6 ms·

Good on you for going GPLv3 as your free software license. I think it's really funny to see people here going "b-but you should use my favourite license" instea

by endgame 13y ago

Good on you for going GPLv3 as your free software license. I think it's really funny to see people here going "b-but you should use my favourite license" instead of "that's a cool thing you've built there".

bch 13y ago
> "b-but you should use my favourite license" instead of "that's a cool thing you've built there". First of all, "that's cool" and "license issues" aren't mutually exclusive. Second of all, it's a case of picking an applicable license for the place the software fits into a project. This is a low-level library (cool or not); if an author wishes to "protect" their code, LGPL was built explicitly for this purpose. To confuse matters, in the projects own page[1] they effectively waive all the rights of the GPL3 except for a very specific corner case. People asking for license clarification or change are looking to simplify even _beginning_ to use the library. [1] http://whitedb.org/licence.html http://whitedb.org/licence.html
- nknighthb 13y ago
  What disgusting arrogance. There is no objective standard of "applicability" of any particular license to any particular piece of software. The LGPL is not "built explicitly for this purpose". The LGPL is a compromise license that exists for strategic reasons. There is no clear reason it should be applied here. That some people may not want or be able to use this library because of its license choice may matter to you, but there's no reason to believe it matters to the authors, and you are not in a position to tell them what should matter to them. Nothing on that page constitutes a waiver of GPLv3. It is merely an offer of an alternative license to a subset of potential users.
  - endgame 13y ago
    Well said. People need to remember that the L in LGPL stands for "Lesser", not "Library".
    - jafaku 13y ago
      Where lesser means less restrictions, not less freedom. GPLv3 = The ultimate restriction
      - belorn 13y ago
        HN need better anti-troll protection against comments like that.
  - bch 13y ago
    > but there's no reason to believe it matters to the authors One reason may be to increase the number of folks using the library. I'm not saying that would happen, or that the original devs care, but it's conceivable, isn't it? > and you are not in a position to tell them what should matter to them. I'm not telling them anything -- I'm expressing an opinion and asking questions. [sidenote: isn't it ironic to be called "disgustingly arrogant" and attacked for asking questions on a matter of free speech? I think my discourse has been polite and respectful[1]]. > Nothing on that page constitutes a waiver of GPLv3. It is merely an offer of an alternative license to a subset of potential users. Perhaps waiver was the wrong word, but lets look at this a moment: The offer is to everybody (barring a small (arguably dubious (enter lawyers)) subset of potential users, where (again, presumably) the license is more like MIT than GPL. At any rate, the decision is in the hands of the authors. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6614482 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6614482, https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6614179 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6614179
  - jafaku 13y ago
    He's just letting the author know that the library is unusable with this license. So either people won't use it, or they will use it and violate the license. Would you seriously consider using (or even trying) a new library that has not even proved to be better than others yet, if you had to comply with GPLv3? I wouldn't.
    - pjmlp 13y ago
      Yes, all the time. Those that want to get money with the free work of others, should give something back and most authors do offer commercial licenses when asked for. With licenses like BSD, the living proof is that most companies are leechers.
      - a-nom-a-ly 13y ago
        > Those that want to get money with the free work of others, should give something back and most authors do offer commercial licenses when asked for. Have you ever considered the fact that it's not all about money and proprietary software? This affect Open Source software as well. If I want to allow other to do as they will with my code, I won't touch a library with such a viral license because I don't want to subject myself or my users with having to even think about it. Also, have you considered... > With licenses like BSD, the living proof is that most companies are leechers. That's not a proof of anything... The same license you cite is a living proof that most[1] companies and regular people will contribute even more than they have to without you having to force them to do anything. [1] most, for some definition of most, because if a company of individual have neither the expertise nor the resources to contribute, then what good does restricting their use of the code achieve? (rhetorical question)
        pjmlp 13y ago
        Yes, I have considered all of that. When I started coding, there was no such thing as GNU or open source movement. You got commercial software, shareware, beerware, donationware, whateverware. I don't have any problem with commercial software, actually I do use quite a lot of it. What I have problems with, and I have seen it happening a lot, is companies using source code from someone else as a means to cut costs for their binary blobs, without any form of contribution. So I always defend a dual license scheme. GPL for open source projects, and some company whats to use the code in a commercial product, just needs to ask for the commercial license. The only freedom GPL takes away, is the freedom to abuse the work of others.
  - lambda 13y ago
    What disgusting arrogance. Could we please try to improve the tone of discourse here?
    - nknighthb 13y ago
      What would improve the tone of discourse is if every time someone posted a GPL'd project, the thread didn't fill up with entitled jerks whining about the terms under which they've been offered free stuff.
      - quanticle 13y ago
        Except that no free stuff has been offered. A GPLv3 license is the equivalent of saying, "Hey, look at this cool thing I made! Oh, you want to use it for anything other than GPLv3 projects? Well, you can't have it!" Forget the intent of the GPLv3. The effect of the GPLv3 has been to damage and subvert free software, rather than promote it.
        nknighthb 13y ago
        A GPLv3 license is saying that I will share what I created with you if you will share what you create with it with me on the same terms. If you don't like those terms, you can write your own software from scratch. Nobody is under any obligation to give you anything on any terms at all.
      - lambda 13y ago
        I agree that it would be nice if people wouldn't spend so much time complaining that people create free software, with the request that if you use it you share your changes freely as well. I'm on your side about the actual underlying issue. What I was requesting was that you don't use phrases like "what disgusting arrogance" and "entitled jerks whining" to make your point. You are unlikely to convince anyone with that kind of language; when people feel like they are attacked, they're a lot more likely to respond defensively than they are to be convinced by you.
- jafaku 13y ago
  Agreed, most devs that choose GPL3 don't know the first thing about licenses, and just pick it because they will do whatever Stallman tells them to do. I can't think of any good use case for GPL3. Nobody should use it.
  - pjmlp 13y ago
    > I can't think of any good use case for GPL3. Nobody should use it. When coding open source software. For everyone else that wants to make money with the free work of others, a commercial license can always be asked for.
    - deleted 13y ago
      [deleted]
AsymetricCom 13y ago
You know who else built cool things? That's right. Hitler.

by endgame 13y ago

bch 13y ago

> "b-but you should use my favourite license" instead of "that's a cool thing you've built there". First of all, "that's cool" and "license issues" aren't mutually exclusive. Second of all, it's a case of picking an applicable license for the place the software fits into a project. This is a low-level library (cool or not); if an author wishes to "protect" their code, LGPL was built explicitly for this purpose. To confuse matters, in the projects own page[1] they effectively waive all the rights of the GPL3 except for a very specific corner case. People asking for license clarification or change are looking to simplify even _beginning_ to use the library. [1] http://whitedb.org/licence.html http://whitedb.org/licence.html

nknighthb 13y ago
What disgusting arrogance. There is no objective standard of "applicability" of any particular license to any particular piece of software. The LGPL is not "built explicitly for this purpose". The LGPL is a compromise license that exists for strategic reasons. There is no clear reason it should be applied here. That some people may not want or be able to use this library because of its license choice may matter to you, but there's no reason to believe it matters to the authors, and you are not in a position to tell them what should matter to them. Nothing on that page constitutes a waiver of GPLv3. It is merely an offer of an alternative license to a subset of potential users.
- endgame 13y ago
  Well said. People need to remember that the L in LGPL stands for "Lesser", not "Library".
  - jafaku 13y ago
    Where lesser means less restrictions, not less freedom. GPLv3 = The ultimate restriction
    - belorn 13y ago
      HN need better anti-troll protection against comments like that.
- bch 13y ago
  > but there's no reason to believe it matters to the authors One reason may be to increase the number of folks using the library. I'm not saying that would happen, or that the original devs care, but it's conceivable, isn't it? > and you are not in a position to tell them what should matter to them. I'm not telling them anything -- I'm expressing an opinion and asking questions. [sidenote: isn't it ironic to be called "disgustingly arrogant" and attacked for asking questions on a matter of free speech? I think my discourse has been polite and respectful[1]]. > Nothing on that page constitutes a waiver of GPLv3. It is merely an offer of an alternative license to a subset of potential users. Perhaps waiver was the wrong word, but lets look at this a moment: The offer is to everybody (barring a small (arguably dubious (enter lawyers)) subset of potential users, where (again, presumably) the license is more like MIT than GPL. At any rate, the decision is in the hands of the authors. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6614482 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6614482, https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6614179 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6614179
- jafaku 13y ago
  He's just letting the author know that the library is unusable with this license. So either people won't use it, or they will use it and violate the license. Would you seriously consider using (or even trying) a new library that has not even proved to be better than others yet, if you had to comply with GPLv3? I wouldn't.
  - pjmlp 13y ago
    Yes, all the time. Those that want to get money with the free work of others, should give something back and most authors do offer commercial licenses when asked for. With licenses like BSD, the living proof is that most companies are leechers.
    - a-nom-a-ly 13y ago
      > Those that want to get money with the free work of others, should give something back and most authors do offer commercial licenses when asked for. Have you ever considered the fact that it's not all about money and proprietary software? This affect Open Source software as well. If I want to allow other to do as they will with my code, I won't touch a library with such a viral license because I don't want to subject myself or my users with having to even think about it. Also, have you considered... > With licenses like BSD, the living proof is that most companies are leechers. That's not a proof of anything... The same license you cite is a living proof that most[1] companies and regular people will contribute even more than they have to without you having to force them to do anything. [1] most, for some definition of most, because if a company of individual have neither the expertise nor the resources to contribute, then what good does restricting their use of the code achieve? (rhetorical question)
      - pjmlp 13y ago
        Yes, I have considered all of that. When I started coding, there was no such thing as GNU or open source movement. You got commercial software, shareware, beerware, donationware, whateverware. I don't have any problem with commercial software, actually I do use quite a lot of it. What I have problems with, and I have seen it happening a lot, is companies using source code from someone else as a means to cut costs for their binary blobs, without any form of contribution. So I always defend a dual license scheme. GPL for open source projects, and some company whats to use the code in a commercial product, just needs to ask for the commercial license. The only freedom GPL takes away, is the freedom to abuse the work of others.
- lambda 13y ago
  What disgusting arrogance. Could we please try to improve the tone of discourse here?
  - nknighthb 13y ago
    What would improve the tone of discourse is if every time someone posted a GPL'd project, the thread didn't fill up with entitled jerks whining about the terms under which they've been offered free stuff.
    - quanticle 13y ago
      Except that no free stuff has been offered. A GPLv3 license is the equivalent of saying, "Hey, look at this cool thing I made! Oh, you want to use it for anything other than GPLv3 projects? Well, you can't have it!" Forget the intent of the GPLv3. The effect of the GPLv3 has been to damage and subvert free software, rather than promote it.
      - nknighthb 13y ago
        A GPLv3 license is saying that I will share what I created with you if you will share what you create with it with me on the same terms. If you don't like those terms, you can write your own software from scratch. Nobody is under any obligation to give you anything on any terms at all.
    - lambda 13y ago
      I agree that it would be nice if people wouldn't spend so much time complaining that people create free software, with the request that if you use it you share your changes freely as well. I'm on your side about the actual underlying issue. What I was requesting was that you don't use phrases like "what disgusting arrogance" and "entitled jerks whining" to make your point. You are unlikely to convince anyone with that kind of language; when people feel like they are attacked, they're a lot more likely to respond defensively than they are to be convinced by you.
jafaku 13y ago
Agreed, most devs that choose GPL3 don't know the first thing about licenses, and just pick it because they will do whatever Stallman tells them to do. I can't think of any good use case for GPL3. Nobody should use it.
- pjmlp 13y ago
  > I can't think of any good use case for GPL3. Nobody should use it. When coding open source software. For everyone else that wants to make money with the free work of others, a commercial license can always be asked for.
  - deleted 13y ago
    [deleted]

AsymetricCom 13y ago

You know who else built cool things? That's right. Hitler.