undefined | Better HN

0 pointsMacha6y ago0 comments

What's so objectionable about that. Honestly one of the more annoying to find problems with GitHub (and npm) is MIT licensed software with GPL dependencies, and even if you want to have closed source software on GitHub, having a "this software is closed source" UI element is still better license hygiene without forcing everything open source.

I think honestly this is something other providers (Google code when it was around, gitlab now) are much better at.

0 comments

7 comments · 2 top-level

garmaine6y ago· 3 in thread

Um, GPL is not “closed source.”

MachaOP6y ago

I guess my post wasn't clear that I was referring to two issues - I assumed the original poster took RMS's comment as "ban closed source from GitHub", and was pointing out that being clear on licensing is not the same thing as being open source only, and that an actual issue this causes for open source software is not-actually-MIT software.

jimmaswell6y ago

GPL code is essentially "don't-touch-with-a-39-and-a-half-foot-pole source" to most people who want any control over their project or are developing in a professional setting.

de_watcher6y ago

You meant control over the users.

3 more replies

phkahler6y ago· 2 in thread

Once you statically like that MIT licensed code to GPL licensed code, you have a GPL licences executable. If the source is provided, I think you're in compliance with the GPL. IANAL and that is a very interesting situation.

That type of thing is why I think people need to choose one of: GPL, LGPL, MIT, BSD (isn't that essentially MIT?). I dont see the point in other "open source" licenses, they primarily create compatibility issues.

ChrisSD6y ago

According to Stallman, MIT is compatible with GPL but the reverse isn't true. You can freely use MIT code (including linking) in a GPL project so long as the source is available.

In Rust most code is dual licensed as MIT or Apache 2. You can pick which one to use although IIRC Apache 2 is considered the "primary license" because it provides protections from patent trolls and an explicit contribution licensing clause. However Apache 2 isn't compatible with GPL.

belorn6y ago

> According to Stallman, MIT is compatible with GPL but the reverse isn't true

What are you talking about? Let say we have code A licensed as MIT and code B licensed GPL.

You can combine A with B and distribute it. You can combine B with A and distribute it. AB or BA is both a legal combination that a distributor can do. In both cases the distributor need to follow the condition of both MIT and GPL. You can not distribute AB and only follow GPL, or combine BA and only follow MIT.

There is two ways to look at copyright licenses. The slightly incorrect but slightly easier way is to see them as a contract. In order to distribute you need to follow the conditions. If you have two contracts then you have two sets of conditions. Three contracts and three sets of conditions.

The second way, which lawyers prefer as the more "true" perspective, is to see a copyright license as a list of permissions. Copyright law dictate that as a distributor you have no rights, so the license is the specific conditions in order to gain permission. It is like a airplane ticket where in order to travel you got to follow the rules and conditions or the airline. Countries can also have conditions and rules like visas, passports and enter/exiting laws. Thus in order to have permission to travel between countries you need to follow both sets of rules and conditions.

Incompatibility occur when the rules and conditions of two or more licenses demand something impossible, like the case where one condition require an action and the other forbid said action. Both conditions can not be met at the same time and thus the licenses are incompatible.

2 more replies

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse