Comment by pzmarzly
14 hours ago
> Personally, I think putting an interoperability protocol implementation behind a copyleft license is a little unfortunate!
Huh, haven't thought of it. Just relicensed ancs4linux to MIT.
14 hours ago
> Personally, I think putting an interoperability protocol implementation behind a copyleft license is a little unfortunate!
Huh, haven't thought of it. Just relicensed ancs4linux to MIT.
I love HN. Read an article that raises a reasonable point about a project’s license, and that project’s author shows up to announce they were convinced and changed the license accordingly. Repo was updated 5 minutes ago.
It’s things like this that give me hope for the world.
I'm not a scab, so I won't use permissive licenses on my unpaid projects. People who want to use them at work can cry me a river.
Same. Started to adopt AGPLv3 for every new project. With AI sucking up all the CV-driven contributors, it’s time to take back open source as a joyful hobby for nerds that enjoy programming and sharing their creations with one another, instead of being corpo stans that do free support for shareholder driven enterprises.
6 replies →
Not to be Debbie Downer but software licensing has no effect on what matters to billions of people.
We are facing very real global and societal issues that people on this site are actively exacerbating, like disinformation and climate change.
If a dude changing an inconsequential text file on GitHub gives you hope for the world, then please broaden your perspective.
So I'm guessing you don't do anything except what matters to billions of people? Always 100% fully generalized contributions, never making your local world a better place? Your only local contributions being to tell off people who are grateful that their lives are materially improved by someone else's smaller actions... You must be beloved by your community.
3 replies →
Making one small corner of the world a little bit better is a good thing. There's not much use in complaining that it's not as big of an impact as could hypothetically be achieved on some larger issues.
5 replies →
I saw someone smile at the park the other day, do you think you could talk to them for me?
I think you like very much to be a debbie downer
Not GP but I feel like that's kinda their point - the fact that we still have this platform to collaborate in such an organic way is truly remarkable and must not be taken for granted.
This is verifiably false. Without copyleft licensing like the GPL or permissive licensing like MIT and Apache we literally would not have the internet, or it would be somehow even more wildly dystopian and proprietary than it already is.
1 reply →
Actually a lot of that bad stuff billionaires are doing is enabled by MIT licensed software. Like, device lockdown is illegal with GPL3
3 replies →
You are indeed being a Debbie Downer.
You must be fun at parties
Isn't this[0] the use-case that is supposedly covered by LGPL?
[0] copyleft-licensed library that could be legally linked into non-copyleft code base.
[flagged]
Those poor multi-trillion dollar companies that can't use copyleft projects, whatever will they do?
2 replies →
Please consider using the LGPL instead.
Thank you for all the hard work and inspiration.
Hero
Thank you!
You might want to check again for something that has patent protection. apache2+llvm exception, or just the mozilla public license...
EUPL is also basically GPL without being viral, too.