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

271–280 of 299 posts

Re: Statement Regarding the Zen Programming Language

#271

Post by nanny »

dragonwriter wrote: post #261
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."

If there is individual notice on the file because the file is a work individually licensed under MIT, removing it from the file is removing it from an MIT protected work in violation of the license. That the individually-protected work is also included in an compilation which is itself licensed under MIT does not remove or loosen any licensing requirements on the smaller work.

>If there is individual notice on the file because the file is a work individually licensed under MIT, removing it from the file is removing it from an MIT protected work in violation of the license.

Why is that in violation of the license? The only condition specified in the MIT/Expat license is this:

>The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be included in all copies or substantial portions of the Software.

Each file is not "the Software". "The Software" means the Zig/Zen projects as a whole. The "above copyright notice and this permission notice" is included in the copy of Zen. Therefore, it is in compliance.

I wrote in another comment:

>In addition, the Zen headers say "This project may be licensed under the terms of the ConnectFree Reference Source License" and "See the LICENSE file at the root of this project for complete information". This statement is enough to imply that the project as a whole is covered by the specified LICENSE file.

Re: Statement Regarding the Zen Programming Language

#272

Post by nemothekid »

CyberRabbi wrote: post #241
nemothekid wrote: post #236

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

>why would a rational person assume there is a relationship between software forks

Because many open source foundations bless commercial offerings. Having the open source foundation come out and say the commercial package is rubbish is the exception, not the norm.

Re: Statement Regarding the Zen Programming Language

#273

Post by cxr »

colinmhayes wrote: post #253
cxr wrote: post #249

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Grey water would be a nonsensical phrase if it didn't have another meaning. No one would think it's actually referring to water that is simply grey. Open source is a phrase that makes complete sense without any context.

Poor deflection.

Re: Statement Regarding the Zen Programming Language

#274

Post by YorickPeterse »

kristopher wrote: post #80
kristoff_it wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can you explain why you're attempting to register a "ZIG" trademark in Japan? https://www.j-platpat.inpit.go.jp/c1800/TR/JP-2020-078615/FF... (for people that can't read japanese: click the "english" link on the top right for a translation) (edit: fixed link, I pasted another trademark registration by connectfree by mistake)

Hi Loris, thanks for the question and congratulations on your new role at the Zig Software Foundation. We originally planned on supporting Zig in Japan via support contracts and this is from that preparation. Trademarks have multiple categories and one such category is for contract work and related materials. We don't plan to use this trademark to harm Zig.

I find this hard to believe. There are plenty of companies out there providing some kind of product built on top of another (e.g. a language), without registering the name of said product as a trademark of their own.

To me it sounds more like you didn't get the things you wanted, and instead decided to try and take them by force.

Re: Statement Regarding the Zen Programming Language

#275

Post by asdfasgasdgasdg »

dragonwriter wrote: post #265
asdfasgasdgasdg wrote: post #175

Earlier quoted context omitted.

IANAL, but to your point about the copyright notices: I suspect that the license may not require you to retain the notices, but that doesn't mean that you can "take" the copyright. Copyright is associated with authorship and can't be taken by mere declaration. I could publish a copy of Shakespeare's works on my website, and I could put "(c) My Name 2020" at the top, but that would not confer actual copyright ownershi…

> I suspect that the license may not require you to retain the notices It explicitly does.

Just read the MIT license. Doesn't say anything about file headers.

Re: Statement Regarding the Zen Programming Language

#276

Post by pjmlp »

YorickPeterse wrote: post #232
CyberRabbi wrote: post #2

This is why you always use GPL

A language licensed as the GPL likely would not see any users, as programs built on it would link to it (or at least parts of it, such as the standard library); thus requiring either an exception clause, or that all software using the language also be licensed as GPL. IIRC the AGPL is better for this, but most GPL licenses are just blacklisted by companies; reducing the likelihood of the language catching on.

Like GCC and Linux, total failure trying to cater for users, while FreeBSD rules.

Re: Statement Regarding the Zen Programming Language

#277

Post by acqq »

nanny wrote: post #271
dragonwriter wrote: post #261

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If there is individual notice on the file because the file is a work individually licensed under MIT, removing it from the file is removing it from an MIT protected work in violation of the license. That the individually-protected work is also included in an compilation which is itself licensed under MIT does not remove or loosen any licensing requirements on the smaller work.

>If there is individual notice on the file because the file is a work individually licensed under MIT, removing it from the file is removing it from an MIT protected work in violation of the license. Why is that in violation of the license? The only condition specified in the MIT/Expat license is this: >The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be included in all copies or substantial portions of th…

> Each file is not "the Software".

Can you give any support for this which is not your own "I say so because that's how I understand what I have read"?

That is, can you give a link of some court case where your claim was confirmed, or a link to a project where some big company changed the copyright lines in some library source files, when these lines were previously MIT licensed?

If not, repeating your own claims in many posts here doesn't make your claims more believable.

I still understand that every source file (as in, having the lines that produce executable code) containing a copyright is a "software" where the copyright lines have to be preserved as soon as the author initially wrote the lines, and I need some independent evidence, as stated before, to be convinced otherwise.

Re: Statement Regarding the Zen Programming Language

#278

Post by tyingq »

fastball wrote: post #152
pjmlp wrote: post #148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not when notarization no longer can be worked around.

At which point the commercial part will continue to be notarization, as it is currently.

That's something of a technicality. If the output of the compiler isn't useful without paying for something else, it's effectively a commercial compiler.

Re: Statement Regarding the Zen Programming Language

#279

Post by tyingq »

Google234 wrote: post #219
tyingq wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can you get the compiled binary into the app store? Or to end users in some other way?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism

Sometimes "whataboutism" is just a comparison to something more common that a broader audience can relate to.

Fwiw, I find the canned responses like "appeal to authority", "whataboutism", etc, kind of lazy. I'd prefer you tell me why I'm veering off in your own words.

Re: Statement Regarding the Zen Programming Language

#280

Post by mhh__ »

AnIdiotOnTheNet wrote: post #167
mhh__ wrote: post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Stallman himself has said he approves of GPL/Commercial dual licensing. It's a good way to support a project - companies don't like the GPL but they also want to spend money on support.

> It's a good way to support a project I disagree. GPL/Commercial dual licensing is always a game of perverse incentives. Even if you aren't actively crippling the free part of your product you're incentivised to make it difficult enough to work with or otherwise support that companies will be inclined to pay you to do it.

Not necessarily - the GPL is a no-go for some companies regardless of the difference in quality between the free and not free.

Remember that it's not free it's about lawyer approval.

Post reply on HN