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

Richard Stallman spoke at Microsoft Research this week

zdnet.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 170 posts

Re: Richard Stallman spoke at Microsoft Research this week

#41

Post by bregma »

userbinator wrote: post #25
ChrisSD wrote: post #7

An English language article: https://www.zdnet.com/article/free-software-advocate-richard... Also Pedro Paulo explained what the content of the talk was: > Mostly standard talk. Importance of free software, GPL v3, GNU vs Linux. However, he had a list of "small requests": make Github push users to better software license hygiene, make hardware manufacturers to publish their hardware specs, make it easier to workaroun…

Agree strongly with the last two requests, but not so much the first one (but I guess it's to be expected for RMS.)

I believe he's referring to the fact that many if not most projects hosted on github have no license conditions at all. No license means no one except the original author can use the software, and anyone who even looks at the code runs the risk of being sued for copyright infringement.

RMS is not saying "make everything GPL" (or at least, not in this context). He's just saying if you're going to publish source code, please make clear the condition under which it can be read or used.

Re: Richard Stallman spoke at Microsoft Research this week

#42

Post by Fnoord »

craigsmansion wrote: post #15
jaboutboul wrote: post #6

Monumental moment in both free software and Microsoft’s history. A decade ago he was probably the most persona non grata. Look at how far we’ve come. To all the people who were bashing them in the comments a few days ago about the OIN patent grant, you guys still bitter? Cause it looks like RMS isn’t.

Contrary to what you seem imply, this is not some sort of vindication for Microsoft. Anyone can invite rms to speak, and given some minor conditions, he will come. He will come and talk because he believes that everyone deserves Free Software. This is not monumental in any sort of "MS and the FSF coming closer together" sense. It was very nice of Microsoft to invite him though, but not more impressive than, say, a Un…

> Anyone can invite rms to speak, and given some minor conditions, he will come. He will come and talk because he believes that everyone deserves Free Software.

Oh? Here [1] he wrote this:

> I am selective about the events I participate in. If you are inviting me to speak at a larger event, please inform me now of the overall nature of the event, so I can make an informed decision about whether to participate.

Mr Stallman was at Microsoft Research, btw. It is a specific department of Microsoft.

[1] https://groups.google.com/a/mysociety.org/forum/m/#!msg/myso...

Re: Richard Stallman spoke at Microsoft Research this week

#43

Post by phkahler »

bregma wrote: post #41
userbinator wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Agree strongly with the last two requests, but not so much the first one (but I guess it's to be expected for RMS.)

I believe he's referring to the fact that many if not most projects hosted on github have no license conditions at all. No license means no one except the original author can use the software, and anyone who even looks at the code runs the risk of being sued for copyright infringement. RMS is not saying "make everything GPL" (or at least, not in this context). He's just saying if you're going to publish source code,…

I would say github shouldn't even allow publicly visible code without a license.

Re: Richard Stallman spoke at Microsoft Research this week

#44

Post by lkschubert8 »

Beltiras wrote: post #38
mikekchar wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not sure exactly what he meant by software license hygiene, but if it's what I imagine, it's a significant problem. Often people don't quite understand the licenses they choose and they get into trouble as a result. For example, there is a free software game that I follow which is licensed under the GPL. The author made a passing statement that the game is under the GPL, but none of text of the game is (it's an R…

Story sounds like data to me. Data should not be in the repo, just the means to fetch it.

Isn't there value in having the story version controlled as well? Separating them just sounds like needless complexity.

Re: Richard Stallman spoke at Microsoft Research this week

#45

Post by MatekCopatek »

Beltiras wrote: post #38
mikekchar wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not sure exactly what he meant by software license hygiene, but if it's what I imagine, it's a significant problem. Often people don't quite understand the licenses they choose and they get into trouble as a result. For example, there is a free software game that I follow which is licensed under the GPL. The author made a passing statement that the game is under the GPL, but none of text of the game is (it's an R…

Story sounds like data to me. Data should not be in the repo, just the means to fetch it.

Meh, it's not really black and white - kinda like saying translation files shouldn't be in the repo.

I've put them there a bunch of times, they were (at least initially) edited by the same people as the rest of the code and they were required for the app to compile.

Re: Richard Stallman spoke at Microsoft Research this week

#46

Post by belorn »

moonbug wrote: post #26

I hope they've complied with all the requirements of his rider https://groups.google.com/a/mysociety.org/forum/m/#!msg/myso...

I would assume that most organizers of talks want to discuss the topic of the talk with the speaker (first requirement), while many speakers prefer to write their own talks rather than have one handed to them (second requirement).

The only unusual requirement in that document that I could see is that he won't touch, be associated with or have the recordings of himself being used in proprietary software, which is kind of his thing and the basis for the work he does and did.

Was it something else you were thinking about?

Re: Richard Stallman spoke at Microsoft Research this week

#47

Post by Macha »

garmaine wrote: post #30
Macha wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What's so objectionable about that. Honestly one of the more annoying to find problems with GitHub (and npm) is MIT licensed software with GPL dependencies, and even if you want to have closed source software on GitHub, having a "this software is closed source" UI element is still better license hygiene without forcing everything open source. I think honestly this is something other providers (Google code when it was…

Um, GPL is not “closed source.”

I guess my post wasn't clear that I was referring to two issues - I assumed the original poster took RMS's comment as "ban closed source from GitHub", and was pointing out that being clear on licensing is not the same thing as being open source only, and that an actual issue this causes for open source software is not-actually-MIT software.

Re: Richard Stallman spoke at Microsoft Research this week

#48

Post by phkahler »

Macha wrote: post #27
userbinator wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Agree strongly with the last two requests, but not so much the first one (but I guess it's to be expected for RMS.)

What's so objectionable about that. Honestly one of the more annoying to find problems with GitHub (and npm) is MIT licensed software with GPL dependencies, and even if you want to have closed source software on GitHub, having a "this software is closed source" UI element is still better license hygiene without forcing everything open source. I think honestly this is something other providers (Google code when it was…

Once you statically like that MIT licensed code to GPL licensed code, you have a GPL licences executable. If the source is provided, I think you're in compliance with the GPL. IANAL and that is a very interesting situation.

That type of thing is why I think people need to choose one of: GPL, LGPL, MIT, BSD (isn't that essentially MIT?). I dont see the point in other "open source" licenses, they primarily create compatibility issues.

Re: Richard Stallman spoke at Microsoft Research this week

#49

Post by TallGuyShort »

de_watcher wrote: post #39
jimmaswell wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

GPL code is essentially "don't-touch-with-a-39-and-a-half-foot-pole source" to most people who want any control over their project or are developing in a professional setting.

You meant control over the users.

I think it's mostly unfounded, but companies do avoid this for reasons other than wanting to directly control their users. I worked for a company where everything was Apache 2, BSD 3-clause, MIT, or similarly licensed. Since we distributed source regardless, this means less control over the users, even though it means they have the freedom to not pass it on to their own users. Our lawyers absolutely lost their shit at the suggestion that we include the GPL. Because a bunch of our customers absolutely lost their shit at the slightest hint of GPL, because they don't want to be sued for unintended virality.

Re: Richard Stallman spoke at Microsoft Research this week

#50

Post by askmike »

phkahler wrote: post #43
bregma wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I believe he's referring to the fact that many if not most projects hosted on github have no license conditions at all. No license means no one except the original author can use the software, and anyone who even looks at the code runs the risk of being sued for copyright infringement. RMS is not saying "make everything GPL" (or at least, not in this context). He's just saying if you're going to publish source code,…

I would say github shouldn't even allow publicly visible code without a license.

Forcing coders to make legal choices is a sure way to make users happy.
Post reply on HN