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

441–450 of 468 posts

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

#441

Post by trasz »

renewiltord wrote: post #382
trasz wrote: post #360

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, you can, assuming we're talking about the modern BSD license. So, your point was?

This is wrong. 3-clause BSD requires reproduction of copyright notice. You cannot distribute commercial derivatives of BSD-licensed code without including attribution. It’s literally clause two.

That’s why I’ve asked about the modern BSD license, the one without the advertising clause. But even with the old one, having to add one more disclaimer to the usual page of disclaimers somewhere in the documentation is not a problem, while meeting requirements of copyleft licenses - even non-viral ones - can be problematic.

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

#442

Post by trasz »

mannerheim wrote: post #427
trasz wrote: post #361

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I had, and I have provided a counterexample: there is no license incompatibility if you avoid GPL. That wouldn’t be true if the “virality” was a property of the copyright itself, would it?

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

#443

Post by trasz »

CorrectHorseBat wrote: post #389
trasz wrote: post #363

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

>Ah, so it's really about making it harder for other players to improve their product? No, it's about keeping those improvements open source. >As for Audacity - the exact same thing would have happened with any other Open Source license; GPL doesn't make it any easier. Yes, it does make it a lot easier since the Muse Group (assuming they don't own all copyright of Audacity, if they do the license doesn't indeed reall…

They can’t make it proprietary, because the developers would then go with the open fork. In this case GPL protects you from a scenario which cannot happen for other reasons.

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

#444

Post by ksec »

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?…

I think from Carmack POV, Unreal Model would have been better ? Basically he want the code or software to be used more often. And the industry collaborate together to make better engine.

I also kind of think 90% of the comments here misses the point. It isn't GPL vs BSD. Some software should be GPL, or APGL even. Some are better for MIT and BSD, or even CC0.

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

#445

Post by drran »

simion314 wrote: post #418
drran wrote: post #412

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Of course, it's not a magic, because everything is written in clear text, but it works: > However, in this case, Donald writes, "with Cisco, years of trying to work through their predecessor's compliance problems didn't generate the progress we were hoping for, so we had filed a lawsuit. It was quickly settled, and compliance was achieved." > > There’s an even brighter silver lining to this story: Cisco later became…

>For a proprietary code, it doesn't work because a commercial company is looking for profit. So you would prefer you had by mistake infringed on MS/Google or Oracle code then some dude's GPL shitty left pad ? For me it seems that the license is not important but who exactly you upset. Anyway the point is the license did not infected Google code, Google had to pay damages and it could have been GPL or other proprietar…

Unlike GPL, proprietary licenses are not viral. They never asked for fair exchange of code, so court cannot force that.

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

#446

Post by CorrectHorseBat »

trasz wrote: post #443
CorrectHorseBat wrote: post #389

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Ah, so it's really about making it harder for other players to improve their product? No, it's about keeping those improvements open source. >As for Audacity - the exact same thing would have happened with any other Open Source license; GPL doesn't make it any easier. Yes, it does make it a lot easier since the Muse Group (assuming they don't own all copyright of Audacity, if they do the license doesn't indeed reall…

They can’t make it proprietary, because the developers would then go with the open fork. In this case GPL protects you from a scenario which cannot happen for other reasons.

But the improvements they make wouldn't be open source so the open source version would lack those features, which means we would be stuck having to choose between an outdated Audacity and a non-free Audacity.

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

#447

Post by trasz »

CorrectHorseBat wrote: post #446
trasz wrote: post #443

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They can’t make it proprietary, because the developers would then go with the open fork. In this case GPL protects you from a scenario which cannot happen for other reasons.

But the improvements they make wouldn't be open source so the open source version would lack those features, which means we would be stuck having to choose between an outdated Audacity and a non-free Audacity.

Open Source developers would develop closed version instead of the open one? How?

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

#448

Post by trasz »

elevader wrote: post #405
trasz wrote: post #365

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Of course, but they can't just copy&paste their favorite files from the linux kernel sources and call it FancyOs without releasing the sources to that. I think you got my point, I don't really see the benefit in arguing semantics.

It’s not about semantics - it’s about demonstrating that Sony using someone’s sources doesn’t hurt that someone, and trying force them to give away their changes with license doesn’t work.

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

#449

Post by globular-toast »

trasz wrote: post #442
mannerheim wrote: post #427

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think you read my comment.

I had, and I have provided a counterexample: there is no license incompatibility if you avoid GPL. That wouldn’t be true if the “virality” was a property of the copyright itself, would it?

You're wrong and you don't seem to be listening but I'll try one last time. I think you're simply refusing to engage thinking circuits because you've already installed the following in your brainrc: alias GPL=bad.

Licence incompatibility is not in the slightest bit unique to the GPL. It's simply how licences work. Other licences can seem interchangeable because they are very simple and one may stipulate a superset of the requirements of the other, so you can always "upgrade". But you can't "downgrade". You can't mix a BSD-licensed work with a WTFPL work and license the whole thing under WTFPL because you will violate the BSD licence.

Licences are only a thing because of copyright. Every single licence out there only works because of copyright. Different licences have different aims. The aim of GPL is to "disable" copyright. The GPL is antiviral.

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

#450

Post by CorrectHorseBat »

trasz wrote: post #447
CorrectHorseBat wrote: post #446

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But the improvements they make wouldn't be open source so the open source version would lack those features, which means we would be stuck having to choose between an outdated Audacity and a non-free Audacity.

Open Source developers would develop closed version instead of the open one? How?

Muse Group bought Audacity and are developing it now, their developers will use whatever license their employer tells them to use. They are the main developers of Audacity now. Any fork will have to compete with their work.
Post reply on HN