3 ms·

>Sure, but that code is generally tied to a license That's a whataboutist tangent, but let's entertain it for a while. The copyright law is usually restrictiv

by dexen 6y ago

>Sure, but that code is generally tied to a license That's a whataboutist tangent, but let's entertain it for a while. The copyright law is usually restrictive, in the form of "everything which is not explicitly allowed is forbidden", and some of the openings - like Fair Use - are somewhat contentious. Thus a specially crafted free license is used to make the work legally accessible & reusable in an unambiguous way in such legal environment. A free license for software is generally used to unambiguously establish the legal status - that simplifies dealing, especially for organizations and professionals. It effectively increases ability to access and re-use the software [1]. A license & copyright information is used to convey authorship and guarantee certain author's rights, like the right to attribution. Some licenses (eg. copyleft) are also used to prevent certain misuses (eg. tivoization), again with aim of increasing availability of the software for access and re-use. Conversely, releasing into public domain (which is a limited legal concept, not available in certain countries) runs with the risk of somebody else slapping a restrictive license on the code and making it unavailable via legal mechanisms. Free licensing is not only about improving availability and protecting the author and the reuser, it's also about preventing subsequent yanking of the code via machinations by a 3rd party. While those concerns are valid and need taking care of, pretty sure they aren't at the stake in the IA vs book authors discussion. They aren't mentioned in the OP either. >In fact, people here on HN and other communities very much oppose people taking things without permission. I challenge you to demonstrate otherwise with your own repositories. Ah yes, a challenge to prove a negative. I'll rise to it right after solving the halting problem :^)

jasonlotito 6y ago
Oh wow, a real snarky and immature comment. Good job. > That's a whataboutist tangent Yeah, you brought it up. Not me. You can't talk about something and ignore the part of that element that is integral to the conversation. Putting code up on GitHub does not make it freely reusable without restrictions. Regardless, nothing you said disputes what I said. The public domain issue can easily be overcome by assigning a license with no restrictions for those places that don't abide by public domain, and while companies can put that code behind a non-free license, it doesn't make the original code anything less than public domain. > Thus a specially crafted free license is used to make the work legally accessible & reusable in an unambiguous way in such legal environment. Most all still impose restrictions and requirements that when violated, people last out against. You can argue whatever you want. Reality wins. And, the best part is this: > ...it's also about preventing subsequent yanking of the code via machinations by a 3rd party... They aren't mentioned in the OP either. > How would you feel if someone took your output without permission, whether it's designs or code or something else unique and hard to make? I mean, you haven't even addressed this concern. You just flat out ignore it. None of the shared code you have allows for someone taking your output and doing what hey will with it without your permission. And pretty much no one here on HN allows for that with their code. > Ah yes, a challenge to prove a negative. Or, you could simply release all your code into the public domain and a license that doesn't impose any restrictions or requirements. Not at all proving a negative. Back up what you are saying. That's all it would take to do what I asked. > I'll rise to it right after solving the halting problem :^) Would be more productive than your comment.

by dexen 6y ago

jasonlotito 6y ago

Oh wow, a real snarky and immature comment. Good job. > That's a whataboutist tangent Yeah, you brought it up. Not me. You can't talk about something and ignore the part of that element that is integral to the conversation. Putting code up on GitHub does not make it freely reusable without restrictions. Regardless, nothing you said disputes what I said. The public domain issue can easily be overcome by assigning a license with no restrictions for those places that don't abide by public domain, and while companies can put that code behind a non-free license, it doesn't make the original code anything less than public domain. > Thus a specially crafted free license is used to make the work legally accessible & reusable in an unambiguous way in such legal environment. Most all still impose restrictions and requirements that when violated, people last out against. You can argue whatever you want. Reality wins. And, the best part is this: > ...it's also about preventing subsequent yanking of the code via machinations by a 3rd party... They aren't mentioned in the OP either. > How would you feel if someone took your output without permission, whether it's designs or code or something else unique and hard to make? I mean, you haven't even addressed this concern. You just flat out ignore it. None of the shared code you have allows for someone taking your output and doing what hey will with it without your permission. And pretty much no one here on HN allows for that with their code. > Ah yes, a challenge to prove a negative. Or, you could simply release all your code into the public domain and a license that doesn't impose any restrictions or requirements. Not at all proving a negative. Back up what you are saying. That's all it would take to do what I asked. > I'll rise to it right after solving the halting problem :^) Would be more productive than your comment.