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

Bear is now source-available

herman.bearblog.dev

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

461–470 of 509 posts

Re: Bear is now source-available

#461

Post by spookie »

jwr wrote: post #416
swiftcoder wrote: post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> the stance of the 'Open Source' crowd The original stance of the open source crowd was more along the lines of the GPL -> GPLv3 -> AGPL, which expressly prevents this kind of thing. The proliferation of "give everything away for free" MIT/BSD/Apache licenses seems to me to have been an intentional campaign by corporate interests to undermine free software ideals

> The proliferation of "give everything away for free" MIT/BSD/Apache licenses seems to me to have been an intentional campaign by corporate interests to undermine free software ideals As a counterpoint, when I make something open source, I really mean "freedom", which includes the freedom to build a commercial service using the software. I use the MIT license not because of "corporate interests to undermine free sof…

Corporate interests != GPL is not on the cards

Re: Bear is now source-available

#463

Post by Jensson »

FuriouslyAdrift wrote: post #452
jwr wrote: post #416

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The proliferation of "give everything away for free" MIT/BSD/Apache licenses seems to me to have been an intentional campaign by corporate interests to undermine free software ideals As a counterpoint, when I make something open source, I really mean "freedom", which includes the freedom to build a commercial service using the software. I use the MIT license not because of "corporate interests to undermine free sof…

The GPL is meant to be viral... it infects other projects so as to open up software ecosystems. The open source movement came out of a time when nearly everything was proprietary and locked up. Tivo-ization really woke up a lot of people to the dangers of proprietary lock in and abuse. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tivoization

> The GPL is meant to be viral

But that also makes people not wanna bother with it. People in the middle who doesn't care either way will be very apprehensive of putting in a license virus in their project.

Re: Bear is now source-available

#464

Post by kiitos »

nothrabannosir wrote: post #264
kiitos wrote: post #238

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> the corporations who disallow agpl only do so because they want to comply in a way that is against the spirit of open source believe it or not this is not actually true! the corporations who disallow agpl do so because their lawyers (correctly) tell them that agpl-licensed software has not been adequately tested in relevant courts of law, and that by including agpl-licensed software they are opening themselves up t…

I’ve heard this one before and if the agpl were two years old I’d buy it. But they had ample opportunity to craft a better license by now, so at this point it’s hard to believe that’s not just a convenient excuse. Don’t like the agpl wording, but agree with the spirit? Ok, you have the lawyers, write a better agpl that abides by the same spirit and which you trust. But: nothing. And waiting won’t change that. It may…

you're arguing with the messenger. whether or not you buy anything is completely immaterial, what matters is the actual position of legal depts in corporations. said another way this is not a normative discussion (folks SHOULD be doing X) it is a descriptive discussion (folks ARE doing X)

you're also completely missing the point. it's not on anyone to "fix" the agpl, the point is about whether the agpl as it exists is usable in practice. answer, no, not really. "software freedom" doesn't even enter the discussion.

Re: Bear is now source-available

#465

Post by madeofpalk »

pflenker wrote: post #447
sarlalian wrote: post #171

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I mean, there’s a chance it’s exactly what he said, “I didn't give it much thought at the time, but knew that I wanted the code to be available for people to learn from, and to make it easily auditable so users could validate claims I have made about the privacy and security of the platform.” … it doesn’t have to be some to be some sort of nefarious OSS altruism, it really could be, “maybe people would want to see ho…

To be unfairly cynical here, the sentence you quoted sounds to me like "I chose to not have a front door. I didn't give it much thought at the time, but knew that I wanted my home to be available for people to learn from my interior design choices and decorations. Then I discovered that people walked in, started to eat out of my fridge, leave dirt everywhere and carry off some of my chairs, and it hurts". The fault h…

OP never talked about fault. They made an original decision, and now they've changed their mind. I don't see what the big deal is.

Re: Bear is now source-available

#466

Post by F3nd0 »

fkyoureadthedoc wrote: post #449
F3nd0 wrote: post #267

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If I recall correctly, there were originally three freedoms, but then a fourth one was thought of and put at the front to give it prominence, numbering it as zero as not to disturb the original numbering.

Unless you think they'd add a "Freedom -1" in the event that they add a 5th even more important freedom, then this is clearly just selected because 0 indexed lists are cute to programmers

I think it’s most likely a combination of both: Freedom 0 was later added in the first place, and newly numbering the first place with 0 could likely only have been thought of by a programmer.

Re: Bear is now source-available

#467

Post by anikom15 »

apgwoz wrote: post #215
anikom15 wrote: post #210

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, open source was definitely more leaning toward the GPLv2 than the BSD-style licenses.

…until businesses decided that the GPLv2 was legally risky and businesses started to avoid it.

This is FUD. Some businesses may have a policy of not using GPL software, but all the major enterprises, including Microsoft and Apple, use GPL software.

Re: Bear is now source-available

#468

Post by johntash »

passthejoe wrote: post #251
johntash wrote: post #226

I vaguely remember seeing bearblog before. While I can't comment much on the actual article, I do want to applaud how simple it looks. It makes me want to migrate away from ghost to bear or hugo or something without javascript/etc.

Most static site generators offer a Bear Blog theme, including Hugo and Zola. So you can get a self-hosted site that looks and acts like a Bear Blog, but run it yourself with a free software SSG.

Even better, thanks for the tip! I'll have another go at migrating to Hugo or maybe spend some time checking out other ones that are new to me.

Re: Bear is now source-available

#469

Post by anikom15 »

duskwuff wrote: post #363
pabs3 wrote: post #359

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just think about the goals of the GPL (software freedom for users), and its easy to see what you should do. Make it practical for a user to obtain and modify the source form (non-minified, non-transpiled, non-concatenated TypeScript/JavaScript/etc) of the library, build the version ran by the web browser, and replace the original with their modified version. Source maps can make part of that easier too. Progressive e…

The "goals" of the license are irrelevant. What matters from a legal perspective is the text of the license, and every time that text sets legal conditions which reference specific technologies like "linking", "object code", or "interface definition files" which don't apply to all programming languages, a lawyer's blood pressure rises.

Intent is relevant in law, especially when text is insufficient to determine a clear meaning.

Re: Bear is now source-available

#470

Post by F3nd0 »

jibal wrote: post #261
F3nd0 wrote: post #260

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Shareware isn't even open source, generally, and it certainly isn't gratis--you have to pay for it, or at least should, and there are often restrictions or time limits if you don't. Again, the "free" in "free software" refers to freedom, not free beer. Yes. The comment you are replying to already said this: ‘Free/libre software is distinguished from "gratis" software’. Your earlier comment wasn’t wrong for saying t…

[flagged]

[flagged]
Post reply on HN