231–240 of 249 posts
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'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…
Where I work for we have automated license scanners for this reason. They would flag such a use. But this open source project, and apparently 467 other cases, missed that. Maybe the contributors assumed the author had done their due diligence, maybe they just don't check in general, it's hard to know.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The conflicting license states >I do not give anyone permissions to use this tool for any purpose. Don't use it. So no use rights either.
But the granting of rights to redistribute is governed by the applicable copyright law, as far as I know there is no equivalent body of law governing usage. You can't give someone information but attach conditions to its use, except in specific circumstances. You can certainly make someone sign a contract before agreeing to give them the information, but that's not what's occurring here.
If you can figure out how to use software code that someone else wrote, without making your own copy of it first, I suppose that would not be in violation. I’m not aware of any way to do that, though.
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 issue here is that you're a well-poisoner, putting out code that can't be used, as a joke, while also making a popular blog post and making the software easy to use as a library. Now that it's being used, it's also hard for folks to remove your library and implement something similar without it being considered a derivative. Sure, it's funny, but it's a joke at the expense of everyone else. This is like going to…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
The answer is likely no (within the U.S. at least), based on conversations I’ve had with lawyers who specialize in intellectual property law.
While arguing on HN is a fun intellectual exercise, I would encourage anyone to talk things over with a lawyer before putting financial resources at risk by intentionally violating the expressed license (or lack thereof) in published software code. Even if it is published on GitHub.
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
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> As long as you do not compile and run it, you can link it until you turn blue in the face. With GitHub Codespaces and GitHub Actions you aren't compiling or running the code, GitHub is. From my understanding, this satisfies the following: > solely on GitHub as permitted through GitHub's functionality
I told the judge that I didn’t kill anyone, the hitman I hired did! For some reason, he didn’t see it as you do.
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 issue here is that you're a well-poisoner, putting out code that can't be used, as a joke, while also making a popular blog post and making the software easy to use as a library. Now that it's being used, it's also hard for folks to remove your library and implement something similar without it being considered a derivative. Sure, it's funny, but it's a joke at the expense of everyone else. This is like going to…
If someone spends the time to integrate mystery code without taking the time to check the license allows it then frankly they dug that hole themselves.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Gonna have to disagree that it's funny.
Why not? Do you feel entitled to a warranty?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why not? Do you feel entitled to a warranty?
I just don't think "here's a neat thing... tee-hee you can't use it!" Is funny. I don't know if "neener neener" was ever funny to me, even as a child. I understand that it's important to you to bandy about "subtle" accusations by using words like "entitle" so you can feel like you have a point, but there's nothing more there. If I felt entitled I would just ignore the license and use the code anyway.