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

Chatbox app is back on the US app store

github.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 40 posts

Re: Chatbox app is back on the US app store

#31

Post by digitalPhonix »

esperent wrote: post #28
Xylakant wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The license does not bind the original copyright owner, who can do anything with the code - fee example relicense and distribute under another license. The license only binds the licensee that received the code under the respective license. Things get more complicated if there are external contributors that may have contributed under specific legal arrangements, but in the simple case there’s no legal way to force th…

> The license does not bind the original copyright owner, who can do anything with the code For any small to medium sized projects with zero external contributors, it's highly unlikely that anyone would pursue legal action so the person who owns the project does de facto have this right whether or not it's legal according to the license. > Things get more complicated if there are external contributors I don't think t…

>> The license does not bind the original copyright owner, who can do anything with the code

> whether or not it's legal according to the license

The original author is not bound by any licence. Only the licensees are. The licence they chose to use by definition cannot bind them; they are issuing the licence.

(They are obviously bound by the licences of anything that they use, but that’s not what the person you’re replying to is talking about)

Re: Chatbox app is back on the US app store

#32

Post by sebastiennight »

TheDong wrote: post #5
esseph wrote: post #3

You know what I just realized? I couldn't tell you the last time I installed a new app on my phone. Everything there is mostly out to exploit me, or a direct security liability regardless of what app store.

> Everything there is mostly out to exploit me, or a direct security liability regardless of what app store. As a shining bright light of hope, I will list some apps I have installed which do not appear to me to fall into those buckets. 1. Anki - Flash cards app, I can memorize stuff. It's really good. 2. KDE Connect - Zero exploitation, open source, even sorta works 3. Peakfinder - So far this app has seemed okay. "…

> about 70% of the apps on F-Droid https://f-droid.org/ are fine

Wait, what's wrong with the other 30%?

Re: Chatbox app is back on the US app store

#33

Post by Sophira »

Xylakant wrote: post #27
Sophira wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My understanding is that the GPL specifies that any further redistribution of binary code (by the licensee) has to come with an offer to be able to receive the source code, which they can then modify and redistribute under the original license. If the original licensor doesn't actually allow access to the source code, there's no way for that to happen and I'd argue that the licensor is being unreasonable by asking li…

The license does not bind the original copyright owner, who can do anything with the code - fee example relicense and distribute under another license. The license only binds the licensee that received the code under the respective license. Things get more complicated if there are external contributors that may have contributed under specific legal arrangements, but in the simple case there’s no legal way to force th…

I realise the license doesn't bind the original copyright owner. That's not what I was arguing.

I'm saying that if the original licensor (ie. the copyright owner) offers software that they fully own to people under the terms of the GPL, they're binding the licensee (ie. the entity receiving the software) such that further redistribution of the binary that the licensee received has to come with an offer to receive the source code - which is something that the licensee cannot offer if they don't have access to the source code themselves.

I'm arguing that such a situation (ie. the original copyright owner not offering source code, but at the same time saying that the people receiving the software have to offer the source code if they want to redistribute the binary) is unreasonable to the point where it feels like there may be some legal action that could be taken, as at that point the license is asking people to do things that they literally cannot do.

Re: Chatbox app is back on the US app store

#34

Post by fragmede »

Sophira wrote: post #33
Xylakant wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The license does not bind the original copyright owner, who can do anything with the code - fee example relicense and distribute under another license. The license only binds the licensee that received the code under the respective license. Things get more complicated if there are external contributors that may have contributed under specific legal arrangements, but in the simple case there’s no legal way to force th…

I realise the license doesn't bind the original copyright owner. That's not what I was arguing. I'm saying that if the original licensor (ie. the copyright owner) offers software that they fully own to people under the terms of the GPL, they're binding the licensee (ie. the entity receiving the software) such that further redistribution of the binary that the licensee received has to come with an offer to receive the…

The original copyright owner still has the right to distribute the software they wrote and have the original copyright for under a proprietary license.

Re: Chatbox app is back on the US app store

#36

Post by TheDong »

sebastiennight wrote: post #32
TheDong wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Everything there is mostly out to exploit me, or a direct security liability regardless of what app store. As a shining bright light of hope, I will list some apps I have installed which do not appear to me to fall into those buckets. 1. Anki - Flash cards app, I can memorize stuff. It's really good. 2. KDE Connect - Zero exploitation, open source, even sorta works 3. Peakfinder - So far this app has seemed okay. "…

> about 70% of the apps on F-Droid https://f-droid.org/ are fine Wait, what's wrong with the other 30%?

There's stuff like NewPipe, which is just youtube videos so it's awful for the soul.

There's also games and blockchain apps which are bad for the soul

Re: Chatbox app is back on the US app store

#37

Post by esseph »

tcoff91 wrote: post #30
esseph wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's.. how is that relevant?

This is a site mostly centered around startups and building products. I notice a common anti-mobile-app sentiment here, and the criticisms are valid, but I think that it’s important to keep in mind that for many apps having a mobile app is important to the success of your business because the vast majority of people prefer mobile apps to mobile websites. Users want apps and it’s important not to assume that the major…

So what you're telling me is I shouldn't talk about my abandonment of native phone apps with other people because it might prevent someone at YC for giving someone else a job for a startup? Do I have that right?

Re: Chatbox app is back on the US app store

#38

Post by tcoff91 »

esseph wrote: post #37
tcoff91 wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is a site mostly centered around startups and building products. I notice a common anti-mobile-app sentiment here, and the criticisms are valid, but I think that it’s important to keep in mind that for many apps having a mobile app is important to the success of your business because the vast majority of people prefer mobile apps to mobile websites. Users want apps and it’s important not to assume that the major…

So what you're telling me is I shouldn't talk about my abandonment of native phone apps with other people because it might prevent someone at YC for giving someone else a job for a startup? Do I have that right?

There’s nothing wrong with discussing moving away from native apps and their very real downsides. I was merely offering data showing that the vast majority of people do not share this sentiment, and one would be wise when launching a product to do market research and find out if the evidence shows that the business will be best served by offering users a native app.

Re: Chatbox app is back on the US app store

#39

Post by sebastiennight »

TheDong wrote: post #36
sebastiennight wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> about 70% of the apps on F-Droid https://f-droid.org/ are fine Wait, what's wrong with the other 30%?

There's stuff like NewPipe, which is just youtube videos so it's awful for the soul. There's also games and blockchain apps which are bad for the soul

> There's stuff like NewPipe, which is just youtube videos so it's awful for the soul.

You do get to pick the videos, and have none imposed to you (through ads), so unless you're saying the entire video medium is awful for the soul, I'm thinking one could pick content that they find "good" for their soul?

Re: Chatbox app is back on the US app store

#40

Post by esperent »

digitalPhonix wrote: post #31
esperent wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The license does not bind the original copyright owner, who can do anything with the code For any small to medium sized projects with zero external contributors, it's highly unlikely that anyone would pursue legal action so the person who owns the project does de facto have this right whether or not it's legal according to the license. > Things get more complicated if there are external contributors I don't think t…

>> The license does not bind the original copyright owner, who can do anything with the code > whether or not it's legal according to the license The original author is not bound by any licence. Only the licensees are. The licence they chose to use by definition cannot bind them; they are issuing the licence. (They are obviously bound by the licences of anything that they use, but that’s not what the person you’re re…

> The original author is not bound by any licence.

Yes, but this is only true if nobody else ever contributes to the software. Once the project has multiple contributors, each of these people are copyright holders of whatever they contributed, and they are the licensor for their parts of the code. So the original author is also held to the terms of the license for all contributed code.

Post reply on HN