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

71–80 of 468 posts

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

#71

Post by jobigoud »

epaga wrote: post #48

I'm still bummed out that for years, GPL was the "standard" go-to open source license. So many projects became useless for any commercial projects whatsoever. GPL advocates say it's so that your code isn't exploited by corporations. But I'd say that choosing GPL means it's more important to you that your code "is not exploited by corporations" than that it can be used for good by people with commercial interests. Tho…

> GPL advocates say it's so that your code isn't exploited by corporations.

GPL advocates love when their code is used by corporation, as long as they don't violate the license.

GPL advocates say it's so that improvements to the code are still benefiting the group.

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

#72

Post by Tempest1981 »

kaptain wrote: post #11

I’ve looked at some of the Copilot threads but am unable to follow the issue. Can someone summarize what the issue is with Copilot and why a BSD license would have been significant for the code?

Can simple unit-test data be licensed? I.e. tables of inputs and expected outputs?

The answer becomes more interesting if you could use them as input to an AI that generates source code (beyond Copilot).

(Apologies if this has been discussed recently.)

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

#73

Post by drran »

paavohtl wrote: post #57
eitland wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The GPL prohibits some commercial use. > The BSD license does not. Really a nitpick but is this actually true? I mean the GPL actually defends your right to do whatever you want with the software including selling or renting it out. What it restrict is what limitations you can put on those who use it, but (and here comes the nitpick): prohibiting others from using something in a certain way isn't what I'd call "com…

> I mean the GPL actually defends your right to do whatever you want with the software including selling or renting it out. But realistically, practically, you can't. There is nothing to sell if the software has to be open source. The list of commercial GPL applications is really short compared to the millions of applications which include BSD-licensed code.

This is not true. Many small but successful companies are released their code using AGPL3 license, so you can see and contribute to the code, but cannot compete with them using the same code.

The typical business model is a paid hosting and paid support for the product.

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

#74

Post by kelnos »

wsc981 wrote: post #10
cblconfederate wrote: post #6

There is no empirical evidence in what he says

> There is no empirical evidence in what he says Didn't Apple remove all GPL-based code from the whole iOS and macOS dev infrastructure at some point due to GPL licensing concerns? I also believe Apple sticked for a very long time to an older version of GCC in the past, due to licensing concerns of newer versions of GCC [0]. That was, until Apple replaced GCC with Clang. And I am not sure if GPL-based code can even b…

> As a dev I always avoided GPL-based code in my iOS apps with the exception of GPL2 licensed static libraries (which to my understanding are ok to distribute as part of an app without licensing concerns).

That... does not sound correct to me at all, unless they were actually LGPL2, and not GPL2.

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

#75

Post by wildmanx »

foxes wrote: post #55

Why is a few snippets of code so valuable anyway? We don't GPL scientific research, you expect people to cite you, and then build off your work, the licensing in a sense is far more permissive. You don't GPL maths text books and then require proofs to be licensed back. Other knowledge doesn't seem to propagate in society like this. The human element of the programmer who can understand, adapt and develop some program…

I think the key property of the GPL is its virality. It's part of the vision that if I can use some software, I can also change it, to adapt it to my needs, to learn from it, to build something on top of it. I can disassemble my bike, re-assemble it, change it, build on top of it. I want to do that with my browser, my OS kernel and my image viewer too.

That this is connected to how "valuable" code is, is in a sense a happy coincidence. The conditions are attached and entangled because this forces people to listen and pay attention.

A more "permissive" license (like BSD) is weakening that point. It allows you to reuse code but does not require the re-user to allow the above mentioned openness. So is kind of missing the point, from that perspective.

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

#76

Post by ognarb »

epaga wrote: post #48

I'm still bummed out that for years, GPL was the "standard" go-to open source license. So many projects became useless for any commercial projects whatsoever. GPL advocates say it's so that your code isn't exploited by corporations. But I'd say that choosing GPL means it's more important to you that your code "is not exploited by corporations" than that it can be used for good by people with commercial interests. Tho…

Blender, Krita, Wordpress, Drupal, Nextcloud and many other projects are commercial and (A)GPL. As long as you share the sources of your modifications, you are free to use their code.

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

#77

Post by CyberRabbi »

epaga wrote: post #48

I'm still bummed out that for years, GPL was the "standard" go-to open source license. So many projects became useless for any commercial projects whatsoever. GPL advocates say it's so that your code isn't exploited by corporations. But I'd say that choosing GPL means it's more important to you that your code "is not exploited by corporations" than that it can be used for good by people with commercial interests. Tho…

Why do people feel entitled to GPL-licensed work? If you are producing code for a commercial purpose then you have the resources to pay for the code to be written.

Just because GPL code is in the open does not mean it’s wasted if companies can’t use it for their own profit.

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

#78

Post by pjmlp »

toast0 wrote: post #16
irjustin wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Counter point: I don't think it's sensational. I interpreted his words directly as he wishes he gone a different direction given what he knows now. At the time he thought GPL was the best move, and now how he doesn't. HNTitle at the time of my reply: "John Carmack wishes he'd used the BSD license instead of the GPL"

He also said in the thread that his partners wouldn't have gone for it, so he may have thought BSD was better back then too, but went with what he could do. Releasing the engine code at all was a big deal back then, and inspired some others to do so, but others sometimes had more restrictive than GPL licenses; GPL is certainly better than a license prohibiting commercial use.

Since game engines exist as middleware, the code has always been available to those that bought them, if not directly, as additional option.

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

#79

Post by xunn0026 »

bifrost wrote: post #9
rStar wrote: post #8

so, we all have the privilege to read the DOOM source code because the GPL exists and was compatible with the business needs of Id Soft, as well as JC’s vision, is how i’m reading this.

You would've had the privilege of reading the source with BSD too, but the GPL prevents a variety of things from happening so its not as free as the BSD License. If you want to read into something - he was bullied into using the GPL and not the BSD license.

> he was bullied into using the GPL and not the BSD license.

No he was not. He did believe it was a good pick but in retrospect it wasn't.

He was not 'bullied'.

The nerve...

Post reply on HN