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

WiringPi – deprecated

wiringpi.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 151 posts

Re: WiringPi – deprecated

#131

Post by jnbiche »

Dayshine wrote: post #130
jnbiche wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, that's incorrect. The license governs the conduct of both parties (here, the creator and the users). Yes, he can release new software under a new license, but any past software he released under a certain license, he has to follow those terms. If you come to an agreement with another party (like you agree to license a movie, or book to them), you can't just unilaterally cancel that agreement. That's not how contr…

Well, the FSF/GNU disagree: https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#DeveloperViolate What kind of obligation do you think GPL/MIT/BSD/Apache could possibly place on the author?

What kind of a license doesn't have to be observed by one of the parties to the license?

Would any HN lawyers like to chip in? From my understanding of contracts, that interpretation seems contrary to basic legal principles.

The obligation GPL would place on the developer would be to release the source code if the program is released under the GPL. Based on my reading of the blog post, that's exactly what one user was complaining about.

Re: WiringPi – deprecated

#132

Post by jnbiche »

dtech wrote: post #129
jnbiche wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, that's incorrect. The license governs the conduct of both parties (here, the creator and the users). Yes, he can release new software under a new license, but any past software he released under a certain license, he has to follow those terms. If you come to an agreement with another party (like you agree to license a movie, or book to them), you can't just unilaterally cancel that agreement. That's not how contr…

He can release the software under a completely different license. Even if that is the exact same software. He can remove all downloads of the software from the websites etc. He owns the copyright. He cannot prevent people who obtained a version of the software under a license from doing what they want with it under the terms of that license.

> He cannot prevent people who obtained a version of the software under a license from doing what they want with it under the terms of that license.

And that includes getting the source code for a binary released under the GPL. That's exactly what was at issue.

Re: WiringPi – deprecated

#133

Post by chromatic »

jnbiche wrote: post #131
Dayshine wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, the FSF/GNU disagree: https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#DeveloperViolate What kind of obligation do you think GPL/MIT/BSD/Apache could possibly place on the author?

What kind of a license doesn't have to be observed by one of the parties to the license? Would any HN lawyers like to chip in? From my understanding of contracts, that interpretation seems contrary to basic legal principles. The obligation GPL would place on the developer would be to release the source code if the program is released under the GPL. Based on my reading of the blog post, that's exactly what one user wa…

What kind of a license doesn't have to be observed by one of the parties to the license?

That's every license. You might be thinking of a contract, which is a binding agreement between two parties.

Think of a license as a grant of certain rights to the licensee. There's no binding agreement upon the licenser.

(Not an HN lawyer.)

Re: WiringPi – deprecated

#134

Post by dang »

ziddoap wrote: post #57
groundlogic wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sorry guys, I'm giving up on this thread now I've tried to be focused and responsive, but instead of responding to my arguments, people like you seem intent on hunting for quotes elsewhere in the thread, somewhat at random. This is like the third time in this thread alone.

Ah, sorry. I didn't realize that something you said less than half an hour ago, in the same thread, in the same context, has no business being quoted. Apologies. Who would of thought things you said previously about a subject might be brought up later in the conversation?

Please don't be a jerk on HN.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

Re: WiringPi – deprecated

#135

Post by dang »

groundlogic wrote: post #60
ziddoap wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ah, sorry. I didn't realize that something you said less than half an hour ago, in the same thread, in the same context, has no business being quoted. Apologies. Who would of thought things you said previously about a subject might be brought up later in the conversation?

Don't feel bad. I've learned a lesson; never enter an open source discussion with GPL developers.

Please don't post unsubstantive comments or get involved in flamewars here.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

Re: WiringPi – deprecated

#136

Post by m463 »

guardiangod wrote: post #6

First of all, sorry to hear that WiringPi is deprecated, and I would like to thank the author for all the effort he put into this project. When I read his blog post on his reasoning, I can't help but be reminded of the feud between xscreensaver's author and Debian maintainers. Debian maintainers refused to upgrade the app's version and refused to remove the 'For support contact the author's email' notice. The author'…

I can't help but think maybe:

author-project-v3@example.com

author-project-2017@example.com

Re: WiringPi – deprecated

#137

Post by teh_klev »

dtech wrote: post #129
jnbiche wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, that's incorrect. The license governs the conduct of both parties (here, the creator and the users). Yes, he can release new software under a new license, but any past software he released under a certain license, he has to follow those terms. If you come to an agreement with another party (like you agree to license a movie, or book to them), you can't just unilaterally cancel that agreement. That's not how contr…

He can release the software under a completely different license. Even if that is the exact same software. He can remove all downloads of the software from the websites etc. He owns the copyright. He cannot prevent people who obtained a version of the software under a license from doing what they want with it under the terms of that license.

> He can release the software under a completely different license

Exactly. If he's the sole contributor or if you've submitted patches and signed a CLA that gives the right to the author to change the license on your contributions they can do whatever the hell they want license-wise.

Re: WiringPi – deprecated

#138

Post by m463 »

LeonM wrote: post #22
edoceo wrote: post #11

I also make free software. It's a battle dealing with folks who want both free code AND free work! Making code GPL is both a blessing a curse. Tales lakie this make me stop and double-check my choices

It's not just free/libre/open source software that has this issue. I run an email security SaaS business. It's closed source, but the suite is free of charge to use for personal, non-commercial domains. We get numerous support requests each day of users on the free tier (who are obviously commercial users btw) that DEMAND us to fix all sorts of email problems for them. They regularly threaten that they will write a b…

I've always noticed "free" in general has all kinds of strange side-effects.

Sometimes charging a nominal amount (like $1) filters most aberrant behavior.

Re: WiringPi – deprecated

#139

Post by girvo »

pjmlp wrote: post #122

Sad to see it go like that. Yet another example how ungrateful many people are towards free software. The only difference to piracy, is that not only do they not give back anything, they feel entitled to all kind of requests. So the result ends always being the same, moving to something else.

I wonder what "pirating" your own software to handle the "free trial"/free tier case would be like? Weird thought, uploading your own software in a particular guise to BitTorrent or something, to allow for free usage but change the expectations of the user...

That said, I distinctly remember a number of blog posts over the years where users using obviously pirated versions demanded support, so it seems impossible to avoid entirely haha

Re: WiringPi – deprecated

#140

Post by teh_klev »

TheOtherHobbes wrote: post #94

I've used WiringPI, it's a solid library, and - like a lot of people - I'm glad it exists. But here's a contrarian view - I'm not sure why someone offering a project for free in the educational space would expect users to act like paid professional customers. Or expect them to be non-noob experts who can modify and build the project without hand-holding. Or assume that email would be a viable line of support for a pr…

Releasing code with a license (OSS or whatever) doesn't entitle users to support or make demands when they use it incorrectly. The author's email address is given in the source code with the expectation that some basic courtesy is exercised by the consumer of the library with regard to communication with the author and not entitled demands.

If I'm a baker and sell you a loaf of my bread, I don't expect folks to email me complaining their welsh rarebit didn't come out right from the grill. Learn to cook or, in this perhaps strained analogy, learn to program and then come back and ask a more intelligent question.

> rage quit

And there we go, the automatic assumption that because an author has basically had enough of ignorant twats you paint their actions with these lazy characterisations. I don't think this author rage quit, he's just had enough of people with "contrarian" opinions such as yours. A license !== user entitlement.

Post reply on HN