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

SDSL – Succinct Data Structure Library for C++

github.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 41 posts

Re: SDSL – Succinct Data Structure Library for C++

#21

Post by pjmlp »

UK-AL wrote: post #14
vog wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Also, using GPL for a library is often the better choice! Many people believe that GPL is for programs and LGPL for libraries - as if the "L" would stand for "Library". But that's wrong! This was never the intention. The "L" stands for "Lesser" and means less protection than GPL, for very special circumstances. According to FSF, you should use LGPL only for libraries that are competing with widely accepted proprietar…

It makes the library unusable for anyone, but open source software. If you write any sort of software, and link against this library, boom all the code needs to be GPL'ed. I don't think that's a good thing for promoting a library's use. Most people will just not use the library, and leave a bad taste in there mouth rather than spread the use of GPL. If you want your library to popular don't use GPL. What happens is t…

> If you want your library to popular don't use GPL.

Like GNU/Linux?

Re: SDSL – Succinct Data Structure Library for C++

#22

Post by jbandela1 »

Cool library. Any thoughts on getting it to work with Visual C++ 2015. It now has pretty decent C++11 support, you already use CMake, and this library seems like something that is inherently OS neutral.

Even when I am ultimately deploying on Linux, I will often develop and debug my os-independent logic using Visual C++ on Windows and then when that is working well, recompile using g++ or clang++.

Re: SDSL – Succinct Data Structure Library for C++

#23

Post by brlcad »

vog wrote: post #4
matt4711 wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The library is very template heavy and thus most of the code is in the header files so I guess it wouldn't change much in this case? Additionally, we (the main authors) have lots of contributions from other researchers which we would ask for permission to the change the license (I think?).

Also, using GPL for a library is often the better choice! Many people believe that GPL is for programs and LGPL for libraries - as if the "L" would stand for "Library". But that's wrong! This was never the intention. The "L" stands for "Lesser" and means less protection than GPL, for very special circumstances. According to FSF, you should use LGPL only for libraries that are competing with widely accepted proprietar…

Wow, this is just wrong. The L originally did stand for Library but FSF/Stallman wanted to discourage its use, so it was renamed it to Lesser.

LGPL was created to appease authors that didn't want license terms to propagate like GPL, exceptionally common with library and embedded codes. Alas, ignorant authors were also choosing LGPL simply because they were creating a library and FSF didn't like that trend. It was a completely political move to fit their agenda.

See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_Lesser_General_Public_Lice...

Re: SDSL – Succinct Data Structure Library for C++

#24

Post by brlcad »

matt4711 wrote: post #3
olistovell wrote: post #2

Very nice! Why did you choose GPLv3 instead of LGPLv3?

The library is very template heavy and thus most of the code is in the header files so I guess it wouldn't change much in this case? Additionally, we (the main authors) have lots of contributions from other researchers which we would ask for permission to the change the license (I think?).

It would absolutely change. GPL defines any incorporation or usage of a GPL work as a derivative work, thus effectively only permitting other GPL codes to use this library. That means any software in the Apache, Eclipse, or BSD-style ecosystems (among many others) cannot use this.

As for multiple authors, in theory you were required to have their permission to release it under the GPL (or any other open source license) in the first place. Given your uncertainty, it's possible that permission wasn't obtained and you could already be on unstable legal ground. I would reach out to all contributors and ask them for permission to release under a more flexible license like BSD/MIT or Apache2 to encourage more widespread use.

Re: SDSL – Succinct Data Structure Library for C++

#25

Post by matt4711 »

jbandela1 wrote: post #22

Cool library. Any thoughts on getting it to work with Visual C++ 2015. It now has pretty decent C++11 support, you already use CMake, and this library seems like something that is inherently OS neutral. Even when I am ultimately deploying on Linux, I will often develop and debug my os-independent logic using Visual C++ on Windows and then when that is working well, recompile using g++ or clang++.

We are working on VS support. Last time we tried to port to VS some of the constexpr stuff we use was not available yet. The next release (in 1-2 month) should have full VS2015 support.

Re: SDSL – Succinct Data Structure Library for C++

#26

Post by brlcad »

vog wrote: post #17
amelius wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In spite of its good intentions, a restrictive license such as the GPL is always a weakness and a flaw. I would like to pose the conjecture that any library with a GPL license will eventually be replaced by a library with a more liberal license; the reason is simply because it has one feature extra, which is the more liberal license.

> any library with a GPL license will eventually be replaced with a library with a more liberal license That's probably true, but it is not an argument against using the GPL. If your GPL library is original and useful, the cost of reimplementing it will probably higher than the cost of making some depending piece of software Open Source. So during the time until somebody else wrote that ISC/MIT/BSD version (which may…

I love open source and appreciate free software tenants, but think this is absolutely an argument against using the GPL for library-style codes.

Your point is an ancillary benefit. Most authors don't publish libraries to encourage the greater FSF-ecosystem or free software agenda -- they publish to make it available to others and see it get put to use. Picking a license that limits prevalence of use is contrary to that objective, plain and simple.

It also does not necessarily follow that proprietary would have been the alternative to free software. Published as ISC/MIT/BSD, lots of additional open source software would have been able to make use of the library, advanced more quickly, more easily permitted additional open source and free software derivatives, etc.

More power to authors that choose to use GPL on a library code, as they are certainly entitled to do so, but it is a substantially limiting factor in the near and long term. We do not have to agree on these points. ;)

Re: SDSL – Succinct Data Structure Library for C++

#27

Post by jheriko »

vog wrote: post #4
matt4711 wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The library is very template heavy and thus most of the code is in the header files so I guess it wouldn't change much in this case? Additionally, we (the main authors) have lots of contributions from other researchers which we would ask for permission to the change the license (I think?).

Also, using GPL for a library is often the better choice! Many people believe that GPL is for programs and LGPL for libraries - as if the "L" would stand for "Library". But that's wrong! This was never the intention. The "L" stands for "Lesser" and means less protection than GPL, for very special circumstances. According to FSF, you should use LGPL only for libraries that are competing with widely accepted proprietar…

> very special circumstances.

my experience is that these 'special' circumstances are pretty much "you need to use it in a proprietary production environment" and "you don't want to stop people using your software". this is close to what the FSF say so I don't think i'm far off the mark...

the problem with GPL imo is that it is manifestly not free. you must abide by severe restrictions to use the code, which for a lot of software development would incur impractical costs.

even if i want people to use my code for free I never use the full GPL license. i don't see any good reason to becasue i never want to dictate what other people can or can't do with their own software by virtue of having helped them out with mine. i really don't understand the sentiment...

for example, the choice of GPL here means that nowhere i have ever worked would touch this officially. i can tell you that most of those places are also not thorough enough to stop some random wannabe hotshot programmer from stealing large swathes of code from this repo and using them anyway... (i do not endorse this practice - but i am perhaps a little bitter because i am usually the one who spots these things and has to deal with them).

Re: SDSL – Succinct Data Structure Library for C++

#28

Post by jheriko »

vog wrote: post #15
UK-AL wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It makes the library unusable for anyone, but open source software. If you write any sort of software, and link against this library, boom all the code needs to be GPL'ed. I don't think that's a good thing for promoting a library's use. Most people will just not use the library, and leave a bad taste in there mouth rather than spread the use of GPL. If you want your library to popular don't use GPL. What happens is t…

> It makes the library unusable for anyone, but open source software. Well, the author is free to dual-license it to propriertary software for some fee - if they want. > I don't think that's a good thing for promoting a library's use But it's a good thing for promoting Open Source! That's the tactic question here: Do you want to promote your name and your library, or do you want to encourage more people to open sourc…

i don't buy the rhetoric at face value and i don't think it helps promote open source at all.

at best its promoting one flavour of open source methodologies in an authoritarian way. not open source software in general... it does little itself to teach us why open source is good, but its easy to learn why GPL is bad and tar all of open source with the same brush.

the MIT and BSD style licenses are open source, but not militant about it. they are doing much better work to promote open source software imo since people will actually use software that is distributed under them in large commercial projects without fear, meaning that open source libraries do actually get used a lot, which lets people learn their advantages first hand...

i like your quote about this. that someone will come along and make an MIT version... :)

Re: SDSL – Succinct Data Structure Library for C++

#29

Post by jheriko »

justin66 wrote: post #11
matt4711 wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The library is very template heavy and thus most of the code is in the header files so I guess it wouldn't change much in this case? Additionally, we (the main authors) have lots of contributions from other researchers which we would ask for permission to the change the license (I think?).

>The library is very template heavy and thus most of the code is in the header files so I guess it wouldn't change much in this case? Pretty sure the end user is still required to gpl their project if they use your header files. edit: the more I think about this, the sadder I get. You prevented the majority of people from including your software and it doesn't sound like you meant to do it. Might be worth a rethink i…

yeah, projects under LGPL (e.g. Qt) include a special modification allowing use of header files so that people can actually use them as pre-built libraries due to the famously confusing 'static linking' statements in the licenses.

from what I understand even LGPL doesn't allow you to use header files in non (L)GPL code in order to interoperate with an LGPL library.

Re: SDSL – Succinct Data Structure Library for C++

#30

Post by jheriko »

this looks very cool but it is a shame about the license and a shame about the code style.

STL is a poor exemplar to follow - its a real wasteland of a library and very deficient compared to libraries for other modern languages.

however i will now go and learn these things and reinvent some wheels to make myself a better programmer.

thanks. :)

Post reply on HN