Fixlicense - Convert software license headers to GPL | Hacker News Reader

Fixlicense - Convert software license headers to GPL

github.com

16 pointswerecat16 comments

this is really REALLY thoughtful. It should also convert any graphic it finds to a PNG, and afix a small CC-BY-SA watermark. Also, translate C++ back to C.

Clever.

The GPL is a mistake.

I prefer the BSD style licensing. I've heard it said that the difference between the GPL & BSD licensing is analogous to the difference between rape & making love.

> I've heard it said that the difference between the GPL & BSD licensing is analogous to the difference between rape & making love.

There's different interpretations of which is which.

Seriously?

Paraphrased hint for the downvoters, who obviously missed your point:

Some people would say GPL="rape" and BSD="making love", others would say GPL="making love" and BSD="rape"

I've just noticed how my post could be misinterpreted.

Shit.

If BSD-licensors wanted to give people freedom, they'd release code into the public domain.

The BSD license's requirement to maintain the copyright and license intact is a virus that propogates through all derivative copies of the code. Some BSD license variants additionally restrict freedom by requiring certain notices to be displayed during program execution, or restricting what can be said about derivative copies.

BSD license advocates are just as dogmatic as GPL license advocates. The GPL is simply a better dogma if you want to balance the freedom you give other developers against the potential for those developers to take advantage of your code by selling compiled or obfuscated derivative works without contributing anything back. If you don't care about whether your code gets locked up in proprietary products, by all means use the BSD license, but some people do care.

BSD may not be public domain but since StallmaGNU is such an advocate of freedom, I find the fact that the GPL prevents us from selling GPL projects to be decidedly anti-freedom.

I understand the point regarding possible subsequent proprietary projects, but such would seem to be an incentive to improve ones code, as the code is still yours to work with.

You can sell GPLed software all you like. You just have to provide source code to the people you sell binaries to, and allow them to redistribute the software under the terms of the GPL.

Thanks for the clarification.

I find the fact that the GPL prevents us from selling GPL projects to be decidedly anti-freedom.

That statement is exactly why a lot of developers license their code or contributions under the GPL. They don't want you to have the freedom to sell and unilaterally profit from open source code they contributed to (for free). You can always try to form an arrangement with the contributors to get a different license.

Proprietary products are going to exist for a while longer whether we want them or not. There are times when I would rather have proprietary products running some obfuscated but peer-reviewed open source code, than some broken code that the creators decided to piece together under deadlines.

Why don't you contact companies directly and offer to work for free to improve their broken code?

I'm pretty sure that's called an internship :-)

EDIT: Don't get me wrong, I like the ideals of free software, it's just not totally practical for everything.

"any program that used or linked to GPL code was required to be under the GPL"

The GPL requirement to maintain the copyright and license intact is a virus that propogates through all derivative copies of the code.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com