301–310 of 469 posts
It wouldn’t surprise me if most companies steal GPL code. When code is closed source, how can anyone know?
Also I don't think it's that easy to conceal and not sure any serious company would risk the liability.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The body of gpl code is absolutely a commons. I don't know why you imagine otherwise unless you're confused about public domain or something. There is no joining any company or anything remotely like that no matter how hard you try to squint. The single rule in GPL is no more than any other usage-of-commons rule like don't pee in the pool or litter in the park. The park is still free for anyone to use, you just can't…
> The body of gpl code is absolutely a commons You cannot (re)use any GPL code unless you agree to license your own code under the GPL. You and I may agree that the terms of the GPL are essentially just a way of protecting the commons. I happen to spend quite a bit of time on HN and elsewhere debunking people who cite Hardin's "tragedy of the commons" precisely because that whole story ignores the fact that real comm…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The body of gpl code is absolutely a commons. I don't know why you imagine otherwise unless you're confused about public domain or something. There is no joining any company or anything remotely like that no matter how hard you try to squint. The single rule in GPL is no more than any other usage-of-commons rule like don't pee in the pool or litter in the park. The park is still free for anyone to use, you just can't…
> The body of gpl code is absolutely a commons You cannot (re)use any GPL code unless you agree to license your own code under the GPL. You and I may agree that the terms of the GPL are essentially just a way of protecting the commons. I happen to spend quite a bit of time on HN and elsewhere debunking people who cite Hardin's "tragedy of the commons" precisely because that whole story ignores the fact that real comm…
That is embarassing for such a self professed domain expert to say something as ridiculous as:
"You cannot (re)use any GPL code unless you agree to license your own code under the GPL."
I still don't hear an argument that actually shows how it's not a commons. If you're just arbitrarily declaring it actually means "public domain" I say you don't get to declare that and inventing your own definitions for terms is not a valid argument or even valid comminication, and there is no further point in attempting to communicate with anyone doing that.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It seems like a bit of a strong restriction to have in the law that if I distribute an executable (which people may reverse engineer, modify, redistribute as they wish) that I am obligated to provide the source code upon request. Like, what if I want to release a rather difficult puzzle in the form of an obfuscated executable and provide a reward to the first person who solves it? If I’m required to release the sourc…
The puzzle case is no different to how you can't sell somebody a rubiks cube without allowing them to "solve" it by taking it apart and putting it back together. You can make a physical item intentionally hard to work with or modify, but I see that as a shortcoming of our current legal standard—that's why we need some kind of "right to repair" framework. Requiring people to distribute human-readable code alongside so…
I am not saying that the puzzle author should have any legal authority to restrict people from disassembling the puzzle.
I’m just saying that the government shouldn’t compel the puzzle designer to distribute disassembled versions of the puzzle.
If other people want to take apart their rubix cubes, they’re free to, I just shouldn’t be forced to help them take it apart.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
They literally advertise this as a feature on their home page in that they give you X% of what they earn from affiliate links. It says a lot about the influencers advertising it if they did not realise that Honey is taking their affiliate revenue while reading an ad that says they do. More realistically, most of them likely did know that this is what Honey does and determined that honey paid more than any lost revenu…
So, no Honey didn’t disclose what people are complaining about.
The ethical standards of everyone involved with Honey/Pie are deplorable and they should be outcast from the software industry.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The body of gpl code is absolutely a commons You cannot (re)use any GPL code unless you agree to license your own code under the GPL. You and I may agree that the terms of the GPL are essentially just a way of protecting the commons. I happen to spend quite a bit of time on HN and elsewhere debunking people who cite Hardin's "tragedy of the commons" precisely because that whole story ignores the fact that real comm…
It's not "the" commons but it sure looks like "a" commons to me.
In the much more currently commonplace use of the term as "a bunch of resources that people can just use", no.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The body of gpl code is absolutely a commons You cannot (re)use any GPL code unless you agree to license your own code under the GPL. You and I may agree that the terms of the GPL are essentially just a way of protecting the commons. I happen to spend quite a bit of time on HN and elsewhere debunking people who cite Hardin's "tragedy of the commons" precisely because that whole story ignores the fact that real comm…
"BTW, I've been writing GPL'ed code for more than 35 years, and for the last 25+ years, it has been my full-time self-employed means of making a living." That is embarassing for such a self professed domain expert to say something as ridiculous as: "You cannot (re)use any GPL code unless you agree to license your own code under the GPL." I still don't hear an argument that actually shows how it's not a commons. If yo…
I'm not making up my own definitions. I'm contrasting Garrett Hardin's use of the term in his famous book "Tragedy of the Commons", which is the way most people on HN use it with Elinor Ostrom's much more enlightened definition of it in her refutations of Hardin's claims (refutations that Hardin has accepted).
In Ostrom's sense, yes, GPL'ed code comprises a commons. In Hardin's sense, it does not (or at least, it has a bunch of features to it that render his entire thesis about commons inapplicable).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The body of gpl code is absolutely a commons You cannot (re)use any GPL code unless you agree to license your own code under the GPL. You and I may agree that the terms of the GPL are essentially just a way of protecting the commons. I happen to spend quite a bit of time on HN and elsewhere debunking people who cite Hardin's "tragedy of the commons" precisely because that whole story ignores the fact that real comm…
"BTW, I've been writing GPL'ed code for more than 35 years, and for the last 25+ years, it has been my full-time self-employed means of making a living." That is embarassing for such a self professed domain expert to say something as ridiculous as: "You cannot (re)use any GPL code unless you agree to license your own code under the GPL." I still don't hear an argument that actually shows how it's not a commons. If yo…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
They literally advertise this as a feature on their home page in that they give you X% of what they earn from affiliate links. It says a lot about the influencers advertising it if they did not realise that Honey is taking their affiliate revenue while reading an ad that says they do. More realistically, most of them likely did know that this is what Honey does and determined that honey paid more than any lost revenu…
Sponsored ads also often boasted Honey will get you the best deal anywhere. Yet some have found them knowingly preferring their own coupons even though others users had manually entered and successfully used better coupons from elsewhere (while the extension was installed).