Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Fix the license #17

Closed
wants to merge 1 commit into from

Conversation

Projects
None yet
@mooman219
Copy link

commented Dec 3, 2015

I think we should use GPL v3 instead, it's the future of open source.

@wademauger

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

commented Dec 3, 2015

👍

3 similar comments
@kristenmills

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

commented Dec 3, 2015

👍

@ethanjurman

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

commented Dec 3, 2015

👍

@return

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Contributor

commented Dec 3, 2015

👍

@evgenyrodionov

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

commented Dec 3, 2015

Sometimes open source community can be ridiculous.

@paulbailey

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

commented Dec 3, 2015

💤

@mattyohe

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

commented Dec 3, 2015

Good joke.

@lucastorquato

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

commented Dec 3, 2015

Yeah!

@JRJurman

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

commented Dec 3, 2015

👍

3 similar comments
@craigcabrey

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

commented Dec 3, 2015

👍

@carterbuce

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

commented Dec 3, 2015

👍

@Rumel

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

commented Dec 3, 2015

👍

@kocsenc

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

commented Dec 3, 2015

🐠

@computermatt

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

commented Dec 3, 2015

👍

@pklebba

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

commented Dec 3, 2015

xD

@hepin1989

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

commented Dec 3, 2015

+1

@Danappelxx

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

commented Dec 3, 2015

Wow - this is not a great first impression of the community.

@schwa

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

commented Dec 3, 2015

:trollface:

@mooman219

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Author

commented Dec 3, 2015

@Danappelxx
I believe the lack of community support is because of the restrictive apache license.

@iconmaster

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

commented Dec 3, 2015

Apple:

image

@amro

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

commented Dec 3, 2015

How can you make that assertion when they just open sourced it? The community hasn't had a chance to form...

@bclymer

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

commented Dec 3, 2015

👍

@mrmacbob

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

commented Dec 3, 2015

Absolutely!

@jeremytregunna

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

commented Dec 3, 2015

Vote to close, not constructive.

@codestergit

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Contributor

commented Dec 3, 2015

vote to close. It's really bad first impression of community. Please respect their work.

@azdavis

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

commented Dec 3, 2015

👎 this seems really childish

@connorshea

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

commented Dec 3, 2015

grabs popcorn

@jamesbascle

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

commented Dec 3, 2015

This is some quality trolling.

Bravo.

@FeliciousX

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

commented Dec 3, 2015

👍

@ghost

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

commented Dec 4, 2015

(。・`ω´・)

@spencermurray

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

commented Dec 4, 2015

👍

@azdavis

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

commented Dec 4, 2015

What would be great is… proof that the Apache License is restrictive and that it actually has already turned away potential contributors. Anybody?

I would venture, in fact, that using a permissive license like Apache2 encourages more contribution than if the license were GPL. See here:

Let's assume that there is a company that wants to use your open source library and integrate it into their proprietary program, they're even willing to improve your library and release the improvements to the public so that the whole community benefits. Unfortunately, at the end of the day, the company needs to ship a product so it’d like to keep their core closed source. The GPL outlaws this kind of interaction.

@AdiFahmi

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

commented Dec 4, 2015

👍

2 similar comments
@pwarren

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

commented Dec 4, 2015

👍

@mohoromitch

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

commented Dec 4, 2015

👍

@sczyh30

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

commented Dec 4, 2015

→_→

@ianychoi

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

commented Dec 4, 2015

👍

2 similar comments
@sunfjun

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

commented Dec 4, 2015

👍

@bells17

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

commented Dec 4, 2015

👍

@EdwinTrejo

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

commented Dec 4, 2015

| √ |

@sosng

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

commented Dec 4, 2015

👍

@Macmee

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

commented Dec 4, 2015

👍 GPL works great for us https://github.com/Reditr-Software/reditr

@312362115

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

commented Dec 4, 2015

👍

1 similar comment
@ne-sachirou

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

commented Dec 4, 2015

👍

@Raymooond

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

commented Dec 4, 2015

@ryh

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

commented Dec 4, 2015

AGPL-3.0 is better for you GPL guys

@vus520

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

commented Dec 4, 2015

image

@Bernard-Bernie-Sanders

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

commented Dec 4, 2015

To those who don't get the joke, or are cranky pants, or apple hipsters - a program compiled in a language is a derivative of parts of its codegen and STL - and thus would be GPL 3 if the language is GPL 3. See http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gcc-exception-faq.html

That aside the second joke here is that corporations immensely dislike the GPL v3 for not being able to include it in closed source projects and its anti-crypto clause. Both reasonable things for the betterment of humanity (and your rights as the user - specifically in the age of Snowden) but not to print (limitless long-tail) money from "IP".

Maybe we shouldn't send messages like "We step out of our solar system into the universe seeking only peace and friendship, to teach if we are called upon, to be taught if we are fortunate." if we can't go for that at home.

Part of the joke is also that these (tightly controlled) "open source" language releases are not very interesting beyond browsing because unless it's maybe Mozilla, its unlikely that the community is gonna be actually involved in (conceptual/actual) changes. It's about using gullible (hipster) guinea pig and getting a larger testbed set up - and selling an image of openness, a PR stunt . And Apple is easily observed in and well known for its "walled gardens" (being a control-freak) and money making.

Unsubscribing now :)

@jpittman

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

commented Dec 4, 2015

really?

@ayberk

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

commented Dec 4, 2015

This is high quality humor right here.

I wish it were possible to pull request some sense of humor to people 💯

@natedejager

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

commented Dec 4, 2015

@tdtds

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

commented Dec 4, 2015

👍

@sikosis

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

commented Dec 4, 2015

GPL == cancer

@laplaceliu

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

commented Dec 4, 2015

wang

@kazuho

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

commented on LICENSE.txt in 184c31d Dec 4, 2015

What ever the license would be, I'm sure GPL was not created by Apple :)

> +GNU GENERAL PUBLIC LICENSE
> +==========================
> +
> +Version 3, 29 June 2007
> +
> +Copyright &copy; 2015 Apple, Inc. &lt;<http://fsf.org/>&gt;
@vansteki

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

commented Dec 4, 2015

🐹

@apple apple locked and limited conversation to collaborators Dec 4, 2015

@tkremenek

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Member

commented Dec 4, 2015

There has been numerous commentary on this pull request that violates Swift's Code of Conduct including "trolling or insulting/derogatory comments" and "unethical or unprofessional conduct". I have deleted many of those comments since this pull request was initiated. While we want the Swift community to weigh in on where they think the project should go, there is a way to do that constructively of which this pull request has not been an exemplar.

Any serious discussion of the license... or any other major change we want to make to the project, will need to occur on the swift-dev mailing lists. Arguments for making a major change like changing the license should not be simply "its the future of open source" but provide cohesive arguments why such a direction should be chosen, what are the problems with the current license that need to be solved, etc. I think those arguments would need to be quite comprehensive, as the current license was chosen for many reasons.

I am closing this pull request, as the commentary here is no longer productive and runs contrary to the spirit of the project with numerous violations to our Code of Conduct. If someone wishes to suggest a license change, a cohesive and rational argument will need to be made on the swift-dev mailing list. I do believe the arguments would need to be very strong and compelling, as the current license was not chosen lightly.

@tkremenek tkremenek closed this Dec 4, 2015

Sign up for free to subscribe to this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in.
You can’t perform that action at this time.