Hacker News new | comments | show | ask | jobs | submit login

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.




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.


> 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)


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.


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.


> 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.


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.


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.


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"...


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.


If a lawyer is the only thing stopping someone from using the library, then that person was clearly going to violate the license. Which proves my point: Those who want to steal the code will do it anyway. And those who wanted to give it a legitimate use won't even touch it. The same kids that are slapping GPLv3 to anything they build, are probably the ones breaking other people's licenses because they don't understand it. This their typical response when you call them out: "It's open source!". As if MIT/X11 open source was the same as GPLv3.

I insist: No professional programmer is going to use WhiteDB. Not for open source, not for anything. If there ever is someone willing to comply with GPLv3 just to be able to use WhiteDB, he won't even find out about the library, because nobody is using it.


> If a lawyer is the only thing stopping someone from using the library, then that person was clearly going to violate the license.

Just by saying this you prove you've never dealt with corporate lawyers. I know multiple companies where all GPLv3 software has been banned by the legal department entirely. Not just for use as part of a product. It's literally not allowed on the company's computer's at all, because the shitty lawyers who couldn't make it in the real world have decided that if the company touches GPLv3 software, all company source code is immediately GPLv3.

They are that stupid.

By the way, if your faith in corporate lawyers is so strong, why bother with courts? We can just have corporate lawyers decide everything, since they'll always get it right. Which is why there are no lawsuits where one side wins and the other side loses.

> I insist: No professional programmer is going to use WhiteDB.

Which particular term of the GPLv3 would prevent me from using WhiteDB in a web application? I'm aware of none whatsoever. Note that this is GPLv3, not AGPLv3, which does have terms which can pose a problem to web applications.

By the way, Red Hat and Canonical make GPLv3 software, contribute to GPLv3 software, and include GPLv3 software in their Linux distributions. Are you accusing their programmers of being unprofessional?




Guidelines | FAQ | Support | API | Security | Lists | Bookmarklet | DMCA | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: