Hacker News Reader

Comment by esrh | Hacker News Reader

> Smile 3.x Avoided due to licensing

> Smile 3.x is GPL-licensed, which poses some potential conflicts for some end users...The community consensus is converging around moving away from Smile due to the GPL-relicensing issue, focusing instead on Tribuo...

(tribuo is developed by oracle)

It's a really great thing that the java community has a high performance and well accepted (~5x stars than tribuo) ML package that's GPL. CF python where the top two libraries are developed by google and facebook. The GPL protects individual, independent developers.

I don't think it's right to recommend that new users move away from the package because of licensing issues; the fact that it's GPL now is a good thing for everyone except corporate users (probably a great part of readers). The people who might have GPL problems already know themselves when they'll have a problem.

View on HN

> I don't think it's right to recommend that new users move away from the package because of licensing issues

I was going to chime in to agree but then I saw how this was done - a completely innocuous looking commit:

https://github.com/haifengl/smile/commit/6f22097b233a3436519...

And literally no mention in the release notes:

https://github.com/haifengl/smile/releases/tag/v3.0.0

I think if you are going to change license, especially in a way that makes it less permissive, you need to be super open and clear about both the fact you are doing it and your reasons for that. This is done so silently as to look like it is intentionally trying to mislead and trick people.

So maybe I wouldn't say to move away because of the specific license, but it's legitimate to avoid something when it's so clearly driven by a single entity and that entity acts in a way that isn't trustworthy.

Yeah.. I have all the respect in the world for Haifeng's talent and I totally understand (and agree!) that open source developers need to be compensated one way or another, and I don't want to get into a debate that could lead to accusations by people who don't know the full story, but there are definitely some sour grapes over the whole situation and some of the pull away from smile has more to do with feelings that not everyone involved is acting in good faith more than issues about GPL exactly.

I don't disagree at all, but unfortunately it's mostly out of the hands of any community to recommend or enforce usage of a given library. There are many valid concerns around GPL licensing (not that I necessarily agree with them), but ultimately ignoring the requirement of many orgs to not use GPL-licensed code would just harm the ecosystem.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com