9 ms·

The unnecessary editorializing is annoying. The point, which I agree with, could have been made without the self-centered snipes at licenses you happen to disli

by nknight 15y ago

The unnecessary editorializing is annoying. The point, which I agree with, could have been made without the self-centered snipes at licenses you happen to dislike.

madrobby 15y ago
It's my blog, the concept of which is that I write my opinion in blog posts.
- phillmv 15y ago
  This is my reply box, the concept of which is that I discuss what I like or don't like about the topic at hand.
  - pothibo 15y ago
    Pissing contest?
- scott_s 15y ago
  Sure, but consider: what is your objective? If your objective is to express your opinion, then say things however you want, and if people react negatively, then tough. However, if your objective is to convince people of an idea, then you should consider that some opinions are beside your point, and don't need to be expressed. These really are two completely different objectives, and sometimes, if your objective is to persuade and explain, then you have to omit certain opinions of your own which will detract from your point.
snotrockets 15y ago
I'm usually in favour of modified BSD or a similar permissive license; but whenever I read someone who is bitching about the GPL because it is too restrictive (i.e. it forces them to give back as they were given,) I consider only adhering to the GPL in the future.
- stephencanon 15y ago
  I don't know anyone who complains about GPL forcing them to give back. I know many people who cannot touch GPL3 code because of corporate legal departments' fears (especially with regard to patent clauses) and the absence of test cases, but who frequently contribute back to BSD/Apache/MIT/etc-licensed projects.
  - nknight 15y ago
    You haven't been browsing HN long enough. People go off on rants about the GPL restricting their freedom and just generally being evil all the time, has nothing to do with corporate lawyers.
  - DHowett 15y ago
    Absence of test cases? Surely this is not a function of the license in use, correct? There can be shitty BSD-licensed swill with no test cases just as easily as there can be that as GPLv3.
    - stephencanon 15y ago
      Legal test cases for the provisions of the license that scare the lawyers. Not software tests.
      - DHowett 15y ago
        Oh. That makes a lot more sense. Thanks :P
  - gte910h 15y ago
    Or who code for the Xbox, Sony, Apple or Nintendo platforms, where you can't turn off the DRM on your binary, so can't use GPLed code in your project even if you release the entire project as source/art/whatever.
    - snotrockets 15y ago
bitdiddle 15y ago
Very much so. I like the idea but the author's snarky remarks are really off putting.
reidrac 15y ago
Besides the blog content license is CC BY-NC-SA. That's copyleft, isn't it? Interesting choice for a person with a strong opinion against the GPL.
- binarycrusader 15y ago
  1) his blog content isn't software 2) the general issue with GPL isn't copyleft; it's the patent clauses (in GPLv3), and all of the various distribution requirements, plus the essential forbiddance of DRM (in GPLv3) So no, it isn't so interesting.
  - reidrac 15y ago
    That's a good argumentation (I don't fully agree with 1, it may ruin someone's good mood anyway). I got distracted by the way he wrote the post. Edit: typo
  - drostie 15y ago
    At the risk of coming off as one of the maligned "personal opinion" people, I have to object a little to (2). That may be the general issue, I could agree, but it's not my issue. Because my issue is the sheer length and complexity of the GPL; I have read it and I do not pretend to understand it, and I don't personally as a developer want to release under a license whose implications I don't really understand. The problems just start with Section 1 and accumulate from there. For me, the nastiest part is not really the copyleft or DRM so much as the no-linking aspect of GPL. I still don't know what precisely constitutes "linking". I don't know whether Python is in violation of the GPL because the standard library has a readline module, and I don't know if my own code is in violation of the GPL because it's written in Python. GPLv3 actually made this point a little clearer; in GPLv3 you would say "Python as a whole plus its readline library is probably GPL, but as long as you don't write 'import readline' you could probably release under something else instead." Now that there is a BSD version of readline called editline, I wonder if even that analysis holds. But the GPL makes even this analysis complicated, because if Python forgot to mention that the whole package was GPL, then actually their license to readline can potentially be revoked at any time by the readline copyright holders. And there are some nasty parts too, like the ongoing incompatibility between the Eclipse Public License and the GPL. You now have people explaining how to get readline and wrap Clojure in a readline interface (which is allowed) because Clojure presumably isn't allowed to connect directly to readline in its own REPL. LGPL, at least, I don't have to worry about this crap when building an application which uses yours as a tool. You can license under LGPL if you really think that GPL's legal phrasing is absolutely magnificent and you love it. I don't want to release under such an ugly license myself, and GPL forces me to violate my aesthetic principles. So, never mind, some guy whining about GPL over here. (whistles aimlessly.)

by nknight 15y ago

The unnecessary editorializing is annoying. The point, which I agree with, could have been made without the self-centered snipes at licenses you happen to dislike.

madrobby 15y ago

It's my blog, the concept of which is that I write my opinion in blog posts.

phillmv 15y ago
This is my reply box, the concept of which is that I discuss what I like or don't like about the topic at hand.
- pothibo 15y ago
  Pissing contest?
scott_s 15y ago
Sure, but consider: what is your objective? If your objective is to express your opinion, then say things however you want, and if people react negatively, then tough. However, if your objective is to convince people of an idea, then you should consider that some opinions are beside your point, and don't need to be expressed. These really are two completely different objectives, and sometimes, if your objective is to persuade and explain, then you have to omit certain opinions of your own which will detract from your point.

snotrockets 15y ago

I'm usually in favour of modified BSD or a similar permissive license; but whenever I read someone who is bitching about the GPL because it is too restrictive (i.e. it forces them to give back as they were given,) I consider only adhering to the GPL in the future.

stephencanon 15y ago
I don't know anyone who complains about GPL forcing them to give back. I know many people who cannot touch GPL3 code because of corporate legal departments' fears (especially with regard to patent clauses) and the absence of test cases, but who frequently contribute back to BSD/Apache/MIT/etc-licensed projects.
- nknight 15y ago
  You haven't been browsing HN long enough. People go off on rants about the GPL restricting their freedom and just generally being evil all the time, has nothing to do with corporate lawyers.
- DHowett 15y ago
  Absence of test cases? Surely this is not a function of the license in use, correct? There can be shitty BSD-licensed swill with no test cases just as easily as there can be that as GPLv3.
  - stephencanon 15y ago
    Legal test cases for the provisions of the license that scare the lawyers. Not software tests.
    - DHowett 15y ago
      Oh. That makes a lot more sense. Thanks :P
- gte910h 15y ago
  Or who code for the Xbox, Sony, Apple or Nintendo platforms, where you can't turn off the DRM on your binary, so can't use GPLed code in your project even if you release the entire project as source/art/whatever.
  - snotrockets 15y ago

bitdiddle 15y ago

Very much so. I like the idea but the author's snarky remarks are really off putting.

reidrac 15y ago

Besides the blog content license is CC BY-NC-SA. That's copyleft, isn't it? Interesting choice for a person with a strong opinion against the GPL.

binarycrusader 15y ago
1) his blog content isn't software 2) the general issue with GPL isn't copyleft; it's the patent clauses (in GPLv3), and all of the various distribution requirements, plus the essential forbiddance of DRM (in GPLv3) So no, it isn't so interesting.
- reidrac 15y ago
  That's a good argumentation (I don't fully agree with 1, it may ruin someone's good mood anyway). I got distracted by the way he wrote the post. Edit: typo
- drostie 15y ago
  At the risk of coming off as one of the maligned "personal opinion" people, I have to object a little to (2). That may be the general issue, I could agree, but it's not my issue. Because my issue is the sheer length and complexity of the GPL; I have read it and I do not pretend to understand it, and I don't personally as a developer want to release under a license whose implications I don't really understand. The problems just start with Section 1 and accumulate from there. For me, the nastiest part is not really the copyleft or DRM so much as the no-linking aspect of GPL. I still don't know what precisely constitutes "linking". I don't know whether Python is in violation of the GPL because the standard library has a readline module, and I don't know if my own code is in violation of the GPL because it's written in Python. GPLv3 actually made this point a little clearer; in GPLv3 you would say "Python as a whole plus its readline library is probably GPL, but as long as you don't write 'import readline' you could probably release under something else instead." Now that there is a BSD version of readline called editline, I wonder if even that analysis holds. But the GPL makes even this analysis complicated, because if Python forgot to mention that the whole package was GPL, then actually their license to readline can potentially be revoked at any time by the readline copyright holders. And there are some nasty parts too, like the ongoing incompatibility between the Eclipse Public License and the GPL. You now have people explaining how to get readline and wrap Clojure in a readline interface (which is allowed) because Clojure presumably isn't allowed to connect directly to readline in its own REPL. LGPL, at least, I don't have to worry about this crap when building an application which uses yours as a tool. You can license under LGPL if you really think that GPL's legal phrasing is absolutely magnificent and you love it. I don't want to release under such an ugly license myself, and GPL forces me to violate my aesthetic principles. So, never mind, some guy whining about GPL over here. (whistles aimlessly.)