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

WhiteDB – Lightweight NoSQL database written in C, operating in main memory

whitedb.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–83 of 83 posts

Re: WhiteDB – Lightweight NoSQL database written in C, operating in main memory

#81

Post by lambda »

jafaku wrote: post #54
nknighthb wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What disgusting arrogance. There is no objective standard of "applicability" of any particular license to any particular piece of software. The LGPL is not "built explicitly for this purpose". The LGPL is a compromise license that exists for strategic reasons. There is no clear reason it should be applied here. That some people may not want or be able to use this library because of its license choice may matter to yo…

He's just letting the author know that the library is unusable with this license. So either people won't use it, or they will use it and violate the license. Would you seriously consider using (or even trying) a new library that has not even proved to be better than others yet, if you had to comply with GPLv3? I wouldn't.

The library is not unusable with this license.

Anyone writing GPLv3 software to begin with would be just fine with using this license.

The question you have to ask yourself is: am I OK with releasing my software under the GPLv3, or am I OK with rewriting this library if I decide to relicense my software under some other license. If you're OK with that, then you can use this library.

Re: WhiteDB – Lightweight NoSQL database written in C, operating in main memory

#82

Post by belorn »

jafaku wrote: post #70
endgame wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well said. People need to remember that the L in LGPL stands for "Lesser", not "Library".

Where lesser means less restrictions, not less freedom. GPLv3 = The ultimate restriction

HN need better anti-troll protection against comments like that.

Re: WhiteDB – Lightweight NoSQL database written in C, operating in main memory

#83

Post by pjmlp »

a-nom-a-ly wrote: post #61
pjmlp wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, all the time. Those that want to get money with the free work of others, should give something back and most authors do offer commercial licenses when asked for. With licenses like BSD, the living proof is that most companies are leechers.

> Those that want to get money with the free work of others, should give something back and most authors do offer commercial licenses when asked for. Have you ever considered the fact that it's not all about money and proprietary software? This affect Open Source software as well. If I want to allow other to do as they will with my code, I won't touch a library with such a viral license because I don't want to subjec…

Yes, I have considered all of that.

When I started coding, there was no such thing as GNU or open source movement. You got commercial software, shareware, beerware, donationware, whateverware.

I don't have any problem with commercial software, actually I do use quite a lot of it.

What I have problems with, and I have seen it happening a lot, is companies using source code from someone else as a means to cut costs for their binary blobs, without any form of contribution.

So I always defend a dual license scheme. GPL for open source projects, and some company whats to use the code in a commercial product, just needs to ask for the commercial license.

The only freedom GPL takes away, is the freedom to abuse the work of others.

Post reply on HN