Microsoft: No GPLv3 Software for Windows Phone and Xbox Apps. • Hacker News Board

Re: Microsoft: No GPLv3 Software for Windows Phone and Xbox Apps.

#131

Post by sedachv » Thu, Feb 17, 2011, 8:49 PM UTC

rick888 wrote: post #118

sedachv wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"The result is that nobody wants to risk tainting their work with GPL code if they're trying to make money." Any particular examples? "If it's GPL many people won't even look at it because who knows if someone who contributed a 2 line patch 10 years ago is going to come banging down your door with lawyers crying about violations. That's not what freedom is about." When has this ever happened? The fact is the AGPLv3 i…

"GPL prevents your competitors from outright stealing your work. BSD/MIT doesn't." "Any particular examples?" Me. I know I can't be the only one. Your competitors could just download the source code, figure out what you wrote, and re-work it into their app. As long as it was different enough, there's not much you could do. I'm not sure how this would really help you. "he Affero clause prevents your competitors from t…

"Your competitors could just download the source code, figure out what you wrote, and re-work it into their app. As long as it was different enough, there's not much you could do.

I'm not sure how this would really help you."

It prevents your competitors from forking a proprietary copy and building on top of it. Looking at the code and re-writing it is a substantial investment.

Re: Microsoft: No GPLv3 Software for Windows Phone and Xbox Apps.

#132

Post by leot » Thu, Feb 17, 2011, 8:56 PM UTC

skore wrote: post #16

btipling wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Exactly. Also GPL style licenses are a virus that while they promote freedom, in reality they take it away. It assumes that people are naturally untrustworthy and thus forces them to act in a way the creators of GPL see as the right way. Because of how the GPL licenses are worded, especially insane versions like the AGPL, everything they touch may be affected negatively. MIT and BSD style licenses on the other hand a…

You're probably just trolling, but it needs to be said every time: The freedom that the GPL takes away is the freedom to bring down the system. It keeps people in check and prevents corruption. If you enjoy the freedoms of MIT and BSD style licenses - why do you complain about the GPL? It seems that it only takes "freedoms" away that you don't appear to be interested in anyways?

Possible uses of "free" (as in freedom/libre) ...

There's free for whom/what: - the developer's freedom - the user's freedom

... and there are also multiple time-scales of "free" (much as there are multiple timescales of "wealthy"): - free for me proximally (when I've already got the code) - free for me in the more distant future (when I might not)

For users, the GPL ensures both free-now and free-later. For developers, one could argue that the GPL makes the trade-off of reduced freedom now (freedom to do what you want with the code you've currently got) for more freedom later (freedom here to at least get the code and then do what you want with it).

The strong case-in-point here is when a developer modifies some code, and then releases it, and would like to have the freedom to later build on contributions by others.

Is the trade-off worth it? This is now something of an empirical question.

Re: Microsoft: No GPLv3 Software for Windows Phone and Xbox Apps.

#133

Post by kolmogorovcmplx » Fri, Feb 18, 2011, 5:43 PM UTC

b0rsuk wrote: post #121

jedsmith wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If some wants to use it in proprietary software they cannot, because if they did they would be unable to then share it with their neighbor. So he isn't free to do what he wishes with the software. Free is one of the most overloaded words in the English language, and I know that at least some of the Free Software movement agrees due to the prevalence of libre software (as if switching to French somehow makes it more…

Am I the only person to notice the parallels between GPL and government ? BSD-style licenses can be compared to anarchism. Everyone can do what he wants. I haven't heard about anarchism producing nice societies except on small scale.* However, a lot of people don't think a community without rules is a healthy or safe one. Freedom of one person ends where freedom of another person starts. So we sacrifice some freedom…

Anarchism means 'without rulers' not 'without rules'. If you really want to grade licenses on how anarchist they are, the GPL is obviously more conducive to a world without rulers than BSD-style licenses.

For a semi anarchist society on a large scale, check out Catalonia during the Spanish Civil War. This was anarchism in the original sense of the word though, and not in the recent US sense of the word (US liberterians/anarcho-capitalists seems to long for a return to something akin to feudalism rather than freedom in my opinion).

Re: Microsoft: No GPLv3 Software for Windows Phone and Xbox Apps.

#134

Post by rick888 » Sat, Feb 19, 2011, 12:21 AM UTC

sedachv wrote: post #131

rick888 wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"GPL prevents your competitors from outright stealing your work. BSD/MIT doesn't." "Any particular examples?" Me. I know I can't be the only one. Your competitors could just download the source code, figure out what you wrote, and re-work it into their app. As long as it was different enough, there's not much you could do. I'm not sure how this would really help you. "he Affero clause prevents your competitors from t…

"Your competitors could just download the source code, figure out what you wrote, and re-work it into their app. As long as it was different enough, there's not much you could do. I'm not sure how this would really help you." It prevents your competitors from forking a proprietary copy and building on top of it. Looking at the code and re-writing it is a substantial investment.

It depends on the situation and the amount of money and resources your competitor has.