4 ms·

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. W

by 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.
nknighthb 13y ago
> the library is unusable with this license No, it isn't. I can use it. So can millions of others. That you can't is most likely the fault of shitty lawyers. Not the authors' problem.
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
- jafaku 13y ago
  Odds are you don't really understand GPLv3. See what people like Linus (you might have heard of him) think about it. And he made quite some contributions to the open source world.
  - nknighthb 13y ago
    I understand it just fine, thank you. GPLv3 is hardly the only thing I disagree with Linus on. Childish appeal to irrelevant authority is not an argument.
    - jafaku 13y ago
      You were claiming that it was a problem with my "shitty lawyers", I showed a perfect example of someone who worked on open source his entire life, who can't use GPLv3. Childish assumptions and irrelevant reference to the argument of authority fallacy are not an argument. Talk about "arrogance"...
      - nknighthb 13y ago
        I claimed it was "most likely" shitty lawyers, because 100% of the people I've heard from who genuinely can't use GPLv3 code anywhere in their work can't do so because a corporate lawyer-drone is in the way. The rest either won't because they don't like the license, or can't by virtue of their own choices. Linus is one of these people. He has made his choices, which is his right. I (mostly) do not agree with the reasons for those choices, and would not have made the same ones, as is my right. The identity and stature of the person who makes a choice is irrelevant, and dragging it out as if it makes my opinion invalid is absurd.
lambda 13y ago
The library is not unusable with this license. Anyone writing GPLv3 software to begin with would be just fine with using this license. The question you have to ask yourself is: am I OK with releasing my software under the GPLv3, or am I OK with rewriting this library if I decide to relicense my software under some other license. If you're OK with that, then you can use this library.

by jafaku 13y ago

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.

nknighthb 13y ago

> the library is unusable with this license No, it isn't. I can use it. So can millions of others. That you can't is most likely the fault of shitty lawyers. Not the authors' problem.

deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
jafaku 13y ago
Odds are you don't really understand GPLv3. See what people like Linus (you might have heard of him) think about it. And he made quite some contributions to the open source world.
- nknighthb 13y ago
  I understand it just fine, thank you. GPLv3 is hardly the only thing I disagree with Linus on. Childish appeal to irrelevant authority is not an argument.
  - jafaku 13y ago
    You were claiming that it was a problem with my "shitty lawyers", I showed a perfect example of someone who worked on open source his entire life, who can't use GPLv3. Childish assumptions and irrelevant reference to the argument of authority fallacy are not an argument. Talk about "arrogance"...
    - nknighthb 13y ago
      I claimed it was "most likely" shitty lawyers, because 100% of the people I've heard from who genuinely can't use GPLv3 code anywhere in their work can't do so because a corporate lawyer-drone is in the way. The rest either won't because they don't like the license, or can't by virtue of their own choices. Linus is one of these people. He has made his choices, which is his right. I (mostly) do not agree with the reasons for those choices, and would not have made the same ones, as is my right. The identity and stature of the person who makes a choice is irrelevant, and dragging it out as if it makes my opinion invalid is absurd.

lambda 13y ago

The library is not unusable with this license. Anyone writing GPLv3 software to begin with would be just fine with using this license. The question you have to ask yourself is: am I OK with releasing my software under the GPLv3, or am I OK with rewriting this library if I decide to relicense my software under some other license. If you're OK with that, then you can use this library.