5 ms·

Yeah, well, you know, that's just, like, your opinion, man. Most of my code, being I usually just make python wrappers around C/C++ libraries I want to play wi

Yeah, well, you know, that's just, like, your opinion, man. Most of my code, being I usually just make python wrappers around C/C++ libraries I want to play with, retains whatever license the original library uses. That’s the license they want, that’s the license I follow. The rare occasion I actually put up original code on GitHub (not really sure I’ve ever done that though, I have a bad yak shaving addiction…would have to check so “theoretically”) I just use a BSD license because I don’t care — some jurisdictions require a license, that the most free one and I’d be happy if someone used my code for whatever.

Joel_Mckay 4y ago
"The Dude Abides"... that film was epic. =) I also like the LGPL or wxWidgets licenses, as it encourages professional linux application development/ports. (Qt5 was an example of doing things wrong in my opinion.) I agree it is a personal choice, and I like giving people more freedom to build. The punitive culture around GPLv3 is especially unsavory. =)
- vore 4y ago
  Some people like being nice and that's great! However, I don't think there's anything inherently wrong in authors who put their blood and sweat into the software they write and expecting some kind of concession for it. If that's not what you want to do, then that's your choice. But flippantly characterizing authors who really only want the source code to be made public as "punitive" and "especially unsavory" really rubs me the wrong way when they're basically giving away their labor for free – it's downright altruistic compared to the unsavory, punitive measures many corporate entities would rather take.
  - Joel_Mckay 4y ago
    "punitive" = karma -8 QED I never inferred other people should choose a specific license, but rather stated the fact GPL can contaminate large bodies of work completely unrelated to community projects (mostly v3 I take issue with). The state of Steam game compatibility is a demonstration of the conflicting use-cases hobbling a platforms potential. In my opinion LGPL is better for libraries as if you modify lib source it obligates community participation, but doesn't force your entire project into public view when a linker touches the wrong GPL lib. We can disagree, and from each perspective believe we are correct. I'll stick with Apache 2.0, as its better suited for my projects. Enhance your calm. =)
    - pabs3 4y ago
      > obligates community participation Nothing in the GPL/LGPL requires this, only distributing sources down to your users, who may or may not then redistribute the sources back upstream to the community.
      - Joel_Mckay 4y ago
        See the post on the LGPL static-linking issue for porting above, and why the wxWidget library license had to create an exception. The project contamination happens even with the LGPL. The subject was contaminating licenses, and why they are not appropriate in some situations. Cheers =)
        pabs3 4y ago
        > The subject was contaminating licenses Sure, I was just pointing out a misconception in your understanding of these licenses. They only require distributing downstream to your users, not back to the upstream community.
        Joel_Mckay 4y ago
        Having various people threatening patent/legal enforcement is another issue. One may believe porting to another platform like ARM64 with a patch would be clear, but people often confuse GPL means free as in free beer... it isn't... and some get extremely aggressive/possessive over mundane issues. I go by the lawyers consensus, not some opinion on the internet from some unknown region of the world. Note, the user-base doesn't care, they only want a program to work on their platform. Some upstream publishers on the other hand can be disrespectful at times, as some can assume the worst... it usually has nothing to do with the FOSS foundations themselves. Thanks for your opinion though, it is good to see people still interested in community projects. Happy computing, =)
- pabs3 4y ago
  Even the people who actually do GPL enforcement are in no way punitive. They only want GPL compliance and software freedom, not money or punishment. https://sfconservancy.org/copyleft-compliance/principles.html https://sfconservancy.org/copyleft-compliance/principles.htm...
  - Joel_Mckay 4y ago
    Except, there are a lot of folks here who seem to think everything should fall under GPL. Even LGPL can create distribution porting/legal problems on other platforms if static linking is needed. Hence the wxWidget license covers the issue. Some people are way more aggressive than the foundation. QED =)
    - pabs3 4y ago
      In 2023, after decades of abusive proprietary software, I believe all software should be maximally copyleft (AGPL). So I think watering down of copyleft licenses isn't a good idea.
      - Joel_Mckay 4y ago
        Sometimes people choose a compromise, so others do not suffer the weight of personal idealism. I rather people have unrestricted development options, and not feel like they entered a Faustian bargain. Its a personal choice, but I have only been coding since 1993… so probably don’t know any better. lol =)
    - UncleEntity 4y ago
      > Except, there are a lot of folks here who seem to think everything should fall under GPL. Except, there’s nothing forcing someone to take a GPL’d library and integrate it into their application. If you don’t like the license don’t use the code and later whine about “punitive” actions taken against you. At this point there’s no excuse for not knowing that the GPL is very restrictive and the code isn’t free-for-all. No excuse except maybe they think they won’t get caught by including some reverse-engineering clause in their TOS so people can’t find out. That worked out pretty well for these folks, no?

Joel_Mckay 4y ago

"The Dude Abides"... that film was epic. =) I also like the LGPL or wxWidgets licenses, as it encourages professional linux application development/ports. (Qt5 was an example of doing things wrong in my opinion.) I agree it is a personal choice, and I like giving people more freedom to build. The punitive culture around GPLv3 is especially unsavory. =)

vore 4y ago
Some people like being nice and that's great! However, I don't think there's anything inherently wrong in authors who put their blood and sweat into the software they write and expecting some kind of concession for it. If that's not what you want to do, then that's your choice. But flippantly characterizing authors who really only want the source code to be made public as "punitive" and "especially unsavory" really rubs me the wrong way when they're basically giving away their labor for free – it's downright altruistic compared to the unsavory, punitive measures many corporate entities would rather take.
- Joel_Mckay 4y ago
  "punitive" = karma -8 QED I never inferred other people should choose a specific license, but rather stated the fact GPL can contaminate large bodies of work completely unrelated to community projects (mostly v3 I take issue with). The state of Steam game compatibility is a demonstration of the conflicting use-cases hobbling a platforms potential. In my opinion LGPL is better for libraries as if you modify lib source it obligates community participation, but doesn't force your entire project into public view when a linker touches the wrong GPL lib. We can disagree, and from each perspective believe we are correct. I'll stick with Apache 2.0, as its better suited for my projects. Enhance your calm. =)
  - pabs3 4y ago
    > obligates community participation Nothing in the GPL/LGPL requires this, only distributing sources down to your users, who may or may not then redistribute the sources back upstream to the community.
    - Joel_Mckay 4y ago
      See the post on the LGPL static-linking issue for porting above, and why the wxWidget library license had to create an exception. The project contamination happens even with the LGPL. The subject was contaminating licenses, and why they are not appropriate in some situations. Cheers =)
      - pabs3 4y ago
        > The subject was contaminating licenses Sure, I was just pointing out a misconception in your understanding of these licenses. They only require distributing downstream to your users, not back to the upstream community.
        Joel_Mckay 4y ago
        Having various people threatening patent/legal enforcement is another issue. One may believe porting to another platform like ARM64 with a patch would be clear, but people often confuse GPL means free as in free beer... it isn't... and some get extremely aggressive/possessive over mundane issues. I go by the lawyers consensus, not some opinion on the internet from some unknown region of the world. Note, the user-base doesn't care, they only want a program to work on their platform. Some upstream publishers on the other hand can be disrespectful at times, as some can assume the worst... it usually has nothing to do with the FOSS foundations themselves. Thanks for your opinion though, it is good to see people still interested in community projects. Happy computing, =)
pabs3 4y ago
Even the people who actually do GPL enforcement are in no way punitive. They only want GPL compliance and software freedom, not money or punishment. https://sfconservancy.org/copyleft-compliance/principles.html https://sfconservancy.org/copyleft-compliance/principles.htm...
- Joel_Mckay 4y ago
  Except, there are a lot of folks here who seem to think everything should fall under GPL. Even LGPL can create distribution porting/legal problems on other platforms if static linking is needed. Hence the wxWidget license covers the issue. Some people are way more aggressive than the foundation. QED =)
  - pabs3 4y ago
    In 2023, after decades of abusive proprietary software, I believe all software should be maximally copyleft (AGPL). So I think watering down of copyleft licenses isn't a good idea.
    - Joel_Mckay 4y ago
      Sometimes people choose a compromise, so others do not suffer the weight of personal idealism. I rather people have unrestricted development options, and not feel like they entered a Faustian bargain. Its a personal choice, but I have only been coding since 1993… so probably don’t know any better. lol =)
  - UncleEntity 4y ago
    > Except, there are a lot of folks here who seem to think everything should fall under GPL. Except, there’s nothing forcing someone to take a GPL’d library and integrate it into their application. If you don’t like the license don’t use the code and later whine about “punitive” actions taken against you. At this point there’s no excuse for not knowing that the GPL is very restrictive and the code isn’t free-for-all. No excuse except maybe they think they won’t get caught by including some reverse-engineering clause in their TOS so people can’t find out. That worked out pretty well for these folks, no?