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

“I wish I could have licensed the Id source code releases as BSD”

twitter.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

211–220 of 468 posts

Re: “I wish I could have licensed the Id source code releases as BSD”

#211

Post by jbluepolarbear »

stavros wrote: post #198
jbluepolarbear wrote: post #193

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That was the intention on the GPL? To discourage use and sharing code? Because people still share a lot of code, they just choose a better license. I say better because the GPL is bad, it is the worst part of the Linux ecosystem and the worst part of embedded systems tool chains. I’ve contributed to a few open source project, but never a gpl one. Smug programmers like you are the worst part of open source.

> That was the intention on the GPL? To discourage use and sharing code? Yes, the intention was very explicitly to discourage use and sharing to people who didn't intend to share alike. > Smug programmers like you are the worst part of open source. I'm smug because I want you to share your changes to my code back? Good to know, I guess.

It really bothers me how you gpl assholes think you own everything that touches your shit. Your toxic code has been intertwined so deeply with software and operating systems that it’s a literal minefield. You and people like you have cost countless headaches, lawyer fees, stress because you fee your code needs to be used and contributed to. It’s a fucking narcissistic license.

Re: “I wish I could have licensed the Id source code releases as BSD”

#212

Post by megous »

jokoon wrote: post #125

I'm curious to listen about stories where released source code under BSD became a problem because some company re-appropriated it. So far I don't think I have heard about such story, can someone chime in?

For example ARM TF-A for RK3566. U-Boot and Linux code is available and the development is in the open thanks to GPL, TF-A is just a blob released by rockchip (TF-A is originally from ARM).

My Quartz64 SBC sits unused because of non-free boot path and supervisor code.

Re: “I wish I could have licensed the Id source code releases as BSD”

#213

Post by pera »

amelius wrote: post #205
fao_ wrote: post #172

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Dismissing empirical evidence by clinging to philosophical assertions? Small nitpick -- Carmack's assertions are anecdotal, not empirical.

You can very well reason about licenses in a logical (mathematical) manner, so it is a bit strange to speak in terms of "empirical" or "anecdotal".

Maybe you can but the tweet is just Carmack expressing his opinion.

Re: “I wish I could have licensed the Id source code releases as BSD”

#214

Post by stavros »

jbluepolarbear wrote: post #211
stavros wrote: post #198

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> That was the intention on the GPL? To discourage use and sharing code? Yes, the intention was very explicitly to discourage use and sharing to people who didn't intend to share alike. > Smug programmers like you are the worst part of open source. I'm smug because I want you to share your changes to my code back? Good to know, I guess.

It really bothers me how you gpl assholes think you own everything that touches your shit. Your toxic code has been intertwined so deeply with software and operating systems that it’s a literal minefield. You and people like you have cost countless headaches, lawyer fees, stress because you fee your code needs to be used and contributed to. It’s a fucking narcissistic license.

I'm sorry that my choice of license has prevented you from using my code without giving anything back to me. Well, I say "sorry", I more mean "very happy, because that's exactly what I wanted".

Re: “I wish I could have licensed the Id source code releases as BSD”

#215

Post by ivanbakel »

rvnx wrote: post #148
malka wrote: post #120

> "but tons of opportunities to just copy-paste-modify were lost due to license concerns". Well, that's the point. GPL is working as intented.

It doesn't solve the issue. GPL people would have taken the BSD code, do a minor change, and force everyone to redistribute the source-code under GPL. Really terrible license.

What is the exact scenario you're against? If GPL changes are added to a BSD codebase, it's still possible to use the BSD part of the code under the terms of that license. The GPL doesn't "infect" the rest of the work, either in the present or historically. You aren't "forced" to re-distribute the source code unless you want to use the GPL changes - which is just how copyright works in the first place.

Re: “I wish I could have licensed the Id source code releases as BSD”

#216

Post by pitkali »

PoignardAzur wrote: post #156

I'm very frustrated by some of the answers here and on Twitter. Carmack says: > The GPL virality wound up being a net negative, and more value would have come from BSD. [...] The best aspects of GPL work didn't manifest, but tons of opportunities to just copy-paste-modify were lost due to license concerns. One of the answers on Twitter: > Then what if it's being exploited by big techs and make your work proprietary?…

Is it dismissing empirical evidence or do they just value their philosophical ideas above your utility function? The very statement that it was net negative is not an objective one, really.

Re: “I wish I could have licensed the Id source code releases as BSD”

#217

Post by elevader »

trasz wrote: post #188
pjmlp wrote: post #166

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Playstation OS is based on FreeBSD, there is nothing to upstream into Linux. If you want to talk GNU/Linux, then we can switch to Android and ChromeOS, which have indeed done several contributions, in fact many of those left out weren't accepted.

So, as you can see, there's nothing to gain from GPL in this scenario: the choice is between Sony not upstreaming their changes because they don't want to (BSD), or not upstreaming their changes because they couldn't use your code in the first place (GPL). With Android, Google wanted to give their changes back, so they were able to use GPL-ed code. They would give the changes back without GPL too. You can see that wi…

I feel like this isn't really framing the issue fairly. The issue isn't that Sony couldn't use GPL code, there is no law preventing them from doing so, they just choose not to (for a variety of reasons, I'd imagine). Just as the could contribute to FreeBSD but choose not to. And OS developers have the choice to prevent Sony (or some other company) from essentially using free labor to make money without any obligation on their side.

Re: “I wish I could have licensed the Id source code releases as BSD”

#218

Post by pitkali »

fao_ wrote: post #172
PoignardAzur wrote: post #156

I'm very frustrated by some of the answers here and on Twitter. Carmack says: > The GPL virality wound up being a net negative, and more value would have come from BSD. [...] The best aspects of GPL work didn't manifest, but tons of opportunities to just copy-paste-modify were lost due to license concerns. One of the answers on Twitter: > Then what if it's being exploited by big techs and make your work proprietary?…

> Dismissing empirical evidence by clinging to philosophical assertions? Small nitpick -- Carmack's assertions are anecdotal, not empirical.

Aren't anecdotes pieces of empirical evidence?

Re: “I wish I could have licensed the Id source code releases as BSD”

#219

Post by bigbillheck »

PoignardAzur wrote: post #156

I'm very frustrated by some of the answers here and on Twitter. Carmack says: > The GPL virality wound up being a net negative, and more value would have come from BSD. [...] The best aspects of GPL work didn't manifest, but tons of opportunities to just copy-paste-modify were lost due to license concerns. One of the answers on Twitter: > Then what if it's being exploited by big techs and make your work proprietary?…

> Is there a word for that? Dismissing empirical evidence by clinging to philosophical assertions?

That word, I claim, is 'ideology'.

Re: “I wish I could have licensed the Id source code releases as BSD”

#220

Post by CorrectHorseBat »

trasz wrote: post #183
drran wrote: post #162

Earlier quoted context omitted.

GPL prevents this from happening by requiring your competitor to open the code under the same license. For example, Oracle tried to outcompete RedHat by cloning the RedHat Linux into Oracle Unbreakable Linux.

So, without GPL, how would Oracle render RedHat useless with telemetry? And why didn't it prevent the Audacity drama?

Without GPL Oracle could make closed source improvements which RedHat could not use, giving Oracle an edge over RedHat. If RedHat then went under because of that we were stuck with a closed source Linux.

The Audacity drama is solved by GPL, you can compile your own version without telemetry. Forks will pop up and the Audacity developers will backtrack and remove the offending parts of the code.

Post reply on HN