8 ms·

What disgusting arrogance. There is no objective standard of "applicability" of any particular license to any particular piece of software. The LGPL is not "bui

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.

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.