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

431–440 of 468 posts

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

#431

Post by ldarby »

vsw02 wrote: post #393
jamescostian wrote: post #390

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>> I don’t lose sleep over Boeing patching a random library I wrote and not sharing the patch > What you call "permissive" then is only permissive in the short term, because it precisely introduces this segmentation between users and developers in the long term. If you look at this as a tree structure, it's permissive only to your immediate children, because you are granting them the right to take away this precise f…

Of course I predicted it. It’s like talking to Jehovah’s Witnesses at the door. The idea that you fully understand their entire belief structure, have done your homework on it out of respect (seriously, I have), and ultimately reject it anyway is puzzling to adherents of most belief systems, so they tend to revert to explaining it a different way out of a suspicion that you don’t get it. I’ve probably heard over a hu…

> they tend to revert to explaining it a different way out of a suspicion that you don’t get it.

I think that's because, in my experience (outside of HN), many people really don't get it. They say something like "this proprietary software did something nasty again" without knowing that the GPL exists or that it's effectively impossible for GPL'ed software to do nasty things. Hence, it is always worth explaining the GPL and its values to them.

It's not always easy to see when someone already understands the values and just disagrees with them.

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

#432

Post by PoignardAzur »

belorn wrote: post #231
PoignardAzur wrote: post #156

I'm very frustrated by some of the answers here and on Twitter. Carmack says: > The GPL virality wound up being a net negative, and more value would have come from BSD. [...] The best aspects of GPL work didn't manifest, but tons of opportunities to just copy-paste-modify were lost due to license concerns. One of the answers on Twitter: > Then what if it's being exploited by big techs and make your work proprietary?…

> The best aspects of GPL work didn't manifest Did someone get sued for downloading a copy of a game with the quake source code in it? Did someone release a game with quake code in it, only to go after users for patent infringement? DRM locked devices built on the quake code? A license is simply the condition for which an author allows others to do things for which copyright law make illegal. There is also a culture…

> (I don't flag comments often but this is a prime example. Hugely frustrated, dismissive, with a bit snarky tone. The comment would be hugely improved by simply skipping the last paragraph. The outcome? A bunch of up and down votes in all the comments below in typical flame war fashion)

Fair enough, I guess.

I do think my last line had merit. I'm pointing a pattern I'm seeing: people dismissing Carmack's object-level argument without arguing on the object level themselves, because they deem that the general ideology of GPL makes Carmack's object-level claims irrelevant.

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

#433

Post by PoignardAzur »

fazgl wrote: post #241
PoignardAzur wrote: post #156

I'm very frustrated by some of the answers here and on Twitter. Carmack says: > The GPL virality wound up being a net negative, and more value would have come from BSD. [...] The best aspects of GPL work didn't manifest, but tons of opportunities to just copy-paste-modify were lost due to license concerns. One of the answers on Twitter: > Then what if it's being exploited by big techs and make your work proprietary?…

Carmack explicitly mentions the BSD/GPL question in connection with copilot. He is working on AI now and has an explicit interest in the intellectual property discussions that flared up after copilot. It's natural that people think he's using his status as a super programmer to lobby for the position that currently benefits him. I don't see why he would be more qualified to assess the pros/cons of the GPL than the Li…

> I don't see why he would be more qualified to assess the pros/cons of the GPL than the Linux and GCC authors.

I don't think he is. I would be equally frustrated if Linus Torvalds made an argument about the pros and cons of each license and people replied with generic proselytism.

My point isn't that Carmack's status means people should automatically listen to him. I'm saying he made a thought-out argument, based on practical considerations, and the way most people answered didn't really address the argument, so much as re-state a previous held belief that license X is better than license Y.

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

#434

Post by dralley »

vsw02 wrote: post #181
yosamino wrote: post #175

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Developers are users too. They use code. The whole point of the GPL is that the reverse is true as well. If I - the user of the software - wants to become a developer of this software I can only do so if I have access to the source code. That is not "mandating behaviour", if you are the original developer of a piece of software, you are free to take it closed source any time you wish. If you benefitted from having…

You have not understood my point at all. If you think I feel attacked in response to a comment laboriously explaining why two sides have been locked in pointless battle for decades, you’ve taken a point of view from me that simply doesn’t exist. The conclusion you’re drawing, particularly that I have any interest in denying someone rights or that my criticism of GPL implies a wish to harm others’ freedoms, is interes…

You misunderstand what the GPL requires, then. The GPL does not require this. The GPL only requires that the source code be shared with those to whom the software has been distributed.

Which in your example would be the airlines, not the upstream.

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

#435

Post by trashcan »

PoignardAzur wrote: post #156

I'm very frustrated by some of the answers here and on Twitter. Carmack says: > The GPL virality wound up being a net negative, and more value would have come from BSD. [...] The best aspects of GPL work didn't manifest, but tons of opportunities to just copy-paste-modify were lost due to license concerns. One of the answers on Twitter: > Then what if it's being exploited by big techs and make your work proprietary?…

> Is there a word for that? Dismissing empirical evidence by clinging to philosophical assertions?

Cognitive dissonance

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

#436

Post by marcodiego »

alex_smart wrote: post #339
marcodiego wrote: post #333

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I often hear the following invalid argument: "I don't care about code availability, I won't look at it!" to which my response is: "You won't look at it, but other people will, and when they contribute back, you will benefit too." Saying that the source availability is not important because you won't use it is like saying free speech is not important because you have nothing to say.

That is just an argument for features/the quality of code, not about freedom. There are other models for make good quality software that has the features users want without making it open source. And no, having the source available for software that you use is not like freedom of speech. Anyway, like I have already said, my intent here was only to try to make people like you see another perspective (namely that non-f…

I understand what you mean and I feel sorry for taking the discussion in an unintended direction. I could counter arguments some points you show, but I don't think that would contribute anything to the discussion.

Apart from that, It is clear from my comment history that I do have a side. Nevertheless, calling me an "open source fanatic" is kind of rude.

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

#437

Post by nmz »

athms wrote: post #423
nmz wrote: post #422

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I cannot tell if this is willfully pedantic or not. And well, since we are being pedantic, I guess I will allow myself to say, that you can't re-license per se, only newer versions can be re-licensed. a prior release will forever be that license.

Now, with that said, modifications made to a GPL codebase, when published must be under the GPL. This is where the virality or copyleft come in. This in turn means that a GPL codebase cannot be anything but GPL. Putting BSD licensed code inside a GPL codebase is like pouring fresh water into the ocean. And even if you did do that, it should be a separate codebase, because if its a direct modification, then that should be GPL as well.

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

#438

Post by donkeybeer »

nmz wrote: post #426
donkeybeer wrote: post #396

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

But by the very act of making their code bsd, they have removed any valid excuse to whine. Anything that happens is just a natural consequence of their decision: whether that be someone making bank on your code without giving you any of the changes back or GPL projects GPLifying a fork of you.

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

#439

Post by pseudalopex »

jancsika wrote: post #378
saurik wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The GNU Foundation--and the GPL--put one thing at its most important focus: that "users"--the people who are actually using the software and entrusting it with their data or their lives--have guaranteed freedoms. People--such as myself--who use the GPL believe that these freedoms are extremely important: that "users" should be able to get access to the source code for programs and be able to modify them (...and befor…

I'm curious-- why don't GPL advocates ever flip the argument back on the proprietary devs? E.g., You are a developer of proprietary software. Your aim is to provide the same freedoms in practice that users enjoy in GPL'd software. What do you do? There is a sensible and real answer here-- custom software development. If a user is paying a dev/dev-team to build that user some custom software, then barring fraud they h…

Proprietary software means software controlled by another party. Custom software includes all rights usually.

Most custom software clients want full ownership. Not a copyleft license. So most custom software developers look at licensing the same as most proprietary software developers. They want other developers to use permissive licenses because it makes their job easier.

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

#440

Post by pseudalopex »

shadowgovt wrote: post #315
saurik wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The GNU Foundation--and the GPL--put one thing at its most important focus: that "users"--the people who are actually using the software and entrusting it with their data or their lives--have guaranteed freedoms. People--such as myself--who use the GPL believe that these freedoms are extremely important: that "users" should be able to get access to the source code for programs and be able to modify them (...and befor…

That's the standard interpretation of the Four Freedoms. Unfortunately, I think it ignores that most users can't code. The Four Freedoms, practically, protect developers and the freedom to hack. These are good things to protect, but it's not the same as protecting the interests of users. It can be argued that GPL'd code (in contrast to a license such as BSD) is less a net positive for users because the constraints th…

Most people can't maintain their cars or renovate their homes. But they benefit from independent mechanics and contractors.
Post reply on HN