5 ms·

> Yep. This project is definitely going to be embraced by the community in the long run, and definitely supplant GNU coreutils. The ideologies are completely al

> Yep. This project is definitely going to be embraced by the community in the long run, and definitely supplant GNU coreutils. The ideologies are completely aligned. By tone, I assume this is sarcasm. Could you perhaps clearly state the issue?

serf 3y ago
here's an OK synopsis of why it's different, even if I don't necessarily agree with the 'style of language' [0]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37383680 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37383680
- AlienRobot 3y ago
  Wouldn't GPL be perfectly fine with this if it was a library instead? I don't get it.
  - Deeg9rie9usi 3y ago
    People seem to hate GPL for no reason these days. As you said, since it is no library, GPL would be perfectly fine.
    - baq 3y ago
      They can’t use GPL software at their $DAYJOB most likely.
      - cmrdporcupine 3y ago
        Often can't contribute either. When I worked at Google, contributing to open source projects was permitted with the right paperwork etc. but there was extra caution around GPL licensed projects, esp V3. Which to me is more of a sign that the GPL actually works than anything else.
        anonymous_sorry 3y ago
        In a corporate context, is there any risk or downside associated with making a specific contribution to GPL code which doesn't also apply to MIT/BSD? The only downside I can perhaps think of is a strategic one: endorsing the use of GPL in general and contributing to a healthy copyleft ecosystem, which may be disadvantageous to a giant corporate like Google.
        rakoo 3y ago
        If you make a contribution to GPL, the entirety of your contribution must be GPL. If you're using some internal library, you must make your library GPL. If your library is GPL, anything that depends on it must be GPL. For-profit companies don't like sharing and making the community better if it doesn't make them 10x richer, so they don't like GPL.
        oneshtein 3y ago
        > If you're using some internal library, you must make your library GPL. Not true at all. You cannot alter license of a library at all if you are not the author. You can select or change license for your own code only.
        rakoo 3y ago
        I was talking about an internal library as in "a library developed inside My Company that is not made public"; as someone working for My Company, you'd have the responsibility to change the license of said library. Of course if you're using a library you're not an author of, the library must already be compatible otherwise you just can't use it.
        anonymous_sorry 3y ago
        You can define what your contribution is, right? You can publish any code you like under GPL, with zero further commitments as far as I'm aware. It doesn't have to be working software, it doesn't all have to be licenced the same. The copyright is still yours and you can do what you like. You can sell the software. You can enhance it and keep the enhancements proprietary and secret. You can use and sell the enhanced software without providing source code The only obligations come if a company (or individual) accepts GPL contributions from outside, because they don't own the full copyright any more and have to obide by the licence of the code they accepted from outside.
    - vlakreeh 3y ago
      People have reasons, personally I don't like placing the burden of a viral license on people. I don't write code to further a copy-left cause, I write it to build things and make it easier for other people to build things.
      - palata 3y ago
        But by doing that, you don't protect the users. If a commercial entity writes software that depends on e.g. an LGPL library. Then I as a user totally benefit from the fact that is it LGPL. Maybe it can even allow me to update the dependency myself, be it for security reasons, or for compatibility reasons (I could patch something in the library that would make the whole project work on my machine). By not using copyleft, you make it easier for others to make proprietary products with your code. But is that what you want? As a user, are you happier with a proprietary Windows or an open source Linux?
        AlienRobot 3y ago
        I prefer Windows, actually. I think the problem with this argument is that you think the user wants the source code. I agree that would be great ideologically but 99.999% of the people using computers couldn't care less. Not just non-developers but even the best programmers would rather just pay money to not have to fix someone else's bugs. Nobody wants to waste their time replacing libraries. They just want to use software. If we're being pragmatic about what is good "for the user" then the best thing for the user is that there are as few obstacles as possible for developers to create products for the users to use. If we consider the dichotomy of use the viral license or make no software, then the user will always prefer to have software that exists in proprietary form than having no software at all. If a company doesn't like GPL, they'll simply not use GPL code, and maybe not using GPL means their product is not viable anymore because they have to rewrite everything themselves, and now something that was going to be made isn't going to be made because they can't get free labor. Is that good? According to GPL and FOSS, yes. According to the user that wanted to use that piece of software, no. I have to add this feels so awkward because every time there's a thread about AI you'll find someone saying that the fact that data is copy-able renders copyright a thing of the past, and then you turn around and you see GPL and no-no-no-no-NO! You want to copy MY source code, my LABOR, and use it for free in your proprietary products? That's completely unfair! And next week there's a new OpenAI lawsuit and everyone's like "if you didn't want to get scrapped, shouldn't have posted it on the internet." It's so awkward.

serf 3y ago

here's an OK synopsis of why it's different, even if I don't necessarily agree with the 'style of language' [0]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37383680 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37383680

AlienRobot 3y ago
Wouldn't GPL be perfectly fine with this if it was a library instead? I don't get it.
- Deeg9rie9usi 3y ago
  People seem to hate GPL for no reason these days. As you said, since it is no library, GPL would be perfectly fine.
  - baq 3y ago
    They can’t use GPL software at their $DAYJOB most likely.
    - cmrdporcupine 3y ago
      Often can't contribute either. When I worked at Google, contributing to open source projects was permitted with the right paperwork etc. but there was extra caution around GPL licensed projects, esp V3. Which to me is more of a sign that the GPL actually works than anything else.
      - anonymous_sorry 3y ago
        In a corporate context, is there any risk or downside associated with making a specific contribution to GPL code which doesn't also apply to MIT/BSD? The only downside I can perhaps think of is a strategic one: endorsing the use of GPL in general and contributing to a healthy copyleft ecosystem, which may be disadvantageous to a giant corporate like Google.
        rakoo 3y ago
        If you make a contribution to GPL, the entirety of your contribution must be GPL. If you're using some internal library, you must make your library GPL. If your library is GPL, anything that depends on it must be GPL. For-profit companies don't like sharing and making the community better if it doesn't make them 10x richer, so they don't like GPL.
        oneshtein 3y ago
        > If you're using some internal library, you must make your library GPL. Not true at all. You cannot alter license of a library at all if you are not the author. You can select or change license for your own code only.
        rakoo 3y ago
        I was talking about an internal library as in "a library developed inside My Company that is not made public"; as someone working for My Company, you'd have the responsibility to change the license of said library. Of course if you're using a library you're not an author of, the library must already be compatible otherwise you just can't use it.
        anonymous_sorry 3y ago
        You can define what your contribution is, right? You can publish any code you like under GPL, with zero further commitments as far as I'm aware. It doesn't have to be working software, it doesn't all have to be licenced the same. The copyright is still yours and you can do what you like. You can sell the software. You can enhance it and keep the enhancements proprietary and secret. You can use and sell the enhanced software without providing source code The only obligations come if a company (or individual) accepts GPL contributions from outside, because they don't own the full copyright any more and have to obide by the licence of the code they accepted from outside.
  - vlakreeh 3y ago
    People have reasons, personally I don't like placing the burden of a viral license on people. I don't write code to further a copy-left cause, I write it to build things and make it easier for other people to build things.
    - palata 3y ago
      But by doing that, you don't protect the users. If a commercial entity writes software that depends on e.g. an LGPL library. Then I as a user totally benefit from the fact that is it LGPL. Maybe it can even allow me to update the dependency myself, be it for security reasons, or for compatibility reasons (I could patch something in the library that would make the whole project work on my machine). By not using copyleft, you make it easier for others to make proprietary products with your code. But is that what you want? As a user, are you happier with a proprietary Windows or an open source Linux?
      - AlienRobot 3y ago
        I prefer Windows, actually. I think the problem with this argument is that you think the user wants the source code. I agree that would be great ideologically but 99.999% of the people using computers couldn't care less. Not just non-developers but even the best programmers would rather just pay money to not have to fix someone else's bugs. Nobody wants to waste their time replacing libraries. They just want to use software. If we're being pragmatic about what is good "for the user" then the best thing for the user is that there are as few obstacles as possible for developers to create products for the users to use. If we consider the dichotomy of use the viral license or make no software, then the user will always prefer to have software that exists in proprietary form than having no software at all. If a company doesn't like GPL, they'll simply not use GPL code, and maybe not using GPL means their product is not viable anymore because they have to rewrite everything themselves, and now something that was going to be made isn't going to be made because they can't get free labor. Is that good? According to GPL and FOSS, yes. According to the user that wanted to use that piece of software, no. I have to add this feels so awkward because every time there's a thread about AI you'll find someone saying that the fact that data is copy-able renders copyright a thing of the past, and then you turn around and you see GPL and no-no-no-no-NO! You want to copy MY source code, my LABOR, and use it for free in your proprietary products? That's completely unfair! And next week there's a new OpenAI lawsuit and everyone's like "if you didn't want to get scrapped, shouldn't have posted it on the internet." It's so awkward.