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

Statement Regarding the Zen Programming Language

ziglang.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

151–160 of 299 posts

Re: Statement Regarding the Zen Programming Language

#151

Post by CyberRabbi »

aidenn0 wrote: post #110
pfraze wrote: post #84

Something which people don't always recognize about open source is how "value-capture" works for creators. FOSS eschews direct monetization (selling licenses to the core product) based on an ethical premise (it's unfairly limiting to end-users) and/or a business premise (the ecosystem is a key to the value prop and licenses would slow down the ecosystem growth). None of that means that the creator isn't capturing val…

Also the back and forth seems to be Andrew, et al: "you're being an asshole" Kristopher: "we're not doing anything illegal" Which to an outsider just reads like a tacit admission of being an asshole.

If being an asshole is something the Zig community does not want people to do with its code, why not just license Zig in such a way to prevent this type of usage of its code?

They already implement a code of conduct to restrict behavior in their community.

Re: Statement Regarding the Zen Programming Language

#152

Post by fastball »

pjmlp wrote: post #148
fastball wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes? Anyone can download a binary that runs on MacOS.

Not when notarization no longer can be worked around.

At which point the commercial part will continue to be notarization, as it is currently.

Re: Statement Regarding the Zen Programming Language

#153

Post by JeremyBanks »

kristopher wrote: post #101
dnautics wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

since you have instead settled on forking as the zen PL, which is your right to do, would you turn that trademark over to the zig foundation as a show of good faith?

Our communication with the ZSF seems to be on the rocks. If they can communicate politely, this could be possible. The ZSF has my email address.

You're making yourself sound more like a villain with every comment.

Re: Statement Regarding the Zen Programming Language

#154

Post by scythe »

falcolas wrote: post #135
hitekker wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s perfectly reasonable for an Open Source software foundation to point out how a private company is misusing their software and misappropriating their brand. Saying that Zig’s creators should sit down and be quiet sounds both condescending and craven.

No, Zig's creators putting up a stink about a for-profit fork (a developer IP assignment clause, how.. actually quite common, come to think of it) sounds like they made a decision that they now regret, and so they'll use whatever tactics they can to pull people off the fork. And lay off the personal attack, 'k?

>a developer IP assignment clause, how.. actually quite common

It is absolutely not normal to demand copyright for code written by a developer in off-hours. It is extremely not normal to write non-compete clauses for software developers and the ban on non-compete clauses in California has been cited as a key policy promoting the growth of the software industry. And it is obviously adversarial to fork a project and then try to get developers on the project to sign non-competes saying they will not work on the project.

Re: Statement Regarding the Zen Programming Language

#155

Post by MaxBarraclough »

kodablah wrote: post #50
CyberRabbi wrote: post #2

This is why you always use GPL

For those that believe in software freedoms as fewer restrictions, you have to accept that people may take advantage of your fewer restrictions. This is the cost of giving more (beer) freedom, and you don't have to abandon your principles because of how it manifests. (this has obvious political analogies in other restriction-less freedom contexts too)

To paraphrase Stallman on the topic of permissive Free Software licences:

Some people prefer permissive Free Software licences, and feel that copyleft licences like the GPL introduce unwelcome restrictions. I don't understand this objection. They're unhappy that the licence doesn't grant the power to deny other people their freedom?

Re: Statement Regarding the Zen Programming Language

#156

Post by AsyncAwait »

Dork1234 wrote: post #6
CyberRabbi wrote: post #2

This is why you always use GPL

Re branding a MIT license software and selling a commercial version is a good thing if done correctly. Clearly Zen is not providing any added value. The key takeaway from this is you don't sign contracts with overly aggressive business executives. I also think Non-competes should be almost completely banned for most employees.

> Re branding a MIT license software and selling a commercial version is a good thing if done correctly.

GPL does not prevent you from selling a commercial version, only from closing up the source.

Having no access to the source is to direct user determent.

Re: Statement Regarding the Zen Programming Language

#157

Post by CyberRabbi »

aidenn0 wrote: post #134
CyberRabbi wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is precisely my point. Why allow anyone to walk off the cliff if you’re just going to tell them it’s wrong anyway? They could have avoided all of this if it were GPL in the first place.

Because you believe in personal freedom?

I do not mean this disrespectfully but isn’t that taking the idea of “personal freedom” to absurdity? I believe in personal freedom as well but I don’t think walking off a cliff or maliciously using someone Else’s labor is freedom.

Re: Statement Regarding the Zen Programming Language

#158

Post by falcolas »

scythe wrote: post #154
falcolas wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, Zig's creators putting up a stink about a for-profit fork (a developer IP assignment clause, how.. actually quite common, come to think of it) sounds like they made a decision that they now regret, and so they'll use whatever tactics they can to pull people off the fork. And lay off the personal attack, 'k?

>a developer IP assignment clause, how.. actually quite common It is absolutely not normal to demand copyright for code written by a developer in off-hours. It is extremely not normal to write non-compete clauses for software developers and the ban on non-compete clauses in California has been cited as a key policy promoting the growth of the software industry. And it is obviously adversarial to fork a project and th…

> It is absolutely not normal to demand copyright for code written by a developer in off-hours.

In the US, it's the standard. There are exceptions, but most companies will demand it. I've been bound by IP assignment contracts exactly like this for my entire career - from Oracle to a pair of startups.

> sign non-competes saying they will not work on the project.

Also, in the US, this is a long-established standard. You will not work for your competitors. Zig is a competitor for Zen.

Re: Statement Regarding the Zen Programming Language

#159

Post by CyberRabbi »

nemothekid wrote: post #140
CyberRabbi wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Roughly $100K-$200K maximum and it would be a good use of time if it would recover potentially millions for the foundation.

> recover potentially millions for the foundation. You really believe a guy setting up a superficial fork in his basement has "millions" to pay out in damages?

If he doesn’t then there is little point in writing this blog post as well.

Re: Statement Regarding the Zen Programming Language

#160

Post by magic_quotes »

mhh__ wrote: post #143
magic_quotes wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If zig were licensed GPL, the zig foundation would be able to sell permissive licenses to companies That would be against the spirit of GPL, which is ideologically opposed to all proprietary software.

Stallman himself has said he approves of GPL/Commercial dual licensing. It's a good way to support a project - companies don't like the GPL but they also want to spend money on support.

FSF isn't vehemently opposed to permissive licenses either (they are merely discouraged), but that is the argument GP decided to bring here.
Post reply on HN