, has been so terribly restrictive to most of the world that I'm in favour of a massive reform.

Re: “I wish I could have licensed the Id source code releases as BSD”

#123

Post by trasz »

drran wrote: post #97
epaga wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

GPL makes "them" (especially small one-off libraries) useless because even the smallest part can not be used without therefore needing to "contribute back" the ENTIRE app. (edited to clarify I don't mean ALL projects become useless through GPL)

Which is very useful feature for me, the author of GPL'ed code.

Making your code useless to some of potential users is a useful feature?

Re: “I wish I could have licensed the Id source code releases as BSD”

#124

Post by npteljes »

foxes wrote: post #92
wildmanx wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the key property of the GPL is its virality. It's part of the vision that if I can use some software, I can also change it, to adapt it to my needs, to learn from it, to build something on top of it. I can disassemble my bike, re-assemble it, change it, build on top of it. I want to do that with my browser, my OS kernel and my image viewer too. That this is connected to how "valuable" code is, is in a sense a…

Well I agree in that regard, but I think in the ideal world everything would just be open, and you would want to incentivise openness so it ends up as the natural state. In a sense by decoupling these issues. Eg Microsoft Windows OS could just be open source. There is some value to having windows itself, but the more valuable thing is the horde of programmers, and all the other resources behind it.

This sounds good. How do you imagine getting there? GPL people think that contributing to this ideal is only worth it if you also require all participants to take part in the ideal. Thereby granting that at least the GPL software stays in that ideal world.

Re: “I wish I could have licensed the Id source code releases as BSD”

#126

Post by trasz »

cblconfederate wrote: post #110
epaga wrote: post #48

I'm still bummed out that for years, GPL was the "standard" go-to open source license. So many projects became useless for any commercial projects whatsoever. GPL advocates say it's so that your code isn't exploited by corporations. But I'd say that choosing GPL means it's more important to you that your code "is not exploited by corporations" than that it can be used for good by people with commercial interests. Tho…

there is value to keeping something public in itself, like with parks and roads. If anything i d say that todays feudal state of tech proves that gpl was right it s hard to deny that the most-used OSS software, is GPL

Not necessarily. Linux kernel is GPL, sure, but if you look at eg language runtimes, or various servers, GPL is no longer obviously dominant.

Re: “I wish I could have licensed the Id source code releases as BSD”

#127

Post by npteljes »

foxes wrote: post #55

Why is a few snippets of code so valuable anyway? We don't GPL scientific research, you expect people to cite you, and then build off your work, the licensing in a sense is far more permissive. You don't GPL maths text books and then require proofs to be licensed back. Other knowledge doesn't seem to propagate in society like this. The human element of the programmer who can understand, adapt and develop some program…

If what you say stands, they should also include all of Microsoft's proprietary code in the learning process. Do you see that happening?

Re: “I wish I could have licensed the Id source code releases as BSD”

#128

Post by ClumsyPilot »

dspillett wrote: post #107
epaga wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Not even"? This is a huge requirement for most cases. A small GPL library for, say, some statistics calculation, would mean an entire product's source code would need to be released if it used the library.

Exactly as intended, by most people choosing GPL. For a small libraries like that there is probably the option of negotiating a different license for your use. If the larger software is so much more expansive than the little GPL covered work and so valuable, then the commercial interest presumably has the resources to either write their own or license a commercial variant. I find a lot of complaints about the GPL com…

"there is probably the option of negotiating a different license for your use."

I feel most people don't understand that their projects are unbillable and "negotiating" is not an option.

If you project is avaliable through AWS/GCP console I could "pay" at my discresion.

If there was a clear price and billing details, I can email my boss and get it authorised

If something needs to be negotiated, we have to get senior stakeholders involved - those people don't move for less than 100k, you will never get paid.

Re: “I wish I could have licensed the Id source code releases as BSD”

#129

Post by malka »

trasz wrote: post #123
drran wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Which is very useful feature for me, the author of GPL'ed code.

Making your code useless to some of potential users is a useful feature?

I do not care if "potential user" is big corp that do not intend to contribute back. So yeah, it is a feature.

Re: “I wish I could have licensed the Id source code releases as BSD”

#130

Post by trasz »

globular-toast wrote: post #104

I dislike people calling the GPL "viral". The thing that is viral is copyright. Copyright is baked into law and nobody can escape it. If you relinquish your own copyright then as soon as someone modifies the work copyright comes back. Copyleft is the only antidote we have for copyright. All Stallman et al really want is to "switch off" copyright. That would be obvious if people would listen to his talks. But instead…

Erm, but it is GPL that’s being viral. Not copyright, and also not other Open Source licenses - just GPL. That’s why you won’t get a license incompatibility problem without GPL in the mix.
Post reply on HN