4 ms·

Why I use the GPL and not cuck licenses

microgpt 4mo ago
[flagged]
- DamonHD 4mo ago
  This is simply rude and wrong in its claims that (all) people (such as me) using BSD and Apache licences are doing so out of ignorance, rather than because we know and want the effects that they have. This childish inflammatory bile rather hurts the standing of GPL and friends, which do have appropriate applications too. Nuance would have been a fine thing.
  - microgpt 4mo ago
    What effects do you want? There is a section at the end of the post about appropriate uses of cuck licenses. Namely, when the software has network effects so that sharing it widely is more important than making sure it only has free versions.
    - DamonHD 4mo ago
      I very much want my (open sourced) code to be used by anyone who wants to use it, in any context, including commercial, and with Apache I also want the patent protection effects. Using such an inflammatory term to refer to someone's non-preferred style of licence is unhelpful to reasonable debate.
      - microgpt 4mo ago
        Why do you want that? The term "cuckold" isn't inflammatory. Some people enjoy watching their partners have sex with others - and they're aware that they do. If a developer enjoys aiding Google and Amazon without getting paid or even recognized, they have the right to do so. But if they're tricked into it, that's a problem.
        minimaxir 4mo ago
        > The term "cuckold" isn't inflammatory. You cannot detach it from the a) contemporary usage of the term and b) the original post uses "cuck" very intentionally to evoke said contemporary usage.
        microgpt 4mo ago
        It's okay to be a cuck and own it. It's only embarrassing to be a cuck when you're trying not to be a cuck. And of course also to the extent that telling anyone your fetish is automatically embarrassing.
        DamonHD 4mo ago
        It's my (open source) code and I want to make it widely available, ie as open as reasonably possible, including cases such as my past small start-ups with no budget and not able to release everything open source. Why do I have to justify or explain that "why"?
        microgpt 4mo ago
        I'm just wondering why you want that as it can shed more light on the debate.
        DamonHD 4mo ago
        I just gave an example: not all potential users of code can either use GPL-ish code or are profit-driven megacorps such as Google; false dichotomies are false. There are many small or intermediate organisations (and individuals) who would like to use open source code with the fewest legal and admin complications possible. I supported a similar cohort with an early multimedia site with simple free licensing.
        microgpt 4mo ago
        So your singular aim is to maximize users?
wasting_time 4mo ago
The GPL isn't strict enough now that everyone has a copyright laundering machine at their disposal. I've been experimenting with adding a "translation" clause in accordance with the GPL paragraph 7, where if by means of automatically translating the project to a different language (by transpiling or machine learning) the license is retained, but not necessarily the copyright. So far I'm not happy with the results by Claude and ChatGPT. Probably I should talk to a lawyer. The GPLv3 was largely invented to prevent tivoization, we need GPLv4 now to prevent copyright laundering.
- microgpt 4mo ago
  If copyright isn't retained you have absolutely no rights relating to copyright. You can't make someone do something by writing a line in a contract they don't have to follow.
  - wasting_time 4mo ago
    Fair point. Probably I should assert copyright on the translated work. In any case it ought to be part of the GPL. The current text is rather ambiguous.
    - microgpt 4mo ago
      I'm not a lawyer but I'd guess it has no legal effect. Either you hold a copyright in the translated work and telling someone of this fact doesn't change anything, or you don't and telling someone that you do is a silly lie. However, it might stop some people from doing it anyway. GPL allows you to attach additional permission notices and require them to be carried downstream. This is often used to carry MIT license notices when MIT software is used inside GPL, but you could also put something about how AI violates copyright if it's a "reasonable legal notice"...
buffer_overlord 4mo ago
What’s wrong with MIT?
- hackermailman 4mo ago
  Usually it's paired with an Apache license to prevent patent lawsuits but the problem was that anyone could make a proprietary fork and then actively steal your labor. For example Apple yoinking the BSD packet filter and wrapping their own proprietary license around enhancements. With LLMs can we even legally license software because some projects like OpenBSD claim there is no international law yet for code not written by humans.
spacedcowboy 4mo ago
Don’t think my opinion has changed much since the last time this was posted on HN… https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46624402 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46624402
- microgpt 4mo ago
  Since the comment you linked to blatantly violates guidelines but is too old to moderate, I'm flagging this one instead.

[flagged]

DamonHD 4mo ago
This is simply rude and wrong in its claims that (all) people (such as me) using BSD and Apache licences are doing so out of ignorance, rather than because we know and want the effects that they have. This childish inflammatory bile rather hurts the standing of GPL and friends, which do have appropriate applications too. Nuance would have been a fine thing.
- microgpt 4mo ago
  What effects do you want? There is a section at the end of the post about appropriate uses of cuck licenses. Namely, when the software has network effects so that sharing it widely is more important than making sure it only has free versions.
  - DamonHD 4mo ago
    I very much want my (open sourced) code to be used by anyone who wants to use it, in any context, including commercial, and with Apache I also want the patent protection effects. Using such an inflammatory term to refer to someone's non-preferred style of licence is unhelpful to reasonable debate.
    - microgpt 4mo ago
      Why do you want that? The term "cuckold" isn't inflammatory. Some people enjoy watching their partners have sex with others - and they're aware that they do. If a developer enjoys aiding Google and Amazon without getting paid or even recognized, they have the right to do so. But if they're tricked into it, that's a problem.
      - minimaxir 4mo ago
        > The term "cuckold" isn't inflammatory. You cannot detach it from the a) contemporary usage of the term and b) the original post uses "cuck" very intentionally to evoke said contemporary usage.
        microgpt 4mo ago
        It's okay to be a cuck and own it. It's only embarrassing to be a cuck when you're trying not to be a cuck. And of course also to the extent that telling anyone your fetish is automatically embarrassing.
      - DamonHD 4mo ago
        It's my (open source) code and I want to make it widely available, ie as open as reasonably possible, including cases such as my past small start-ups with no budget and not able to release everything open source. Why do I have to justify or explain that "why"?
        microgpt 4mo ago
        I'm just wondering why you want that as it can shed more light on the debate.
        DamonHD 4mo ago
        I just gave an example: not all potential users of code can either use GPL-ish code or are profit-driven megacorps such as Google; false dichotomies are false. There are many small or intermediate organisations (and individuals) who would like to use open source code with the fewest legal and admin complications possible. I supported a similar cohort with an early multimedia site with simple free licensing.
        microgpt 4mo ago
        So your singular aim is to maximize users?

The GPL isn't strict enough now that everyone has a copyright laundering machine at their disposal. I've been experimenting with adding a "translation" clause in accordance with the GPL paragraph 7, where if by means of automatically translating the project to a different language (by transpiling or machine learning) the license is retained, but not necessarily the copyright. So far I'm not happy with the results by Claude and ChatGPT. Probably I should talk to a lawyer. The GPLv3 was largely invented to prevent tivoization, we need GPLv4 now to prevent copyright laundering.

microgpt 4mo ago
If copyright isn't retained you have absolutely no rights relating to copyright. You can't make someone do something by writing a line in a contract they don't have to follow.
- wasting_time 4mo ago
  Fair point. Probably I should assert copyright on the translated work. In any case it ought to be part of the GPL. The current text is rather ambiguous.
  - microgpt 4mo ago
    I'm not a lawyer but I'd guess it has no legal effect. Either you hold a copyright in the translated work and telling someone of this fact doesn't change anything, or you don't and telling someone that you do is a silly lie. However, it might stop some people from doing it anyway. GPL allows you to attach additional permission notices and require them to be carried downstream. This is often used to carry MIT license notices when MIT software is used inside GPL, but you could also put something about how AI violates copyright if it's a "reasonable legal notice"...

buffer_overlord 4mo ago

What’s wrong with MIT?

hackermailman 4mo ago
Usually it's paired with an Apache license to prevent patent lawsuits but the problem was that anyone could make a proprietary fork and then actively steal your labor. For example Apple yoinking the BSD packet filter and wrapping their own proprietary license around enhancements. With LLMs can we even legally license software because some projects like OpenBSD claim there is no international law yet for code not written by humans.

spacedcowboy 4mo ago

Don’t think my opinion has changed much since the last time this was posted on HN… https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46624402 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46624402

microgpt 4mo ago
Since the comment you linked to blatantly violates guidelines but is too old to moderate, I'm flagging this one instead.