3 ms·

Tell me a single lie stated in that post.

SwellJoe 15y ago
"If you are GPL then its trickier because you have to call out what sorts of assets and distribution mechanisms are covered." This is a straight up lie. We were discussing assets like pictures, blog posts, etc. None of these assets, distributed in any way, would ever be affected by the license of the software used to build the website on which they appear. Just like the text you edit in Word is not owned by Microsoft and the photo you edit with Photoshop is not owned by Adobe. There is nothing tricky about the GPL (or any other Open Source license) in this context (or really in any other, since the license is extremely well-documented), and it is FUD to suggest otherwise.
- kenjackson 15y ago
  This is a straight up lie. We were discussing assets like pictures, blog posts, etc. None of these assets, distributed in any way, would ever be affected by the license of the software used to build the website on which they appear. I didn't say they were. I said you'd have to explain it. You'd have to make a distinction about code, non-code, services, shipping code, etc... Otherwise this same company says, we can use this same code to compile with this fancy new HTML5/Javascript compiler and deploy on iPhone. The nice sales guy said that we don't need to be concerned with the GPL license. Uh oh. If only he would have spent five minutes telling us how the GPL worked. (That said, I'm not really sure what the OP's product provided, to know what other assets would be effected, if any. So this scenario is purely speculative) My point, you do need to explain the GPL in more detail than many other open source licenses. The OP made this clear in the real world from the fact that potential customers didn't undertand it. But I think this is the problem with the GPL movement. They're in such disbelief that people may not understand they flame anyone who takes the time to explain it.
  - SwellJoe 15y ago
    Otherwise this same company says, we can use this same code to compile with this fancy new HTML5/Javascript compiler and deploy on iPhone. The nice sales guy said that we don't need to be concerned with the GPL license. Uh oh. If only he would have spent five minutes telling us how the GPL worked. None of those are rights you would have with commercial software. You can't redistribute Word or Photoshop or Camtasia, and you can't bundle them up with a new UI and call it your own work and sell it on the iPhone. The GPL just happens to give you some ways to go about doing so that would have been illegal under commercial licenses. The end user has more rights under the GPL than they would under commercial licenses, generally speaking, and it is disingenuous to keep repeating FUD that says otherwise. My point, you do need to explain the GPL in more detail than many other open source licenses. If you disagree, I say you're the liar. We are discussing content like blog posts and photo assets. There are no discussions to be had about the license of the software used to distribute them, as it has no affect on them. So, yes, I disagree with you, and I don't understand how you can come to your conclusions. They simply do not make sense in this context. You're making outlandish claims about the GPL that simply are not true, and defending them against all reason. This is why I really didn't want to discuss this with you, again. You clearly have a bone to pick with the GPL that makes no sense to me, and you repeatedly spread FUD about its power to control end users, with no regard for facts.
    - kenjackson 15y ago
      So, yes, I disagree with you, and I don't understand how you can come to your conclusions. They simply do not make sense in this context. Read the OP and the fact that his customers were having this confusion. You seem to think the confusion doesn't exist. And I don't have a bone to pick with the GPL. It's a great license for some stuff. With that said if I'm selling product using the GPL and a customer comes to me with a question about it, I'll explain it. I won't yell at them, or call them idiots, or say, "how dare you question getting more freedom, you liar!"
      - SwellJoe 15y ago
        Read the OP and the fact that his customers were having this confusion. You seem to think the confusion doesn't exist. No, I think that comments like the one you made contribute to this confusion. I think the confusion exists because of comments like yours (as he also mentioned, there are even people here at HN that are actually confused, and not intentionally spreading FUD). I don't believe that you, specifically, are responsible for all of the confusion about the GPL, but I believe that enough people making false statements about the scope and power of the GPL can add up to real problems for users and developers. That this was one of the FUD tactics of Microsoft regarding the GPL for a number of years makes me perhaps even more sensitive about it. At one point in time, not too far past, that kind of claim was part of the FUD war Microsoft (and other proprietary vendors) waged against Free software. In short, I believe that people who make statements like yours confuse people into thinking the GPL is something that it is not, and I would like it if people like you, who presumably actually know better, would stop making misleading statements like the one you made. I don't want people to be confused. So, if you'll simply stop trying to confuse people with misstatements about the GPL, I won't feel compelled to keep arguing with you about it. And I don't have a bone to pick with the GPL. A brief review of your comment history when the GPL comes up seems to indicate otherwise.
- DisposaBoy 15y ago
  > There is nothing tricky about the GPL (or any other Open Source license) in this context (or really in any other, since the license is extremely well-documented), and it is FUD to suggest otherwise. So you're claiming it's not tricky to distribute software under incompatible licenses especially where the GPL is involved? If that's the case, then either the rest of us are not holy enough to grace your presence or you're being dishonest and/or short-sighted - since you obviously know the GPL so well, I need not explain why. While we're at it, what version of the GPL are we even talking about? because GPLv3 and GPLv2 are incompatible - what?. I dunno, at what point is a work considered a derivative? because if I re-use some GPL code in a client's code, at some point that client's code will have to be GPL compatible even if it's not closed-sourced - and in-case you didn't know there are open-source licenses out there which are not compatible with the GPL so I simply cannot understand how you can just come in here, try to put words in someone else's mouth and then proceed to over-trivialize the issue. I can tell you for a fact that I can take any piece of GPL code and use it behind a web server and make none of my changes public. That is indeed a fact, but only in certain contexts which depends greatly on the version of the GPL we're talking about.
- nl 15y ago
  If I wrote a GPL'ed Javascript library that included a Base64 encoded image, would that image be GPL'ed? Why is that different if the person uploads an image which is then Base64 encoded? I know the answer, I guess you know the answer, and I suspect most people here know the answer. But it does need explaining, and to raise the complexity as an issue isn't a "straight-up lie".

"If you are GPL then its trickier because you have to call out what sorts of assets and distribution mechanisms are covered." This is a straight up lie. We were discussing assets like pictures, blog posts, etc. None of these assets, distributed in any way, would ever be affected by the license of the software used to build the website on which they appear. Just like the text you edit in Word is not owned by Microsoft and the photo you edit with Photoshop is not owned by Adobe. There is nothing tricky about the GPL (or any other Open Source license) in this context (or really in any other, since the license is extremely well-documented), and it is FUD to suggest otherwise.

kenjackson 15y ago
This is a straight up lie. We were discussing assets like pictures, blog posts, etc. None of these assets, distributed in any way, would ever be affected by the license of the software used to build the website on which they appear. I didn't say they were. I said you'd have to explain it. You'd have to make a distinction about code, non-code, services, shipping code, etc... Otherwise this same company says, we can use this same code to compile with this fancy new HTML5/Javascript compiler and deploy on iPhone. The nice sales guy said that we don't need to be concerned with the GPL license. Uh oh. If only he would have spent five minutes telling us how the GPL worked. (That said, I'm not really sure what the OP's product provided, to know what other assets would be effected, if any. So this scenario is purely speculative) My point, you do need to explain the GPL in more detail than many other open source licenses. The OP made this clear in the real world from the fact that potential customers didn't undertand it. But I think this is the problem with the GPL movement. They're in such disbelief that people may not understand they flame anyone who takes the time to explain it.
- SwellJoe 15y ago
  Otherwise this same company says, we can use this same code to compile with this fancy new HTML5/Javascript compiler and deploy on iPhone. The nice sales guy said that we don't need to be concerned with the GPL license. Uh oh. If only he would have spent five minutes telling us how the GPL worked. None of those are rights you would have with commercial software. You can't redistribute Word or Photoshop or Camtasia, and you can't bundle them up with a new UI and call it your own work and sell it on the iPhone. The GPL just happens to give you some ways to go about doing so that would have been illegal under commercial licenses. The end user has more rights under the GPL than they would under commercial licenses, generally speaking, and it is disingenuous to keep repeating FUD that says otherwise. My point, you do need to explain the GPL in more detail than many other open source licenses. If you disagree, I say you're the liar. We are discussing content like blog posts and photo assets. There are no discussions to be had about the license of the software used to distribute them, as it has no affect on them. So, yes, I disagree with you, and I don't understand how you can come to your conclusions. They simply do not make sense in this context. You're making outlandish claims about the GPL that simply are not true, and defending them against all reason. This is why I really didn't want to discuss this with you, again. You clearly have a bone to pick with the GPL that makes no sense to me, and you repeatedly spread FUD about its power to control end users, with no regard for facts.
  - kenjackson 15y ago
    So, yes, I disagree with you, and I don't understand how you can come to your conclusions. They simply do not make sense in this context. Read the OP and the fact that his customers were having this confusion. You seem to think the confusion doesn't exist. And I don't have a bone to pick with the GPL. It's a great license for some stuff. With that said if I'm selling product using the GPL and a customer comes to me with a question about it, I'll explain it. I won't yell at them, or call them idiots, or say, "how dare you question getting more freedom, you liar!"
    - SwellJoe 15y ago
      Read the OP and the fact that his customers were having this confusion. You seem to think the confusion doesn't exist. No, I think that comments like the one you made contribute to this confusion. I think the confusion exists because of comments like yours (as he also mentioned, there are even people here at HN that are actually confused, and not intentionally spreading FUD). I don't believe that you, specifically, are responsible for all of the confusion about the GPL, but I believe that enough people making false statements about the scope and power of the GPL can add up to real problems for users and developers. That this was one of the FUD tactics of Microsoft regarding the GPL for a number of years makes me perhaps even more sensitive about it. At one point in time, not too far past, that kind of claim was part of the FUD war Microsoft (and other proprietary vendors) waged against Free software. In short, I believe that people who make statements like yours confuse people into thinking the GPL is something that it is not, and I would like it if people like you, who presumably actually know better, would stop making misleading statements like the one you made. I don't want people to be confused. So, if you'll simply stop trying to confuse people with misstatements about the GPL, I won't feel compelled to keep arguing with you about it. And I don't have a bone to pick with the GPL. A brief review of your comment history when the GPL comes up seems to indicate otherwise.
DisposaBoy 15y ago
> There is nothing tricky about the GPL (or any other Open Source license) in this context (or really in any other, since the license is extremely well-documented), and it is FUD to suggest otherwise. So you're claiming it's not tricky to distribute software under incompatible licenses especially where the GPL is involved? If that's the case, then either the rest of us are not holy enough to grace your presence or you're being dishonest and/or short-sighted - since you obviously know the GPL so well, I need not explain why. While we're at it, what version of the GPL are we even talking about? because GPLv3 and GPLv2 are incompatible - what?. I dunno, at what point is a work considered a derivative? because if I re-use some GPL code in a client's code, at some point that client's code will have to be GPL compatible even if it's not closed-sourced - and in-case you didn't know there are open-source licenses out there which are not compatible with the GPL so I simply cannot understand how you can just come in here, try to put words in someone else's mouth and then proceed to over-trivialize the issue. I can tell you for a fact that I can take any piece of GPL code and use it behind a web server and make none of my changes public. That is indeed a fact, but only in certain contexts which depends greatly on the version of the GPL we're talking about.
nl 15y ago
If I wrote a GPL'ed Javascript library that included a Base64 encoded image, would that image be GPL'ed? Why is that different if the person uploads an image which is then Base64 encoded? I know the answer, I guess you know the answer, and I suspect most people here know the answer. But it does need explaining, and to raise the complexity as an issue isn't a "straight-up lie".