4 ms·

Or GPL. Which I’m increasingly thinking is the only license. It requires sharing. And if anything can be reimplemented and there’s no value in the source any m

Or GPL. Which I’m increasingly thinking is the only license. It requires sharing. And if anything can be reimplemented and there’s no value in the source any more, just the spec or tests, there’s no public-interest reason for any restriction other than completely free, in the GPL sense.

Hamuko 8mo ago
>Or GPL. Which I’m increasingly thinking is the only license. It requires sharing. It doesn't if Dan Blanchard spends some tokens on it and then licenses the output as MIT.
- jmalicki 8mo ago
  Who are you talking about? I can't find reference to this person.
  - kccqzy 8mo ago
    He is the maintainer of chardet. The main topic of the article is the whole LGPL to MIT rewrite and relicense done by this person. https://github.com/chardet/chardet/releases/tag/7.0.0 https://github.com/chardet/chardet/releases/tag/7.0.0
    - Aeolun 7mo ago
      I think the “I maintained this thing for 12 years” weighs a lot heavier than the “and then I even went through the trouble of reimplementing it” before changing it to a license that is more open. Seriously…
  - badc0ffee 8mo ago
    There were two other posts about this today on the HN front page: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47257803 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47257803 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47259177 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47259177
formerly_proven 8mo ago
> Or GPL. Which I’m increasingly thinking is the only license. It requires sharing. LLM companies and increasingly courts view LLM training as fair use, so copyright licensing does not enter the picture.
raincole 8mo ago
I highly recommend read the post in question first before commenting.
- vintagedave 7mo ago
  I'm sorry, I don't understand this. I read it in full. If you're referring to the author dismissing GPL, my comment is, I think in converse they have missed something and the GPL is the best license, for the reasons I noted.

Hamuko 8mo ago

>Or GPL. Which I’m increasingly thinking is the only license. It requires sharing. It doesn't if Dan Blanchard spends some tokens on it and then licenses the output as MIT.

jmalicki 8mo ago
Who are you talking about? I can't find reference to this person.
- kccqzy 8mo ago
  He is the maintainer of chardet. The main topic of the article is the whole LGPL to MIT rewrite and relicense done by this person. https://github.com/chardet/chardet/releases/tag/7.0.0 https://github.com/chardet/chardet/releases/tag/7.0.0
  - Aeolun 7mo ago
    I think the “I maintained this thing for 12 years” weighs a lot heavier than the “and then I even went through the trouble of reimplementing it” before changing it to a license that is more open. Seriously…
- badc0ffee 8mo ago
  There were two other posts about this today on the HN front page: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47257803 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47257803 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47259177 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47259177

formerly_proven 8mo ago

> Or GPL. Which I’m increasingly thinking is the only license. It requires sharing. LLM companies and increasingly courts view LLM training as fair use, so copyright licensing does not enter the picture.

raincole 8mo ago

I highly recommend read the post in question first before commenting.

vintagedave 7mo ago
I'm sorry, I don't understand this. I read it in full. If you're referring to the author dismissing GPL, my comment is, I think in converse they have missed something and the GPL is the best license, for the reasons I noted.