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

“I wish I could have licensed the Id source code releases as BSD”

twitter.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

361–370 of 468 posts

Re: “I wish I could have licensed the Id source code releases as BSD”

#361

Post by trasz »

mannerheim wrote: post #196
trasz wrote: post #178

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Does that copyright, coming back, have any actual consequences? What people mean by virality is not some copyright coming back; it's the fact that GPL "spreads" via linking. And that does have consequences: it's where license incompatibility comes from, and it's also why you can't use GPL-ed code with code under other (Open Source) licenses.

GPL 'spreads' via linking because copyright spreads via linking. If you write a program and I link to it, we both own the resulting work. Your copyright has 'infected' the work. The license in this case can be anything, even a proprietary one, so it isn't the GPL that's special here. License incompatibilities are certainly possible with proprietary licenses, there's nothing special about the GPL (or copyleft) from ot…

No, copyright doesn't spread via linking. That's why in real world you need GPL to get license incompatibility - no other Open Source licenses have this property.

Re: “I wish I could have licensed the Id source code releases as BSD”

#362

Post by trasz »

drran wrote: post #204
trasz wrote: post #139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Still, how preventing said corp from using this software help you, or anyone else?

1) If I and said did not collaborate, then it will not help me, or anyone else. 2) If said corp refuse to collaborate with me and will use my code for free instead, then it will not help me, or anyone else, except said corp. Why I should care about (2)?

Because - as it happens fairly frequently in BSD land - said corp might change their minds and contribute back, code and/or money.

Re: “I wish I could have licensed the Id source code releases as BSD”

#363

Post by trasz »

CorrectHorseBat wrote: post #220
trasz wrote: post #183

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So, without GPL, how would Oracle render RedHat useless with telemetry? And why didn't it prevent the Audacity drama?

Without GPL Oracle could make closed source improvements which RedHat could not use, giving Oracle an edge over RedHat. If RedHat then went under because of that we were stuck with a closed source Linux. The Audacity drama is solved by GPL, you can compile your own version without telemetry. Forks will pop up and the Audacity developers will backtrack and remove the offending parts of the code.

Ah, so it's really about making it harder for other players to improve their product?

As for Audacity - the exact same thing would have happened with any other Open Source license; GPL doesn't make it any easier.

Re: “I wish I could have licensed the Id source code releases as BSD”

#364

Post by geenew »

FWIW the ET Legacy[0] project remains active, and exists because the Wolfenstein: Enemy Territory code was GPL'd.

I don't know if that's a good example of the 'best aspects of the GPL' that Carmack was talking about, but it's at least certain that all of the work contributed to ET Legacy is work that had the potential to be closed-sourced, but wasn't.

It would be really interesting to see the lineage of open-source projects based on the GPL-licensed id games. The family tree at wikipedia[1] isn't complete (doesn't show ET Legacy, for example), and doesn't differentiate by license.

[0] https://www.etlegacy.com/

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Id_Tech#/media/File:Quake_-_fa...

Re: “I wish I could have licensed the Id source code releases as BSD”

#365

Post by trasz »

elevader wrote: post #217
trasz wrote: post #188

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So, as you can see, there's nothing to gain from GPL in this scenario: the choice is between Sony not upstreaming their changes because they don't want to (BSD), or not upstreaming their changes because they couldn't use your code in the first place (GPL). With Android, Google wanted to give their changes back, so they were able to use GPL-ed code. They would give the changes back without GPL too. You can see that wi…

I feel like this isn't really framing the issue fairly. The issue isn't that Sony couldn't use GPL code, there is no law preventing them from doing so, they just choose not to (for a variety of reasons, I'd imagine). Just as the could contribute to FreeBSD but choose not to. And OS developers have the choice to prevent Sony (or some other company) from essentially using free labor to make money without any obligation…

Nothing in GPL prevents Sony from using free labor; most of the companies using Linux do precisely that.

Re: “I wish I could have licensed the Id source code releases as BSD”

#366

Post by Aachen »

x4e wrote: post #335
foxes wrote: post #55

Why is a few snippets of code so valuable anyway? We don't GPL scientific research, you expect people to cite you, and then build off your work, the licensing in a sense is far more permissive. You don't GPL maths text books and then require proofs to be licensed back. Other knowledge doesn't seem to propagate in society like this. The human element of the programmer who can understand, adapt and develop some program…

Your comment gives the impression that GPL is a set of restrictions that developers are unfairly enforcing upon others. In fact it is the complete opposite: it is a set of permissions granted by the developer which otherwise would probably be forbidden by law.

There is no "probably" about it. Law definitely forbids basically everything that GPL allows, that's why GPL exists: to grant those rights. And of course one would then expect the thankful user to at least honor the same terms. Nothing odd about that to me.

Re: “I wish I could have licensed the Id source code releases as BSD”

#367

Post by x4e »

trasz wrote: post #188
pjmlp wrote: post #166

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Playstation OS is based on FreeBSD, there is nothing to upstream into Linux. If you want to talk GNU/Linux, then we can switch to Android and ChromeOS, which have indeed done several contributions, in fact many of those left out weren't accepted.

So, as you can see, there's nothing to gain from GPL in this scenario: the choice is between Sony not upstreaming their changes because they don't want to (BSD), or not upstreaming their changes because they couldn't use your code in the first place (GPL). With Android, Google wanted to give their changes back, so they were able to use GPL-ed code. They would give the changes back without GPL too. You can see that wi…

They didn’t necessarily choose FreeBSD because of licensing. Perhaps if FreeBSD has more restrictive licensing they would have still chosen it and had to upstream changes.

Re: “I wish I could have licensed the Id source code releases as BSD”

#368

Post by trasz »

pjmlp wrote: post #227
trasz wrote: post #188

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So, as you can see, there's nothing to gain from GPL in this scenario: the choice is between Sony not upstreaming their changes because they don't want to (BSD), or not upstreaming their changes because they couldn't use your code in the first place (GPL). With Android, Google wanted to give their changes back, so they were able to use GPL-ed code. They would give the changes back without GPL too. You can see that wi…

Nope, you are missing the whole picture in order to frame your argumentation. Several Google contributions were taken, just not 100%. One notable contribution was cleaning up the kernel from all VLAs, the fortifications of several modules, some cleaning outcomes from clang compilation support. Or the ongoing efforts to allow Rust drivers. With Sony there were 0%.

Nope, you are missing the whole picture :-)

You're stopping your reasoning at the numbers: some contributions from Google, none from Sony. (At this step you're also ignoring contributions to FreeBSD from companies that do contribute back, but whatever.) The big picture would be understanding why GPL wouldn't affect that situation.

Re: “I wish I could have licensed the Id source code releases as BSD”

#369

Post by x4e »

trasz wrote: post #363
CorrectHorseBat wrote: post #220

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Without GPL Oracle could make closed source improvements which RedHat could not use, giving Oracle an edge over RedHat. If RedHat then went under because of that we were stuck with a closed source Linux. The Audacity drama is solved by GPL, you can compile your own version without telemetry. Forks will pop up and the Audacity developers will backtrack and remove the offending parts of the code.

Ah, so it's really about making it harder for other players to improve their product? As for Audacity - the exact same thing would have happened with any other Open Source license; GPL doesn't make it any easier.

No, it’s just about getting compensation back for your work. If Oracle benefits from RedHat’s initial work then it is only fair that RedHat benefits from any improvements that Oracle later makes.

Assuming that Audacity does not have a CLA the GPL license will prevent muse from forking Audacity into a closed source project and continuing their development there instead. Instead they are required to keep any modifications open source, allowing users to remove aspects like the telemetry.

Re: “I wish I could have licensed the Id source code releases as BSD”

#370

Post by defaultname »

VectorLock wrote: post #342
defaultname wrote: post #296

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The argument of big tech "exploiting" or stealing has always rang untrue to me. If Microsoft took the source code to Nano and made a Nano+ that reads word files or something, closed-source, selling it for big bucks, etc, the value of what they're offering cannot possibly be more than the delta from what is freely and openly available. They didn't make the original any less available, and a user is only possibly going…

>the value of what they're offering cannot possibly be more than the delta from what is freely and openly available. They didn't make the original any less available, and a user is only possibly going to pay if the features are different enough to merit the cost over the freely available version I think its interesting that you described exactly the big problem the GPL was supposed to solve. The entire intention is t…

I understand the intent of the GPL, and the reasoning behind its creation. I'm not arguing about that. It isn't accidental that I am arguing around that point.

I'm talking specifically about the notion of people making money off of open source -- whether BSD, GPL, etc. You cannot possibly make a penny off of what is freely and openly available. It's economic market value is $0.00. It's human value is considerable, but again the market value is $0.

This is lost on all of these sour grapes "wah, they're stealing" arguments.

Post reply on HN