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

On Open-Sourcing Libraries

williamdurand.fr

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 30 posts

Re: On Open-Sourcing Libraries

#21

Post by shizzy0 »

antoncohen wrote: post #5

I would like to add that when open sourcing a library, meaning software designed to be included within or used by other applications, please don't license it under the GPL. Of course you can license it under whatever you want, it's your code, but you need to understand the consequences. If the library is GPL it can only be used by other GPL applications (if the application is distributed), which excludes major open s…

> It seriously limits amount of people that can use your library

Yes, it does seriously limit the amount of people that can use your library--without giving anything back.

> hopefully you are open sourcing a library because you want to help as many people as possible.

Help as many people as possible do what? Get rich by composing together a bunch of liberally licensed software to do a task and then close sourcing it. No, thank you.

I see licensing as a Hawk-Dove-Retaliator game[1] for modeling resource competition. Each kind behaves differently: The Dove never fights and always flees. The Hawk always attacks and never flees. The Retaliator only attacks if attacked. Pay off matrices describe in detail how well each kind does against the other. Dove vs. Dove both do well; they share. Hawk vs. Dove, the Hawk wins everything. Hawk vs. Hawk, the beat each other up; both lose. Retaliator vs. Dove, just like Dove vs. Dove. Retaliator vs. Hawk, like Hawk vs. Hawk.

My analogy is this: The BSD licensor is a Dove, the proprietary licensor is a Hawk, and the GPL licensor is a Retaliator. If you want to be nice but make yourself vulnerable to exploitation, be a Dove; Doves like Doves, and Hawks love Doves--it's popular. If you want to get rich, then exploit all the Doves and be a Hawk; Doves worked hard, so you don't have to. If you want to have your work respected rather than exploited, be a Retaliator: happy to cooperate with those who cooperate, but willing to punish those who defect and refuse to cooperate. Which of these strategies is stable in the long-term? See the links below for a more detailed answer, but Doves certainly aren't.

Doves may enjoy a wonderful period of peace and cooperation, but they're so easily exploited that it makes one wonder how long it will last. In a population of Doves, it's best to be a Hawk. However, a population of pure Hawks does terribly. A population of Retaliators though is nearly immune from invasion.

Note: There are many salient differences between licensing and this animal behavior model. I don't contend that it is a perfect analogy, but I think it is worthwhile for considering long term trends.

[1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicken_(game)#Hawk-Dove [1]: http://www.oocities.org/hawkdovegame/strategies.htm

Re: On Open-Sourcing Libraries

#22

Post by shizzy0 »

antoncohen wrote: post #5

I would like to add that when open sourcing a library, meaning software designed to be included within or used by other applications, please don't license it under the GPL. Of course you can license it under whatever you want, it's your code, but you need to understand the consequences. If the library is GPL it can only be used by other GPL applications (if the application is distributed), which excludes major open s…

I would like to add that I think your article on what should be in your README is awesome! I will be making use of it for a new project of mine. I just respectfully disagree on the licensing considerations.

Re: On Open-Sourcing Libraries

#23

Post by h2s »

antoncohen wrote: post #5

I would like to add that when open sourcing a library, meaning software designed to be included within or used by other applications, please don't license it under the GPL. Of course you can license it under whatever you want, it's your code, but you need to understand the consequences. If the library is GPL it can only be used by other GPL applications (if the application is distributed), which excludes major open s…

You've contributed some really useful information about the GPL and the LGPL, but the whole "please don't license it under the GPL" angle did nothing but initially reduce my receptiveness to that information as a reader.

The GPL is a perfectly good license, and a lot of very good things only exist because of it. That you would implore people not to use it at all seems an unwarranted use of hyperbole, and one that does not contribute anything to your actual point, which is that people should understand the full extent of the restrictions imposed by their choice of license.

For me, all this accomplished was to put my mind on the defensive as I read the rest of your comment. I had to go back and read it a second time in order to give my mind a chance to digest the real message.

Re: On Open-Sourcing Libraries

#24

Post by saurik »

shizzy0 wrote: post #22
antoncohen wrote: post #5

I would like to add that when open sourcing a library, meaning software designed to be included within or used by other applications, please don't license it under the GPL. Of course you can license it under whatever you want, it's your code, but you need to understand the consequences. If the library is GPL it can only be used by other GPL applications (if the application is distributed), which excludes major open s…

I would like to add that I think your article on what should be in your README is awesome! I will be making use of it for a new project of mine. I just respectfully disagree on the licensing considerations.

(If you mean the article being linked, that was written by couac, not antoncohen.)

Re: On Open-Sourcing Libraries

#26

Post by couac »

h2s wrote: post #23
antoncohen wrote: post #5

I would like to add that when open sourcing a library, meaning software designed to be included within or used by other applications, please don't license it under the GPL. Of course you can license it under whatever you want, it's your code, but you need to understand the consequences. If the library is GPL it can only be used by other GPL applications (if the application is distributed), which excludes major open s…

You've contributed some really useful information about the GPL and the LGPL, but the whole "please don't license it under the GPL" angle did nothing but initially reduce my receptiveness to that information as a reader. The GPL is a perfectly good license, and a lot of very good things only exist because of it. That you would implore people not to use it at all seems an unwarranted use of hyperbole, and one that doe…

I've updated the sentence related to this part on my blog post to: "choose your license carefully", pointing to this comments thread

Re: On Open-Sourcing Libraries

#27

Post by belorn »

antoncohen wrote: post #5

I would like to add that when open sourcing a library, meaning software designed to be included within or used by other applications, please don't license it under the GPL. Of course you can license it under whatever you want, it's your code, but you need to understand the consequences. If the library is GPL it can only be used by other GPL applications (if the application is distributed), which excludes major open s…

I guess its your personal opinion to not use GPL for libraries. It's clearly not something everyone would agree with, especially not FSF with their article https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/why-not-lgpl.html explaining why.

As for your whole reasoning around LGPL for interpreted languages, I must say its mostly false. If there were a court case that said that LGPL is ambiguous, then you would have some facts behind the statement, but as it stands, it just you who think that LGPL is ambiguous as an legal document. Are you a lawyer? Do you work in any legal capacity somewhere? Do you have any actually credentials for backup the statement that LGPL would be ambiguous to use?

Last, as a side note, I would like to add that Blizzard used LGPL when they made Starcraft 2. Blizzard, a very much proprietary company which has a rather large legal department felt apparently perfectly fine in using LGPL in their flagship product.

Re: On Open-Sourcing Libraries

#28

Post by belorn »

suppressingfire wrote: post #19
gizmo686 wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your link [1] is FSF correcting a false representation of what they said: "In July of 2003, Slashdot published a story claiming that I had claimed that the LGPL did not function as intended in the case of Java. This story was based on a misunderstanding of a response to a question sent to licensing@gnu.org, and many attempts to clarify the issue in the Slashdot story did not get across. I have received numerous quest…

The FSF is not a court of law. As such, their opinion on the interpretation of the license has no particular standing. It's helpful that they're the author of the license, and if it came down to it in court, it may be persuasive. But another lawyer might have a different opinion, so the question of how it will actually be interpreted if two parties disagree remains open and unsettled. Therefore, anyone undertaking to…

> The FSF is not a court of law. As such, their opinion on the interpretation of the license has no particular standing. It's helpful that they're the author of the license, and if it came down to it in court, it may be persuasive. But another lawyer might have a different opinion...

A key word there: "another lawyer".

So sure, if there was another lawyer here who in their professional opinion will state a contradiction, then that is indeed something worth to consider. An non-lawyer however, has about the same qualification in defining ambiguousness in legal documents as a non-engineer has in defining faults in a nuclear reactor.

Re: On Open-Sourcing Libraries

#29

Post by alexchamberlain »

quicksilver03 wrote: post #25
alexchamberlain wrote: post #3

The most important thing on that list is the Licence. No licence and most people can't use it.

Serious question, why? Is this true only in lawsuit-happy countries?

Quite simply it's a copyright violation. The risk is too large for a large firm.

Re: On Open-Sourcing Libraries

#30

Post by tjr »

shizzy0 wrote: post #21
antoncohen wrote: post #5

I would like to add that when open sourcing a library, meaning software designed to be included within or used by other applications, please don't license it under the GPL. Of course you can license it under whatever you want, it's your code, but you need to understand the consequences. If the library is GPL it can only be used by other GPL applications (if the application is distributed), which excludes major open s…

> It seriously limits amount of people that can use your library Yes, it does seriously limit the amount of people that can use your library--without giving anything back. > hopefully you are open sourcing a library because you want to help as many people as possible. Help as many people as possible do what? Get rich by composing together a bunch of liberally licensed software to do a task and then close sourcing it.…

See also: http://zedshaw.com/essays/why_i_gpl.html
Post reply on HN