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

In place of a legal notice, here is a blessing

github.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 116 posts

Re: In place of a legal notice, here is a blessing

#51

Post by Zababa »

randerson wrote: post #39
collegeburner wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I can't respons to randerson's comment directly because it's dead, I'd recommend he look at Aquinas' just war theory and other Christian ideas on when war is ok. There are many problems with the military industrial complex we have but that does not mean we should have no defense. Guided missile destroyers fulfill a legitimate defense role and would be needed even if we were much less interventionist.

I didn't dispute whether it can be used for good, I'm glad we have these things and I'm also a huge fan of SQLite. But when your system shoots down an enemy (to you) aircraft, how do you reconcile that with: "Do not murder." "Love your neighbor as yourself." "Honor all people." "Do not do to another what you would not have done to yourself." "Do not return evil for evil." "Love your enemies." the list goes on..

According to google, murder:

> the unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another.

According to wikipedia:

> Murder is the unlawful killing of another human without justification or valid excuse, especially the unlawful killing of another human with malice aforethought.

So if the missile was fired by people that are legally allowed to kill other people, "Do not murder" has been respected.

> Do not return evil for evil.

I feel like there is a difference between preventing someone to commit evil acts (defending yourself) and attacking them.

> Honor all people

You can honor fallen enemies.

> Love your neighbor as yourself. Love your enemies.

Might be a stretch, but I don't think love would prevent you from killing someone if that was necessary.

> Do not do to another what you would not have done to yourself.

Presumably you would rather be killed than be allowed to murder other people.

All of that may be a bit of a stretch, I don't know much about religious doctrine. But it's still coherant with "common sense" I think.

Re: In place of a legal notice, here is a blessing

#53

Post by gojomo »

Zandikar wrote: post #34
yongjik wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Recently saw a Reddit thread with "Were the twin towers famous before they fell?" Felt old.

And just to follow up for anyone who may genuinely be wondering: Yes. Yes they were. Not quite as ubiquitous or well known as "9/11" is today, but they were up there with the statue of liberty as far as Icons of NYC and to a slightly lesser extent icons of the USA. They were, as they say, a big deal, even before they fell.

Indeed. They were the most prominent feature of the lower Manhattan skyline, often the prominent focus of any photos/flyover/footage of the city, especially views from either New Jersey to the west or Brooklyn to the east.

A nice montage of some movie appearances is at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gsedxIoWFZo

In some, they were just a part of the distinctive background place-setting New York skyline, or a ground-level signifier of "downtown financial district'; in others, they were part of the action. Especially memorable was the 1976 'King Kong', which updated the 1933 version to have Kong climb the twin towers instead of the Empire State Building. Other films featured the observation deck, a popular tourist attraction.

Re: In place of a legal notice, here is a blessing

#54

Post by inopinatus »

sb057 wrote: post #24
DylanSp wrote: post #9

Has anyone heard of any issues using SQLite in jurisdictions without a concept of the public domain? The copyright page [1] seems to imply that you'd need to buy a license from Hwaci. [1] https://www.sqlite.org/copyright.html

It remains an open legal question (at least in the United States) whether or not an author even can voluntarily release something into the public domain. Hwaci could theoretically decide that, actually, that they never really put SQLite in the public domain and in fact possess full copyright over it and would like not only current and future licensing fees, but also retroactive fees from everyone who's used it over t…

Broadly speaking, licensing authority is not the problem. The absence of liability disclaimer is the problem.

Re: In place of a legal notice, here is a blessing

#55

Post by sb057 »

cormacrelf wrote: post #44
sb057 wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It remains an open legal question (at least in the United States) whether or not an author even can voluntarily release something into the public domain. Hwaci could theoretically decide that, actually, that they never really put SQLite in the public domain and in fact possess full copyright over it and would like not only current and future licensing fees, but also retroactive fees from everyone who's used it over t…

Uh, no, they can't change history and take back the words they put there 20 years ago, or decide unilaterally that those words actually meant something else. The matter of whether a work has been successfully dedicated to the public domain (and when, and in what jurisdictions) is a matter for a court, not a matter to be arbitrarily decided or revoked at any time by the (at the time) copyright holder. It's a matter of…

>The matter of whether a work has been successfully dedicated to the public domain (and when, and in what jurisdictions) is a matter for a court, not a matter to be arbitrarily decided or revoked at any time by the (at the time) copyright holder.

Right, and a judge could rule that, in fact, it is possible to arbitrarily revoke free licensing at any time.

>it would be ridiculous for a court to find otherwise

You say that, but we live in a world of ridiculous IP law.

Re: In place of a legal notice, here is a blessing

#56

Post by gojomo »

voidfunc wrote: post #50
Zandikar wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And just to follow up for anyone who may genuinely be wondering: Yes. Yes they were. Not quite as ubiquitous or well known as "9/11" is today, but they were up there with the statue of liberty as far as Icons of NYC and to a slightly lesser extent icons of the USA. They were, as they say, a big deal, even before they fell.

100% agree. I'd argue they were the #2 landmark in NYC after The Statue of Liberty at the time. 1. Statue of Liberty, without question. 2. Twin Towers - showed up in just about shot of NYC put into mainstream media from the date of inception until destruction. 3. Empire State Building - Yes it is really recognizable but never got the media exposure of the WTC. After that things get a little muddier. If I'm doing a to…

Of course the Statue of Liberty & Empire State Building were the undisputed 1/2 (in either order) NYC landmarks for many decades before the WTC arrived.

The Empire State Building had been the tallest building in the world for almost 40 years, from 1931-1970.

It was arrival of the taller WTC twin towers in 1970, & to a lesser extent the proliferation of other midtown skyscrapers, that gradually chipped away at the Empire State Building's literal & figurative prominence.

Re: In place of a legal notice, here is a blessing

#57

Post by Gunnerhead »

voidfunc wrote: post #50
Zandikar wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And just to follow up for anyone who may genuinely be wondering: Yes. Yes they were. Not quite as ubiquitous or well known as "9/11" is today, but they were up there with the statue of liberty as far as Icons of NYC and to a slightly lesser extent icons of the USA. They were, as they say, a big deal, even before they fell.

100% agree. I'd argue they were the #2 landmark in NYC after The Statue of Liberty at the time. 1. Statue of Liberty, without question. 2. Twin Towers - showed up in just about shot of NYC put into mainstream media from the date of inception until destruction. 3. Empire State Building - Yes it is really recognizable but never got the media exposure of the WTC. After that things get a little muddier. If I'm doing a to…

What about post-9/11?

Re: In place of a legal notice, here is a blessing

#58

Post by loosescrews »

Zandikar wrote: post #34
yongjik wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Recently saw a Reddit thread with "Were the twin towers famous before they fell?" Felt old.

And just to follow up for anyone who may genuinely be wondering: Yes. Yes they were. Not quite as ubiquitous or well known as "9/11" is today, but they were up there with the statue of liberty as far as Icons of NYC and to a slightly lesser extent icons of the USA. They were, as they say, a big deal, even before they fell.

One example is that they were featured prominently in The Sopranos' opening sequence, but were removed after destruction:

https://movies.stackexchange.com/questions/110820/how-was-th...

Re: In place of a legal notice, here is a blessing

#59

Post by yongjik »

loosescrews wrote: post #58
Zandikar wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And just to follow up for anyone who may genuinely be wondering: Yes. Yes they were. Not quite as ubiquitous or well known as "9/11" is today, but they were up there with the statue of liberty as far as Icons of NYC and to a slightly lesser extent icons of the USA. They were, as they say, a big deal, even before they fell.

One example is that they were featured prominently in The Sopranos' opening sequence, but were removed after destruction: https://movies.stackexchange.com/questions/110820/how-was-th...

Also in Sex and the City. (God, I feel older now.)

Re: In place of a legal notice, here is a blessing

#60

Post by not2b »

zarzavat wrote: post #48
sb057 wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It remains an open legal question (at least in the United States) whether or not an author even can voluntarily release something into the public domain. Hwaci could theoretically decide that, actually, that they never really put SQLite in the public domain and in fact possess full copyright over it and would like not only current and future licensing fees, but also retroactive fees from everyone who's used it over t…

I know that US courts do some weird things sometimes but "The author disclaims copyright" is abundantly clear, and also the author has made plenty of public statements clarifying exactly how that is to be interpreted. The situation in civil law countries and especially countries that have inalienable "author's rights" is much less clear and hostile even to the SQLite copyright release.

But even in those countries, it would seem that only the authors, the people with "author's rights", have a claim on anyone's use of the code. If they intend for people to use and copy the code without restriction there is no one else to say otherwise.
Post reply on HN