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

Richard Stallman spoke at Microsoft Research this week

zdnet.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 170 posts

Re: Richard Stallman spoke at Microsoft Research this week

#141

Post by belorn »

kerkeslager wrote: post #96
belorn wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> According to Stallman, MIT is compatible with GPL but the reverse isn't true What are you talking about? Let say we have code A licensed as MIT and code B licensed GPL. You can combine A with B and distribute it. You can combine B with A and distribute it. AB or BA is both a legal combination that a distributor can do. In both cases the distributor need to follow the condition of both MIT and GPL. You can not distr…

Okay, so we have A licensed as MIT and B licensed as GPL, your example. Let's specify that B is licensed under GPL3 so it's clear: Under MIT, Microsoft can take code from A and put it into the source code of Visual Studio, provided that they keep the copyright and license with the code they've copied. Visual Studio can then be licensed however they want. Let's say that project A takes code from project B. Now because…

> Under MIT, Microsoft can take code from A and put it into the source code of Visual Studio

In that case we have three licenses. We have the MIT licenses, the GPL license, and the license of Visual Studio owned by microsoft.

If the MIT licensed project have a relation with Microsoft which they value higher than the code from the GPL project then the GPL code will be incompatible with the goals of the MIT project.

The incompatibility depend on the relationship and can only be answered based on defining said relationship.

Re: Richard Stallman spoke at Microsoft Research this week

#142

Post by CydeWeys »

Beltiras wrote: post #123
SonOfLilit wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are being downvoted because you're preaching a terrible game programming mistake as the only reasonable approach. I didn't downvote you, but I wrote enough games to hope no young programmer takes your advice. Games, as iteratively developed creative products, always interweave engine with content. Trying to write a generic engine in parallel to your game is a surefire way to never release a game. Even if you set…

Thank you for making the point. I find it utterly silly that something that is taken from granted as Best Principles (tm) in other fields is considered harmful in game programming. I've programmed a few small games, never with features grand enough to have any sort of assets management but I would think that the scope of any AAA game would be such that assets and code were kept separate. Watched the Blizzcon video fr…

"but I would think that the scope of any AAA game would be such that assets and code were kept separate."

Sure, they are. In different files at a minimum, and likely within a separate directory tree in the overall project.

But not in a separate repository entirely!

Look at how the overall software industry is going towards monorepos. Not just (or even primarily) games, but software in general.

Re: Richard Stallman spoke at Microsoft Research this week

#143

Post by CydeWeys »

rowanG077 wrote: post #106
de_watcher wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You meant control over the users.

What? GPL forces SIGNIFICANTLY more control on users then for instance the MIT license.

The GPL grants significantly more freedom to users. Users of MIT-licensed software don't necessarily even have the freedom to see the source code! All they're guaranteed is the ability to see a credit.

Re: Richard Stallman spoke at Microsoft Research this week

#144

Post by WorldMaker »

baybal2 wrote: post #98
toyg wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

NT is not a bad OS, it makes some different tradeoffs than traditional POSIX systems and in some cases it’s objectively superior. It’s just the ecosystem on top that is a pile of flaming trash.

How soon are we getting GNU/NT?

WSL1 was definitely GNU/NT. (WSL2 is GNU/Linux[/Hyper-V].)

Re: Richard Stallman spoke at Microsoft Research this week

#145

Post by jsgo »

mdturnerphys wrote: post #135
pedrocx486 wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>* At one point he did state "Sometimes there is a use for windows." Did hell just freeze over?

Read the next bullet :)

to be fair, I initially stalled on that one too. Then kept reading and then was like, "oh, okay. Kind of like the 'Mac supports Windows' with a MacBook propping a window open joke. Got it."

Re: Richard Stallman spoke at Microsoft Research this week

#146

Post by DonHopkins »

el_cujo wrote: post #86
Tepix wrote: post #59

Microsoft has come a long way. Obligatory Richard Stallman website reference: https://rms.sexy/

I always see pictures of him in exotic locations/nature on his laptop, I wonder if he's actually doing stuff or if its just for the photo-op.

JSol, RMS, the gerbil, Liz, and MG, at Kabuki in Cambridge. The expression on Richard's face is saying, "I don't know, why do you wrap gerbils in duct tape?"

https://www.donhopkins.com/home/catalog/images/jsol-rms-gerb...

Re: Richard Stallman spoke at Microsoft Research this week

#147

Post by rowanG077 »

CydeWeys wrote: post #143
rowanG077 wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What? GPL forces SIGNIFICANTLY more control on users then for instance the MIT license.

The GPL grants significantly more freedom to users. Users of MIT-licensed software don't necessarily even have the freedom to see the source code! All they're guaranteed is the ability to see a credit.

Developers are also users of a piece of software. GPL 3 restricts developers in insane ways where they are forced to contribute back any changes and even worse then that it basically infects all code that it touches. It's almost impossible for a commercial product to use GPL 3 licensed software at all. This is basically tyranny.

Re: Richard Stallman spoke at Microsoft Research this week

#148

Post by teh_klev »

pedrow wrote: post #109
teh_klev wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If Microsoft hadn't embraced open source around the time Satya Nadella took over Microsoft were already well down the road to "embracing" open source before Nadella took over as CEO. The movement inside the company began around 2006 with folks like Scott Guthrie, Scott Hanselman, Phil Haack, Rob Conery and others pushing for more openness. Two open source licenses were created by Microsoft to accommodate such works…

Also don't forget Rob Mensching[0] in 2004. [0]: http://robmensching.com/blog/posts/2004/4/5/windows-installe...

Thanks, I forgot about Rob. I'm sure there's loads of others I've missed, Jon Galloway for example.

Re: Richard Stallman spoke at Microsoft Research this week

#150

Post by jimmaswell »

saagarjha wrote: post #114
jimmaswell wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Forcing your users to have to GPL any of their code based on your code is controlling them more than releasing under a more sane permissive license. It's ironic that GPL is the true restriction of freedom for all the virtues it touts.

The GPL is quite clear in the responsibilities you have: protecting freedom requires taking away the right to be able to curtail it.

Protecting Stallman's narrow, weird definition of freedom that I don't agree with, sure.
Post reply on HN