Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'd use mansplaining. I do find it funny there isn't an older (?) phrase for the same.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teaching_grandmother_to_suck_e...
TIL. Hadn't heard the phrase before.
“I wish I could have licensed the Id source code releases as BSD”
421–430 of 468 posts
Re: “I wish I could have licensed the Id source code releases as BSD”
#422FWIW 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 p…
Well, the code could've still been GPLed after. The BSD license allows it.
Re: “I wish I could have licensed the Id source code releases as BSD”
#423FWIW 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 p…
Well, the code could've still been GPLed after. The BSD license allows it.
No it doesn't. Only the copyright owner can re-license.
You can put modifications (that enjoy copyright protection) to BSD licensed code under the GPL or put BSD licensed code in a larger GPL code base, but you cannot re-license code covered by the BSD license.
Re: “I wish I could have licensed the Id source code releases as BSD”
#424Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Like, I find it intensely frustrating that, when an industry veteran says "I've heard the pros and cons of each approach and I found that in my real-life experience GPL was a net negative", people answer with a 101 on the philosophy of GPL. You think that's frustrating, try watching an expert talk about economics.
> You think that's frustrating, try watching an expert talk about economics. Physics, too. I once mentioned on a forum that at least as the fat guy in my group of friends I coasted down a slope faster on my bicycle than did my skinny friends. (It was quite noticeable, too). The number of people who jumped in to tell me I was wrong and attempted to do that math using their first semester freshman physics knowledge to…
Given Veritasiums most recent video, the degree doesn't matter, even physics professors can be wrong. The degree is just there for you to be wrong less, you will still be wrong, just less.
Re: “I wish I could have licensed the Id source code releases as BSD”
#425Re: “I wish I could have licensed the Id source code releases as BSD”
#426Earlier quoted context omitted.
This occurs very rarely and provokes a loud counter reaction from the BSD people.
It seems such bsd people then don't believe in the power granted by the bsd license to others using it as they wish to. Ironically. May I suggest GPL for their next project?
Whining is not illegal, if you can whine about a license change, you should.
Re: “I wish I could have licensed the Id source code releases as BSD”
#427Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
I don't think you read my comment.
Re: “I wish I could have licensed the Id source code releases as BSD”
#428Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you read between the lines, this is the very reason why Id released the source code as GPL instead of BSD: They didn't want their competitors to take their engine, make proprietary improvements, and deprive Id of revenue using their own work.
They never open-sourced any of their engines until after they had published a game with the next iteration of their engine.
Sure, but that just means they had multiple methods of ensuring they had created a suitable moat against competitors, the GPL being just one of them.
Re: “I wish I could have licensed the Id source code releases as BSD”
#429Just a note that he is speaking from the perspective of someone who already profited immensely from the source code in question before the source was released. Most developers of FOSS never see a single dime and actually do it at net negative monetary benefit not to mention personal cost. All of that purely for the benefit of the collective.
The profit does not come from the source code, but from the assets. There are games which are fully opensource, but where you have to pay for the assets (and where the source code was released at the same time as the rest of the game). This was not the case for doom, but the demo for doom was free and came out at the same time; the engine was always freely available.
> The profit does not come from the source code, but from the assets.
The source code enables the profitability of the assets. In the end the distinction is irrelevant to this matter. This is like saying Facebook doesn’t make money from its platform but from its deals with advertisers.
Re: “I wish I could have licensed the Id source code releases as BSD”
#430Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Scientific research is patented and exclusively copyrighted under publisher. Research is not copyrighted. Particular write-ups of the research are copyrighted.
I am not sure I understand your point of distinction. Yes, Die Gedanken Sind Frei , the knowledge that exist in the researcher head is not copyrighted. The knowledge written down in the research paper by the researcher is. The knowledge in the head can however be patented, and so rendered unusable until the property owner has gotten paid.
A researcher discovers, say, a particular way to make a room temperature superconductor, and writes a paper describing how to make it, how they tested it, and giving a theoretical explanation of how it works.
That paper would be subject to copyright.
However, if I go read the paper at the library and then use the knowledge I gained from it to make the superconductor and test it and applied the theory I learned from the paper to other superconductors, that would not violate the copyright of the paper.
If I wanted to then tell you how to make the superconductor, I would not be able to make a copy of the original paper and give you that copy. That would be violating the copyright on the paper.
But I could write up my own description of how to make it in my own words, using what I learned from the paper, and give you that description. That would be fine from a copyright point of view.