3 ms·

> license reasons, if the program’s license is not GPL-compatible – readline is GPL-licensed, not LGPL The older I get, the less patient I become with finding

> license reasons, if the program’s license is not GPL-compatible – readline is GPL-licensed, not LGPL The older I get, the less patient I become with finding out some user experience sucks because of GPL / non-GPL knife fights. It's been thirty-nine years now. I think the GPL was useful at its origin, but now the benefits of open-source are proven out, the world is deeply interconnected via the Internet, and it's a hindrance to have some code burden other code with requirements. I, for one, don't expect to write any further GPL code in my lifetime. I'd rather code be maximally unencumbered from interoperation.

mxuribe 2y ago
@shadowgovt Genuine question: if i wanted to create new software nowadays, and i wished for it to be as you noted "mmaximally unencumbered from interoperation", which license should i choose for my software? Which license would you use? Again, not trying to be snarky; just wanting to learn and understand. :-)
- shadowgovt 2y ago
  I generally use the ISC license these days. It is short, indemnifies me from damage caused by the software I write being used by other people, has a thin requirement that the copyright be carried forward into other projects using my code (A requirement that I'm probably not going to enforce), And that's it. No encumbrances against interoperation with other people's code.
  - mxuribe 2y ago
    Today I learned! I hadn't heard of the ISC license. I've heard of GPL, Apache, MIT, and other common ones, but not USC until now. Thanks!
    - shadowgovt 2y ago
      The ISC is basically pretty similar to the MIT license.
throwaway2037 2y ago
No, the GPL license for GNU Readline is very intentional. There is a bunch of written history from Richard Stallman about it. He felt it provided such an large advantage, that some programs might switch to GPL to use GNU Readline. After 35 years of development (started in 1989 according to Wiki), it has a hefty start is someone wants to beat it with a "clean room" BSD-licensed edition. Some HN info about Stallman's reasoning: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26606328 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26606328 I cannot find any specific writing from him, but I am sure I read words from him about 25 years ago. > I'd rather code be maximally unencumbered from interoperation. Yes, the problem is that commercial organizations would like open source to do all the hard work for them. Then, they use the software internally, and don't give anything back -- except two pence via RedHat licensing. (We have learned this the hard way in the last 10 years of major security bugs due to underfunded projects.) However, you are free to re-implement the API and license it in a different way.
- shadowgovt 2y ago
  Yes, I think we are in agreement. The GPL in this era is a wrench in the process of useful code. You have brought to my attention how intentional that was. Rms did something impressive but he doesn't impress me in this day and age. Many revolutionaries make for poor governors; in my personal opinion the software ecosystem would be best served by cutting around him these days.

mxuribe 2y ago

@shadowgovt Genuine question: if i wanted to create new software nowadays, and i wished for it to be as you noted "mmaximally unencumbered from interoperation", which license should i choose for my software? Which license would you use? Again, not trying to be snarky; just wanting to learn and understand. :-)

shadowgovt 2y ago
I generally use the ISC license these days. It is short, indemnifies me from damage caused by the software I write being used by other people, has a thin requirement that the copyright be carried forward into other projects using my code (A requirement that I'm probably not going to enforce), And that's it. No encumbrances against interoperation with other people's code.
- mxuribe 2y ago
  Today I learned! I hadn't heard of the ISC license. I've heard of GPL, Apache, MIT, and other common ones, but not USC until now. Thanks!
  - shadowgovt 2y ago
    The ISC is basically pretty similar to the MIT license.

throwaway2037 2y ago

No, the GPL license for GNU Readline is very intentional. There is a bunch of written history from Richard Stallman about it. He felt it provided such an large advantage, that some programs might switch to GPL to use GNU Readline. After 35 years of development (started in 1989 according to Wiki), it has a hefty start is someone wants to beat it with a "clean room" BSD-licensed edition. Some HN info about Stallman's reasoning: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26606328 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26606328 I cannot find any specific writing from him, but I am sure I read words from him about 25 years ago. > I'd rather code be maximally unencumbered from interoperation. Yes, the problem is that commercial organizations would like open source to do all the hard work for them. Then, they use the software internally, and don't give anything back -- except two pence via RedHat licensing. (We have learned this the hard way in the last 10 years of major security bugs due to underfunded projects.) However, you are free to re-implement the API and license it in a different way.

shadowgovt 2y ago
Yes, I think we are in agreement. The GPL in this era is a wrench in the process of useful code. You have brought to my attention how intentional that was. Rms did something impressive but he doesn't impress me in this day and age. Many revolutionaries make for poor governors; in my personal opinion the software ecosystem would be best served by cutting around him these days.