Live data from Hacker News

Project includes a dependancy that has a license that forbids its use

github.com

161–170 of 249 posts

Re: Project includes a dependancy that has a license that forbids its use

#161
post #44
post #25

I love that all the discussion here is about the license I wrote and not about the actual project, which is a completely terrible idea and something I created as a lark. Why did I not spell this out in the blog post? For my own amusement. I also think it shows that licenses really don't matter all that much as some people think, they are not computer code.

The blog post and the README both seem to encourage use of the project. And a license that prevents all use including personal is very rare and not exactly in the spirit of GitHub. So I’m curious why both the blog and your README don’t mention explicitly that you don’t want allow use or explain why. Would it be worth putting something at the top of the README?

So what of it? Show me a court verdict that throws the license out of the window because README led you to believe something.

It would be an interesting precedent, forcing companies to comply with everything their advertisements say and doing away with any sort of fine print and ToS. I’m all for it, in fact. Total Ankh-Morporkization!

Re: Project includes a dependancy that has a license that forbids its use

#162

Quite an unusual, but effective, way to mark something as a proof of concept that's dangerous to use: From [1]: "This is as unsafe as it sounds and I don't recommend anyone do it outside of a testing environment." [1]: https://github.com/bouk/monkey#i-thought-that-monkeypatching...

> … I don't recommend anyone do it outside of a testing environment. … which is exactly dow it is used in dapr > This is only used in the test (and thus not.compiled and distributed in our binaries). (source: https://github.com/dapr/dapr/issues/3563#issuecomment-901563... )

> > … I don't recommend anyone do it outside of a testing environment.

> … which is exactly dow it is used in dapr

Eh... There's a difference between "a testing environment" as used in that quote and "as part of an automated test" as you mean here.

To me the former implies an experimental and/or ad-hoc environment, while the latter implies a stable, production environment.

Re: Project includes a dependancy that has a license that forbids its use

#163
post #152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Which part and in what way? Clearly the blog post is not satire, since the method works, and the license cannot be satire as it seems like it would be legally sufficient to prevent people from using it, which is exactly the stated purpose of the license. It's also implied that the author has received requests to change the license so others can use the package, which have been denied. The author even went so far as t…

Your reaction is the joke

Sure. It is a "joke" until you're tempted to sue a big enough fish that falls for it and get some people fired. Pathetic.

Re: Project includes a dependancy that has a license that forbids its use

#164

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Where on earth did you get that notion from? Just because you use a particular phrase does not make it the only or the definitive version. On a lark, for a lark, as a lark, larking about, and so on are all common. It's not some obscure quotation or meaning, it's just a simile comparing with the bird (perceived as happy).

https://grammarist.com/phrase/on-a-lark/ The “lark” in the idiom “on a lark” has nothing to do with a simile to birds. It derives from an old Norse word which means “to play.” https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/lark#Etymology_2 Using correct terms helps to communicate effectively. What is wrong with promoting correct use of English? I always appreciate it when my coworkers promote correct programming idioms to me, it hel…

> Using correct terms helps to communicate effectively. What is wrong with promoting correct use of English?

As has been mentioned elsewhere, language is constantly changing. It isn't even that slow of a process. As a result the vast majority of linguists view linguistics as a descriptive rather than prescriptive science. The "prescriptive" approach to linguistics is much more common among teachers but hopefully that is also being tempered.

The reason why this matters is because prescriptive approaches to language have a long history of being used to enforce class, ethnicity and geography based discrimination.

I think there is a fine line to walk here. If you are going to fight against the changing of language, you need a good reason. I personally really dislike the confusion of "literal" and "figurative" (where "literal" now figuratively means "figurative") because it clearlt reduces the expressivity of the language. In contrast, the advent of "irregardless" doesn't reduce the expressivity of the language (though it foes add some minor complexity as it is an annoying exception in the meaning of the "ir" prefix.) Similarly, the common use of "me" instead of "I" in "and" clauses is commonly touted as a misuse of language even though I have never encountered as usage where it added ambiguity and is extremely common. I've had people tell me they take it as a marker of low intelligence while those same people will make a very similar mistake by switching "me" for "myself" in and clauses.

I do think there is value in teaching people about the historical and cross-cultural uses of language, as this increases our ability to understand eachother. I also think there are times where we should push back against language shifts that descrease the effectiveness of the language. However, I think it has to be done with care to avoid perpetuating injustice and becoming irrelevant as the real language in use shifts.

In your particular case, you seem to be denying the existence of fairly commonly used phrases that don't actually have any negative impact on the information carrying ability of the language.

Re: Project includes a dependancy that has a license that forbids its use

#165
post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

“As a lark” would technically mean you did this while you were a bird. The correct idiom is “on a lark,” though because of so much misusage the average person excuses “as a lark.” Compare “I’m on line” vs “I’m in line,” or “as per usual” vs “per usual” or “as usual.”

For all extensive porpoises it means the same thing }:^)>

Never seen that before: your coinage? If so I hope your license is a little more free than the OP's: I intend using it when I can get away with it.

Re: Project includes a dependancy that has a license that forbids its use

#166

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>>> I also think it shows that licenses really don't matter all that much as some people think, they are not computer code. They matter as long you're willing to enforce them, and have the time and money to do so. In that case, you may be able to submit some form of take down request to GitHub against that project and other projects who are using your library. https://github.com/search?q=bouk%2Fmonkey&type=commits ed…

update: hit the jackpot the library is currently in use by Heroku/SalesForce to build deploy java apps (or something like that) https://github.com/heroku/java-buildpack/blob/master/go.mod I wonder what sort of settlement you could get if you were to send them a lawyer for real.

I'm no lawyer, but don't you usually have to show damages?

Re: Project includes a dependancy that has a license that forbids its use

#167
post #13

From the explaining blog post [0] > If you’re not interested in how it works and you just want to do monkey patching, then you can find the library here. Also > Wrapping it up in a nice library > I took the above code and put it in an easy to use library. It supports 32 bit, reversing patches, and patching instance methods. I wrote a couple of examples and put those in the README. Then in the README[1]: > Make sure y…

The author is not confused, it's like an actually enforcable version of "use it at your own risk" because it includes legal risk. It's clever and funny

Re: Project includes a dependancy that has a license that forbids its use

#168
post #166

Earlier quoted context omitted.

update: hit the jackpot the library is currently in use by Heroku/SalesForce to build deploy java apps (or something like that) https://github.com/heroku/java-buildpack/blob/master/go.mod I wonder what sort of settlement you could get if you were to send them a lawyer for real.

I'm no lawyer, but don't you usually have to show damages?

Statutory damages can apply, but in the US statutory damages for copyright infringement require registering the copyright prior to the infringement.

Re: Project includes a dependancy that has a license that forbids its use

#169

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>>> I also think it shows that licenses really don't matter all that much as some people think, they are not computer code. They matter as long you're willing to enforce them, and have the time and money to do so. In that case, you may be able to submit some form of take down request to GitHub against that project and other projects who are using your library. https://github.com/search?q=bouk%2Fmonkey&type=commits ed…

update: hit the jackpot the library is currently in use by Heroku/SalesForce to build deploy java apps (or something like that) https://github.com/heroku/java-buildpack/blob/master/go.mod I wonder what sort of settlement you could get if you were to send them a lawyer for real.

They will be happy to cease use of the code.

The damages probably amount to $0. "Don't use this code, no seriously don't" isn't exactly an advertisement of the value it provide.

Re: Project includes a dependancy that has a license that forbids its use

#170
post #167
post #13

From the explaining blog post [0] > If you’re not interested in how it works and you just want to do monkey patching, then you can find the library here. Also > Wrapping it up in a nice library > I took the above code and put it in an easy to use library. It supports 32 bit, reversing patches, and patching instance methods. I wrote a couple of examples and put those in the README. Then in the README[1]: > Make sure y…

The author is not confused, it's like an actually enforcable version of "use it at your own risk" because it includes legal risk. It's clever and funny

Gonna have to disagree that it's funny.
Post reply on HN