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

Microsoft: No GPLv3 Software for Windows Phone and Xbox Apps.

jan.wildeboer.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 134 posts

Re: Microsoft: No GPLv3 Software for Windows Phone and Xbox Apps.

#71

Post by timwiseman »

btipling wrote: post #15
SimonPStevens wrote: post #12

They aren't prohibiting "Free Software", they are prohibiting software that is under a license that requires the distributor to pass certain rights along to the recipient. Hence GPL like licenses that require distribution of source code, and that you grant redistribution rights to everyone you distribute it to are being explicitly prohibited. (And in fairness I can see why those licenses would cause problems for Micr…

Exactly. Also GPL style licenses are a virus that while they promote freedom, in reality they take it away. It assumes that people are naturally untrustworthy and thus forces them to act in a way the creators of GPL see as the right way. Because of how the GPL licenses are worded, especially insane versions like the AGPL, everything they touch may be affected negatively. MIT and BSD style licenses on the other hand a…

"Also GPL style licenses are a virus that while they promote freedom, in reality they take it away. "

The only freedom the GPL takes away, or even could take away, is freedom that you never had. Remember, you have no right to view code, modify, or distribute software unless you get that right by either being given it or buying it from the creator.

BSD-style software simply gives these things to you as a gift, and is in a sense more free than the GPL. Closed source software on the other hand can make it difficult or impossible to do any of those things and the licensing terms if you get any of those rights are often very stringent and exacting. The GPL strikes a middle grand, it offers you these rights, but in exchange you must agree to share any changes you do make to it. I, for one, find this a very good trade off indeed if that is all the author will charge me.

Re: Microsoft: No GPLv3 Software for Windows Phone and Xbox Apps.

#72

Post by moxiemk1 »

skore wrote: post #16
btipling wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Exactly. Also GPL style licenses are a virus that while they promote freedom, in reality they take it away. It assumes that people are naturally untrustworthy and thus forces them to act in a way the creators of GPL see as the right way. Because of how the GPL licenses are worded, especially insane versions like the AGPL, everything they touch may be affected negatively. MIT and BSD style licenses on the other hand a…

You're probably just trolling, but it needs to be said every time: The freedom that the GPL takes away is the freedom to bring down the system. It keeps people in check and prevents corruption. If you enjoy the freedoms of MIT and BSD style licenses - why do you complain about the GPL? It seems that it only takes "freedoms" away that you don't appear to be interested in anyways?

The point is that it does take away some freedoms, that the BSD license does not take away.

This keeps getting brought up because people say that the GPL is about "freedom" when the freedom it guarantees is rather explicitly freedom for the code itself at the expense of some of the users of the software. The BSD license does not take away these freedoms of the user - users can pass on the same code to other users with significantly more restriction, but the BSD License itself does not take away those freedoms.

It keeps coming up because its frustrating to hear people making emotional appeals to "freedom" instead of acknowledging the tradeoff for code freedom instead of human freedom they make. Its not that the choice itself is bad, its that not acknowledging it explicitly is disingenuous.

Re: Microsoft: No GPLv3 Software for Windows Phone and Xbox Apps.

#73

Post by sjs »

cosgroveb wrote: post #57
sjs wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem is that nobody actually knows what constitutes a derivative work. Hence you have the LGPL for libraries so that you don't have to worry about linking them. The result is that nobody wants to risk tainting their work with GPL code if they're trying to make money. If it's GPL many people won't even look at it because who knows if someone who contributed a 2 line patch 10 years ago is going to come banging d…

You're not responding to the substance of my post. I said I wasn't commenting on whether or not the GPL actually promotes freedom. It just doesn't take it away. You and I are in total agreement here. If you want your code to have the widest possible distribution, use BSD/MIT licenses (I have done this). You have the freedom to do this and the existence of the GPL does not take your freedom away from you. You also hav…

I can't think of how it takes away freedom. But it is less free than other open-source licenses, yet the FSF bills it as the paragon of freedom. I think that's the gist of why there are such feelings towards it.

I don't hate the GPL. I think it has its place. Less so in modern times than the early 80s, but it does have a place.

Re: Microsoft: No GPLv3 Software for Windows Phone and Xbox Apps.

#74

Post by shareme »

sjs wrote: post #49
cosgroveb wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not going to comment on whether GPL style licenses actually have the effect of promoting freedom like they say, but I don't see at all how they take it away. An author is free to write code and distribute it under the GPL. Likewise anyone else is free to fork it, or use it in their own codebase so long as they honor the terms of the license . How does that take away anyone's freedom? Don't like the terms of an au…

The problem is that nobody actually knows what constitutes a derivative work. Hence you have the LGPL for libraries so that you don't have to worry about linking them. The result is that nobody wants to risk tainting their work with GPL code if they're trying to make money. If it's GPL many people won't even look at it because who knows if someone who contributed a 2 line patch 10 years ago is going to come banging d…

so when MS uses libraries that contain an open source license that MS had approved than what? Will than MS abide by their own stupid rule than?

Re: Microsoft: No GPLv3 Software for Windows Phone and Xbox Apps.

#75

Post by jedsmith »

moxiemk1 wrote: post #72
skore wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're probably just trolling, but it needs to be said every time: The freedom that the GPL takes away is the freedom to bring down the system. It keeps people in check and prevents corruption. If you enjoy the freedoms of MIT and BSD style licenses - why do you complain about the GPL? It seems that it only takes "freedoms" away that you don't appear to be interested in anyways?

The point is that it does take away some freedoms, that the BSD license does not take away. This keeps getting brought up because people say that the GPL is about "freedom" when the freedom it guarantees is rather explicitly freedom for the code itself at the expense of some of the users of the software. The BSD license does not take away these freedoms of the user - users can pass on the same code to other users wit…

And if you criticize it in even the lightest way, the religious fervor I mentioned before brings every free software supporter out to impale you. I can't tell you how many times I've been called a corporate shill or, quote, "M$ fanboi" because I don't agree with the GPL on principle.

This thread has devolved into the same kind of thing, and to be honest, I'm surprised I'm still participating in it. Just watching the karma on my previous comments swing wildly back and forth has been enough of an amusement this morning.

I don't begrudge anybody their beliefs, but holy cow, give me the same respect.

Re: Microsoft: No GPLv3 Software for Windows Phone and Xbox Apps.

#77

Post by Herring »

forgotAgain wrote: post #7

If they distribute GPL software aren't they also responsible for making the source available. Why would they want to open themselves to that headache?

If the free linuxes can do it, im sure MS can handle it. It's not much of a hassle to add an extra menu item.

I think the real problem is unlocking & GPLv3. MS was never GPL friendly either.

Re: Microsoft: No GPLv3 Software for Windows Phone and Xbox Apps.

#78

Post by rmc »

forgotAgain wrote: post #7

If they distribute GPL software aren't they also responsible for making the source available. Why would they want to open themselves to that headache?

No, Section2 (of the GPLv2) allows you to either distribute the source code along with it, or written offer to where to get the source code.

Re: Microsoft: No GPLv3 Software for Windows Phone and Xbox Apps.

#79

Post by jasonlotito »

jedsmith wrote: post #67
timtadh wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The issue here is you disagree with FSF over the meaning of the word free. Don't worry this is a common occurrence! To RMS free means freedom to use software without violating his "golden rule." RMS believes that if a neighbor wants to use software you are using you should be able to give it to him. Just as you would neighborly share flour or a rake. I am not going to debate RMSs ethical philosophy, I just want to po…

> If some wants to use it in proprietary software they cannot, because if they did they would be unable to then share it with their neighbor. So he isn't free to do what he wishes with the software. Free is one of the most overloaded words in the English language, and I know that at least some of the Free Software movement agrees due to the prevalence of libre software (as if switching to French somehow makes it more…

The problem is people attack the GPL hold up the BSD as if it's without restrictions. But it is (granted, the restrictions are fairly simple to address, their are restrictions places on you, and if you don't follow them, you are in the same boat as the GPL).

> There is no free with restrictions

In this case, the only option is to write it yourself, as even things put into the public domain can have a catch (Actually, I think their is a license that basically does with you'd think putting something into the pubic domain does, I just forget the name).

So basically...

> So he isn't free to do what he wishes with the software.

This is true of pretty much all licensed code, including BSD.

Re: Microsoft: No GPLv3 Software for Windows Phone and Xbox Apps.

#80

Post by jedsmith »

jasonlotito wrote: post #79
jedsmith wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If some wants to use it in proprietary software they cannot, because if they did they would be unable to then share it with their neighbor. So he isn't free to do what he wishes with the software. Free is one of the most overloaded words in the English language, and I know that at least some of the Free Software movement agrees due to the prevalence of libre software (as if switching to French somehow makes it more…

The problem is people attack the GPL hold up the BSD as if it's without restrictions. But it is (granted, the restrictions are fairly simple to address, their are restrictions places on you, and if you don't follow them, you are in the same boat as the GPL). > There is no free with restrictions In this case, the only option is to write it yourself, as even things put into the public domain can have a catch (Actually,…

> (Actually, I think their is a license that basically does with you'd think putting something into the pubic domain does, I just forget the name).

CC0? https://creativecommons.org/choose/zero/

> This is true of pretty much all licensed code, including BSD.

Couldn't agree more.

Don't call it Free, and don't try to associate Free with the GPL at the expense of everything else (which seems to be the push). Libre too. Because if anything, the GPL is more restrictive than alternative licenses.

That's my gripe.

Post reply on HN