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

Statement Regarding the Zen Programming Language

ziglang.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

241–250 of 299 posts

Re: Statement Regarding the Zen Programming Language

#241

Post by CyberRabbi »

nemothekid wrote: post #236
CyberRabbi wrote: post #206

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why would anyone think there was a relationship between the two? Nothing in Zen’s marketing mentions Zig.

I have more faith in my fellow human beings that when they do due diligence to decide whether they should pay a monthly fee to use a language, that they would do a little due diligence and look into the history and syntax of the language and see that it's a fork of Zig instead of taking marketing at face value.

By that logic, If you have faith in the due diligence of your fellow man, why would a rational person assume there is a relationship between software forks with no claim to that effect?

Re: Statement Regarding the Zen Programming Language

#242

Post by rtfeldman »

CyberRabbi wrote: post #226
AndyKelley wrote: post #163

Earlier quoted context omitted.

good lord. our budget is public; you can see we have some 30K in the bank, with $3500 income per month. We will not be wasting donors' money on a lawyer.

In this specific case it may not be worth it but if a large corporation were redistributing a hypothetically GPL-licensed version of zig without releasing source, then you would be doing your donors a disservice by not seeking retribution to the foundation.

I'm a Zig donor and I disagree. I'm happy that my donations are funding development instead of lawsuits.

Re: Statement Regarding the Zen Programming Language

#243

Post by forgotpwd16 »

mathgladiator wrote: post #201

This looks like a complete mess. Are there examples in today's market where a business can depend on a new programming language? I'm curious because I'm writing a programming language, and I'd love to turn it into a business. edit: add "new" to programming language

The most popular new programming languages (of the recent decade) are backed up by major corporations (Kotlin, Swift) or improve something (Elm, Julia) or both (Rust, TypeScript). So if you design a programming language attempt to improve something that will make your language stand out.

Re: Statement Regarding the Zen Programming Language

#244

Post by cxr »

colinmhayes wrote: post #228
igneo676 wrote: post #198

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Except, we do have a rigorous definition on what Open Source really means. The best place to check is the OSI's definition[0] and the licenses they approve[1]. What you're describing is commonly described as Source Available and doesn't readily meet the definition of Open Source. Our terms matter. And considering this conversation is really about what it means to be OSS and what the tradeoffs are, we need to "get int…

I reject the OSI's claim to have authority over what "open source" means. We do not have a rigorous definition of what open source means beyond the source code is freely available.

You can say you reject it, but you're not entitled to your own set of facts.

Re: Statement Regarding the Zen Programming Language

#245

Post by acqq »

nanny wrote: post #240
acqq wrote: post #234

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> They are complying, Are they, if they removed the Zig copyright from each file in the standard library?

Yes, because, as I explained above, they still retained the original Zig copyright in their LICENSE file. The MIT/Expat license doesn't say anything about the file headers. It only requires that "The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be included in all copies or substantial portions of the Software."

I still think that:

"in all copies or substantial portions"

also means that every source file of the standard library or the header must keep the original copyright.

Re: Statement Regarding the Zen Programming Language

#246

Post by colinmhayes »

cxr wrote: post #244
colinmhayes wrote: post #228

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I reject the OSI's claim to have authority over what "open source" means. We do not have a rigorous definition of what open source means beyond the source code is freely available.

You can say you reject it, but you're not entitled to your own set of facts.

Ok well here are the facts. Open means freely and widely available. Source means source code. Open source means the programs code is freely and widely available. If you want to add other stuff onto that you need to find a new phrase.

Re: Statement Regarding the Zen Programming Language

#247

Post by pulse7 »

nanny wrote: post #240
acqq wrote: post #234

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> They are complying, Are they, if they removed the Zig copyright from each file in the standard library?

Yes, because, as I explained above, they still retained the original Zig copyright in their LICENSE file. The MIT/Expat license doesn't say anything about the file headers. It only requires that "The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be included in all copies or substantial portions of the Software."

Does a single notice in the lib/zen/std/LICENSE file satisfy the requirement "shall be included in all copies or substantial portions". If many (source) files are copied and if each file contains the copyright notice, then the copyright statement "shall be included in all copies" (or substantial portions) of these files - and not just in one file...

Re: Statement Regarding the Zen Programming Language

#248

Post by aidenn0 »

CyberRabbi wrote: post #157
aidenn0 wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because you believe in personal freedom?

I do not mean this disrespectfully but isn’t that taking the idea of “personal freedom” to absurdity? I believe in personal freedom as well but I don’t think walking off a cliff or maliciously using someone Else’s labor is freedom.

Tools like EULAs end up being fairly coarse in practice.

Presumably the Zig authors prefer a world in which it is possible to maliciously use the tools under MIT, and non-malicous actors could do various things downstream that the GPL would be a barrier to, to the world in which the GPL prevents both of those things.

There is a cost to preventing harms, and people will disagree whether the cost is worth it. There are many evils in this world that I do not push for collective action to eliminate merely because I do not yet see a feasible solution that is worth the cost. That doesn't preclude me from individually speaking against those things, warning people about the pitfalls of them, and shaming those who do them.

Re: Statement Regarding the Zen Programming Language

#249

Post by cxr »

colinmhayes wrote: post #246
cxr wrote: post #244

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can say you reject it, but you're not entitled to your own set of facts.

Ok well here are the facts. Open means freely and widely available. Source means source code. Open source means the programs code is freely and widely available. If you want to add other stuff onto that you need to find a new phrase.

You're equivocating.

Grey is a color somewhere between white and black. Water is the liquid that we drink, wash our dishes and cars with, the stuff that sits in the world's oceans, &c. "Grey water", however, is not supposed to be applied to anything that contains fecal matter, whether or not you can argue that it is both grey and water. There are such things as specialization and context. They're pretty important to the way language works.

Re: Statement Regarding the Zen Programming Language

#250

Post by nanny »

pulse7 wrote: post #247
nanny wrote: post #240

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, because, as I explained above, they still retained the original Zig copyright in their LICENSE file. The MIT/Expat license doesn't say anything about the file headers. It only requires that "The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be included in all copies or substantial portions of the Software."

Does a single notice in the lib/zen/std/LICENSE file satisfy the requirement "shall be included in all copies or substantial portions". If many (source) files are copied and if each file contains the copyright notice, then the copyright statement "shall be included in all copies" (or substantial portions) of these files - and not just in one file...

>Does a single notice in the lib/zen/std/LICENSE file satisfy the requirement "shall be included in all copies or substantial portions".

Yep. The single files (or substantial portions of them) are not what's being distributed in this case. The Software is the thing being distributed, and it meets the requirements as described in the license (that the original copyright and permission notice be included). Therefore, it is in compliance.

Post reply on HN