Richard Stallman spoke at Microsoft Research this week • Hacker News Board

Re: Richard Stallman spoke at Microsoft Research this week

#51

Post by toyg » Fri, Sep 06, 2019, 1:25 PM UTC

mikekchar wrote: post #31

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'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…

It’s also people thinking an open license is a free-for-all. I put out some simple scripts some time ago to move data across a couple of sites, under MIT - super liberal license, “just keep the credits” and you can do anything you want. Simple, right? After a few years I checked the forks and the first (and often only) thing they were doing was to strip attribution everywhere. I mean, it’s github, you forked right from my repo, everyone can see it. And why would you do that anyway, if you’re after publicity just add your name on top! I opened issues and most of them halfheartedly apologized and put back my notices, others ignored me, others pulled down the repo altogether. I bet they’ve all re-stripped it back, by now.

It would be cool if the license metadata currently existing on GH could be extended to carry names, in a way that makes it impossible to strip attribution (depending on the license, of course).

Re: Richard Stallman spoke at Microsoft Research this week

#52

Post by ChrisSD » Fri, Sep 06, 2019, 1:25 PM UTC

phkahler wrote: post #48

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…

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 compa…

According to Stallman, MIT is compatible with GPL but the reverse isn't true. You can freely use MIT code (including linking) in a GPL project so long as the source is available.

In Rust most code is dual licensed as MIT or Apache 2. You can pick which one to use although IIRC Apache 2 is considered the "primary license" because it provides protections from patent trolls and an explicit contribution licensing clause. However Apache 2 isn't compatible with GPL.

Re: Richard Stallman spoke at Microsoft Research this week

#53

Post by huhtenberg » Fri, Sep 06, 2019, 1:27 PM UTC

de_watcher wrote: post #22

w8rbt wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Telling them to use GNU/Linux.

They already do. Just need to ditch everything except WSL - and we've got an acceptable MS OS.

No, no that. Use "GNU/Linux", the term, vs just "Linux" :)

Re: Richard Stallman spoke at Microsoft Research this week

#54

Post by stiangrindvoll » Fri, Sep 06, 2019, 1:29 PM UTC

Good example of combining what you believe the most in and the ability to talk to the "enemy".

Too many people does not even see that as an option.

Re: Richard Stallman spoke at Microsoft Research this week

#55

Post by toyg » Fri, Sep 06, 2019, 1:34 PM UTC

thesuperbigfrog wrote: post #33

Without sounding too sacrilegious, Dr. Stallman is the Free Software Jesus--he preaches the gospel of Free Software to the whole world and associates with "sinners" calling them to repentance. If he can bring "the truth" of Free Software to Microsoft employees and help them "see the light", why wouldn't he? He certainly looks the part of Free Software prophet when dressed as Saint Ignuicius: https://stallman.org/sain…

Stallman is very much like the saints of old: striving at all times to be coherent with his beliefs, walking the walk, preaching - and getting publicly celebrated and then mostly ignored or selectively quoted by “followers”.

Like with saints, we often need extremists like him to keep the Overton pushed wide towards the needs of humanity at large, as opposed to private profit. We can’t all wear sackcloth and give our life to $divinity to translate Arabic copies of Greek manuscripts, but we’ll always need someone who will.

Re: Richard Stallman spoke at Microsoft Research this week

#56

Post by toyg » Fri, Sep 06, 2019, 1:37 PM UTC

de_watcher wrote: post #22

w8rbt wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Telling them to use GNU/Linux.

They already do. Just need to ditch everything except WSL - and we've got an acceptable MS OS.

NT is not a bad OS, it makes some different tradeoffs than traditional POSIX systems and in some cases it’s objectively superior.

It’s just the ecosystem on top that is a pile of flaming trash.

Re: Richard Stallman spoke at Microsoft Research this week

#57

Post by scbrg » Fri, Sep 06, 2019, 1:39 PM UTC

askmike wrote: post #50

phkahler wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

They already are making a legal choice when they choose to make the repo public. There is little point in not making that explicit.

Re: Richard Stallman spoke at Microsoft Research this week

#58

Post by tannhaeuser » Fri, Sep 06, 2019, 1:40 PM UTC

fetbaffe wrote: post #9

"Stallman asked that there is no video taken using JavaScript" lol now I like Stallman.

He has a point. Why would he want his "performance" to be featured on proprietary video formats or platforms? Even ignoring the proprietary part, he'd basically provide exclusive content to yt without compensation.

Speaking of which, maybe he could address Github blocking indie search crawlers.

Re: Richard Stallman spoke at Microsoft Research this week

#59

Post by Tepix » Fri, Sep 06, 2019, 1:42 PM UTC

Microsoft has come a long way.

Obligatory Richard Stallman website reference: https://rms.sexy/

Re: Richard Stallman spoke at Microsoft Research this week

#60

Post by heavenlyblue » Fri, Sep 06, 2019, 1:44 PM UTC

toyg wrote: post #51

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…

It’s also people thinking an open license is a free-for-all. I put out some simple scripts some time ago to move data across a couple of sites, under MIT - super liberal license, “just keep the credits” and you can do anything you want. Simple, right? After a few years I checked the forks and the first (and often only) thing they were doing was to strip attribution everywhere. I mean, it’s github, you forked right fr…

Does anyone here on HN know of lawyer companies that would follow up on license violation requests in bulk?

E.G. there are services like small claims court in the UK that _mostly_ automate the billing on unpaid invoices, is there something like that for licensing?