Live data from Hacker News

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

github.com

201–210 of 249 posts

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

#201
post #199
post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The license has no legal authority to forbid that which is not forbidden by law and/or permitted by other licenses the author has granted. (See other discussions here for arguments as to whether or not it has that legal authority)

github TOS do not grant you use of others code. it grants distribution. those are two very different things.

See this sibling thread: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28265245

I am contending (with citations to the law) that you simply don't need a license to execute other peoples code once you legally have a copy of it.

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

#202

I'm completely baffled how people work. Something like that can't actually happen. At least if you assume people working on software can read. But it seems not even this can be safely assumed nowadays. How can someone include some dependency without checking the license? That's actually the very first thing to do, before you can even consider using something! Not doing this is extremely unprofessional. Additionally i…

The npm circus is crazy. How anyone can consider himself a dev and then depend on packages like

is-odd, 486.139 downloads weekly

is-even, 206.628

is-windows, 17.329.418

is-empty, 176.643

true, 504 too many

false, circa 700

is-number, 46.806.043 (!!!)

is-promise, 10.282.368

left-pad, 3.014.769

These are the one I hate more, but it's full of unnecessary one-line packages. Some of them are even used by the big players. I just don't understand...

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

#203
post #190

Earlier quoted context omitted.

License aren't computer code, they are social code. That matters more, not less, than computer code, at least until we're all disembodied brains in a large VR matrix - because usually people run code for people purposes, not the reverse. Coders frequently ignore this aspect, but not everybody has this luxury.

I see no reason why disembodied brains wouldn’t find a need for social agreements as well, it’s not like the absence of élan vital would cause them to cease being social. The content and mode of expression of those agreements might be quite different, of course. (We fleshbags could probably use more widespread application and understanding of formal language and notation as well—the most cumbersome description of lin…

"Someone told me that each equation I included in the book would halve the sales." -- Stephen Hawking

Algebrophobia apparently is a thing.

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

#204
post #81
post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

> And a license that prevents all use including personal is very rare and not exactly in the spirit of GitHub Non-free licensed code has been on GitHub for quite some time. It's not only about free software and you should not assume so, as in all software. Edit: changed FOSS to "free"

[deleted]

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

#205
post #31
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.

I've considered making a license that is basically MIT/BSD, but requires that anyone using an automated license checking/compliance system (any corporate users) to pay a fee to use the software.

Why not license it so that any individual or business below $X revenue can use it, but others have to pay a fee?

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

#206

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I see no reason why disembodied brains wouldn’t find a need for social agreements as well, it’s not like the absence of élan vital would cause them to cease being social. The content and mode of expression of those agreements might be quite different, of course. (We fleshbags could probably use more widespread application and understanding of formal language and notation as well—the most cumbersome description of lin…

"Someone told me that each equation I included in the book would halve the sales." -- Stephen Hawking Algebrophobia apparently is a thing.

Medically, I’m entirely willing to believe there’s an X-phobia for any X. I just doubt this particular one would cut off more people than avoiding unreasonably long phrasing would include (let alone the weird French lingo the English-speaking world seems to insist on), and making a text accessible as is to literally everyone is plainly impossible. For regulations you’ll have to arrange special accommodations for some groups in any case—it’s only a question of which ones; for contracts it’s just another thing to negotiate.

Culturally, yes, and I can’t help but be awed at how stupid and self-inflicted it is. (See “Mathematician’s lament”, et al.) Introducing algebra into legal practice now would probably be a spectacularly bad idea even if it were possible. That’s why I mentioned “more widespread application and understanding of formal language”. Passing this hurdle is a massive ordeal—if I meaningfully contributed to it and knew that, I could probably die a happy man—but, I mean, we were talking disembodied brains in VR here.

By the way, can anyone explain what it is people actually like about A Brief History of Time? I went on to study some of this stuff, but the book appears both unnecessarily convoluted and surprisingly stingy with actual information compared to my preferred pop sci fare. I like me some enigmatic promises of explanations, but Hawking’s were left mostly unfulfilled, or so it seemed to me.

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

#207
post #184

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> “my tribe’s English” That's where we are already. What you propose is forcing the other tribes to speak your tribe's english. I am not saying that there aren't advatages to teaching people about other tribe's dialects. If you combine that with inclusive policies you can merge dialects. When you enforce a specific dialect, then you exclude and alienate speakers of other dialects and this will INCREASE linguistic dri…

It’s sloppy because it’s just a regurgitation of a talking point that has no logical basis. You and I both know that not teaching a standard English or pretending like one does not exist would only worsen language-based discrimination. > When you enforce a specific dialect, then you exclude and alienate speakers of other dialects and this will INCREASE linguistic drift. How exactly would that happen? It would provide…

> It’s sloppy because it’s just a regurgitation of a talking point that has no logical basis.

It definitely is not a talking point. This is a stance I have arrived at after studying linguistics, philosohy of language and psychology then doing lots of traveling and spending over a decade thinking about it, all as someone who is inclined towards engaging in language pedantry. If there are errors in reasoning, those errors are mine since it is a stance I arrived at without hearing it from other people.

> How exactly would that happen?

How it always happens? How much time have you spend in multi-lingual contexts? How do you think creols and slang develope? Language naturally evolves to fit the needs of people who use it.

> I propose everyone who desires to participate in the English-speaking world voluntarily unite and find consensus under standard English.

Who decides what is standard? Can the standard change? Is it fair to set that standard as something that one group learns at home and another group has to study and practice to use?

> Stop taking something personally that isn’t personal

It's hard to get more personal than the language you think in and use to talk to the people closest to you.

> we may all better communicate and information can more freely disseminate across more populations.

You say "we", but the "we" for whom it is easier is limited to the people that already speak the annoited "correct" dialect.

> Imagine if people started making the argument that correcting incorrect Python was racist/classist and people should just start forking Python if they do not like standard Python.

Programming "languages" aren't actually languages in any sense that makes your argument here have any value. Programming "languages" are actually complicated mathematical notations. Funnily enough, your example, python, actually has two versions in use. If everyone refused to use python 3 because it was "bad python" then the communtiy would have been worse off.

The fundemental problem with your position is that it is inherently hypocritical, arbitrary and self-serving. You distinguish between the age of "as a lark" and "on a lark" based on an arbirary point in time. There are plenty of idioms / meanings that are younger than "as a lark" but that you hypocritically would accept as just fine. For example, you use the term "forking" in a manner that is both semantically and grammatically very new. If a word or usage arises as part of your dialect, it automatically becomes part of the "standard", but if it arises in the dialect of an outgroup then it qualifies as "incorrect english".

I am not opposed to developing language standards, but those standards need to be both responsive to shifts in the language and inclusive for a wide range of dialects. Ideally you can also teach this standard without impicitly judging people as stupid and uneducated when they use their native dialect. You also need to be careful about using adherence to this standard as a gatekeeper to prevent people from having equal opportunities.

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

#208
post #207

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s sloppy because it’s just a regurgitation of a talking point that has no logical basis. You and I both know that not teaching a standard English or pretending like one does not exist would only worsen language-based discrimination. > When you enforce a specific dialect, then you exclude and alienate speakers of other dialects and this will INCREASE linguistic drift. How exactly would that happen? It would provide…

> It’s sloppy because it’s just a regurgitation of a talking point that has no logical basis. It definitely is not a talking point. This is a stance I have arrived at after studying linguistics, philosohy of language and psychology then doing lots of traveling and spending over a decade thinking about it, all as someone who is inclined towards engaging in language pedantry. If there are errors in reasoning, those err…

>> How exactly would that happen?

> How it always happens? How much time have you spend in multi-lingual contexts? How do you think creols and slang develope? Language naturally evolves to fit the needs of people who use it.

This is a failure to demonstrate how promoting language standards may result in increased discrimination.

Again, whether a language standard is promoted or not, people will discriminate against others who differ from them. The existence of a language standard removes the confusion and ambiguity as to what the correct form of the language is. This enables everyone to participate in the usage of the language equally.

> Funnily enough, your example, python, actually has two versions in use. If everyone refused to use python 3 because it was "bad python" then the communtiy would have been worse off.

Right and it took an official body with authority over the language to get everyone to reunite over Python 3. If no official body stepped up and no standard version was declared, there may still be large fragmentation between Python 2 and 3. Everyone clearly understands fragmentation of a language community is a stark negative. You are suggesting we pretend that a standard form of English does not exist which would only result in further fragmentation of English, which just as in Python, would be a bad thing for the community at large.

> Ideally you can also teach this standard without impicitly judging people as stupid and uneducated when they use their native dialect.

No one in this thread ever suggested using language standards for this purpose. And again, the existence of a language standard is largely orthogonal to this phenomenon. Judging people as stupid comes from differences in people, not language standards. In the absence of the existence of a “correct English” the judgements would transition from “you are not speaking correct English” (which is shared by all) to “you are not speaking my tribe’s English” (which is unique to a single tribe and would be a lot more tribally divisive).

> Who decides what is standard?

Whoever is the appropriate authority of the language. It could be a national government or an academic organization. Language standardization isn’t a new concept, nearly all European languages have gone through a standardization phase. It’s a solved problem. This is the equivalent of saying we can’t standardize Python because there is no obvious way to decide who is allowed to standardize it. That is just silly. Either an interested committee will form or a pre-existing authority will take on the responsibility.

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

#209

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"On a lark" is something I (a native English speaker, from London, which is in England, after which the language is named ) have never heard or seen written -- anywhere -- before your ill-considered and wholly-incorrect posts on this thread. Shush.

Not sure why new information has provoked such a personal response from you. As a native English speaker from London, have you heard of “as a lark”?

Usually in British English (Yorkshire, might vary by region), I just hear "It is/was/will be a lark", so I'm not sure if either is particularly common. However, I've definitely come across people using "as a lark", whereas I can't recall hearing "on a lark". I've seen it used in text, but I'm not sure how many were from British English speakers.

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

#210
post #207

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It’s sloppy because it’s just a regurgitation of a talking point that has no logical basis. It definitely is not a talking point. This is a stance I have arrived at after studying linguistics, philosohy of language and psychology then doing lots of traveling and spending over a decade thinking about it, all as someone who is inclined towards engaging in language pedantry. If there are errors in reasoning, those err…

>> How exactly would that happen? > How it always happens? How much time have you spend in multi-lingual contexts? How do you think creols and slang develope? Language naturally evolves to fit the needs of people who use it. This is a failure to demonstrate how promoting language standards may result in increased discrimination. Again, whether a language standard is promoted or not, people will discriminate against o…

> This is a failure to demonstrate how promoting language standards may result in increased discrimination.

It does that right now, no "may" about it.

> Again, whether a language standard is promoted or not, people will discriminate against others who differ from them.

"Promoted" is a too nice a word when the reality is that the standard is used limit the opportunities of people who don't follow the standard.

> You are suggesting we pretend that a standard form of English does not exist

It doesn't exist. There is no single standard English, there isn't even a standard set of spellings for English.

> Judging people as stupid comes from differences in people, not language standards.

I've literally had people tell that they assume someone is stupider if they use the "me" instead of "I" in an "and" clause.

> Whoever is the appropriate authority of the language. It could be a national government or an academic organization. Language standardization isn’t a new concept, nearly all European languages have gone through a standardization phase.

There is no such authority for English, so there is no standard?

Also, "standardisation" didn't work for German or Spanish (the other two European languages I speak) as local dialects diverge significantly from the "official standard". It is far from "solved".

> This is the equivalent of saying we can’t standardize Python because there is no obvious way to decide who is allowed to standardize it.

That isn't what I said at all.

> In the absence of the existence of a “correct English” the judgements would transition from “you are not speaking correct English” (which is shared by all) to “you are not speaking my tribe’s English” (which is unique to a single tribe and would be a lot more tribally divisive).

Those judgements already happen. Teaching people about each other's dialects would make them less foriegn and lead to less judgement and better understanding.

When you take that position that there is "one correct English", that makes it harder to encourage people to learn each other's dialects and it encourages discrimination against people whose dialects differ more from the one correct English.

Finally, I'll repeat myself: I am not wholey opposed to language standards on principle. A good language standard would be determined inclusive organization that is representative of all its speakers, would be a living standard that changes as the underlying language and it's dialects change (i.e descriptive), and would understood as common reference point for communication rather than as the one correct way of using that language ( i.e. not proscriptive).

English does not have such a such a standard and other language standards I am aware of are not super effective and tend to be rather eurocentric and not inclusive of their broader populations.

Post reply on HN