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
base: master
from

Conversation

Projects
None yet
@mooman219

mooman219 commented Dec 3, 2015

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

@wadeanthony0100

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment

wadeanthony0100 commented Dec 3, 2015

👍

@kristenmills

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@kristenmills

kristenmills commented Dec 3, 2015

👍

@ethanjurman

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@ethanjurman

ethanjurman commented Dec 3, 2015

👍

@return

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@return

return Dec 3, 2015

Contributor

👍

Contributor

return commented Dec 3, 2015

👍

@evgenyrodionov

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@evgenyrodionov

evgenyrodionov Dec 3, 2015

Sometimes open source community can be ridiculous.

evgenyrodionov commented Dec 3, 2015

Sometimes open source community can be ridiculous.

@paulbailey

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@paulbailey

paulbailey commented Dec 3, 2015

💤

@mattyohe

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@mattyohe

mattyohe Dec 3, 2015

Good joke.

mattyohe commented Dec 3, 2015

Good joke.

@lucastorquato

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@lucastorquato

lucastorquato commented Dec 3, 2015

Yeah!

@JRJurman

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@JRJurman

JRJurman commented Dec 3, 2015

👍

@craigcabrey

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@craigcabrey

craigcabrey commented Dec 3, 2015

👍

@cmb9400

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@cmb9400

cmb9400 commented Dec 3, 2015

👍

@Rumel

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@Rumel

Rumel commented Dec 3, 2015

👍

@kocsenc

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@kocsenc

kocsenc commented Dec 3, 2015

🐠

@computermatt

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@computermatt

computermatt commented Dec 3, 2015

👍

@pklebba

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@pklebba

pklebba commented Dec 3, 2015

xD

@hepin1989

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@hepin1989

hepin1989 commented Dec 3, 2015

+1

@Danappelxx

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@Danappelxx

Danappelxx Dec 3, 2015

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

Danappelxx commented Dec 3, 2015

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

@schwa

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@schwa

schwa commented Dec 3, 2015

:trollface:

@mooman219

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@mooman219

mooman219 Dec 3, 2015

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

mooman219 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.

Show comment
Hide comment
@iconmaster

iconmaster commented Dec 3, 2015

Apple:

image

@amro

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@amro

amro Dec 3, 2015

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

amro 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.

Show comment
Hide comment
@bclymer

bclymer commented Dec 3, 2015

👍

@mrmacbob

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@mrmacbob

mrmacbob Dec 3, 2015

Absolutely!

mrmacbob commented Dec 3, 2015

Absolutely!

@jeremytregunna

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@jeremytregunna

jeremytregunna Dec 3, 2015

Vote to close, not constructive.

jeremytregunna commented Dec 3, 2015

Vote to close, not constructive.

@codestergit

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@codestergit

codestergit Dec 3, 2015

Contributor

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

Contributor

codestergit 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.

Show comment
Hide comment
@azdavis

azdavis Dec 3, 2015

👎 this seems really childish

azdavis commented Dec 3, 2015

👎 this seems really childish

@connorshea

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@connorshea

connorshea Dec 3, 2015

grabs popcorn

connorshea commented Dec 3, 2015

grabs popcorn

@jamesbascle

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@jamesbascle

jamesbascle Dec 3, 2015

This is some quality trolling.

Bravo.

jamesbascle commented Dec 3, 2015

This is some quality trolling.

Bravo.

@FeliciousX

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@FeliciousX

FeliciousX commented Dec 3, 2015

👍

@digitalcosmos

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@digitalcosmos

digitalcosmos Dec 3, 2015

Richard Stallman would approve.
Go GPL v3... we're making history here folks!

digitalcosmos commented Dec 3, 2015

Richard Stallman would approve.
Go GPL v3... we're making history here folks!

@Goles

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@Goles

Goles Dec 3, 2015

Contributor

Lol

Contributor

Goles commented Dec 3, 2015

Lol

@stennettm

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@stennettm

stennettm commented Dec 3, 2015

👎

@jasarien

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@jasarien

jasarien commented Dec 3, 2015

😂

@Knight1

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@Knight1

Knight1 commented Dec 3, 2015

👍

@cman131

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@cman131

cman131 commented Dec 3, 2015

👍

@madrobby

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment

madrobby commented Dec 3, 2015

@CastIrony

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@CastIrony

CastIrony Dec 3, 2015

I mean, what other popular projects on Linux use the Apache license?

😂

CastIrony commented Dec 3, 2015

I mean, what other popular projects on Linux use the Apache license?

😂

@coolstar

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@coolstar

coolstar commented Dec 3, 2015

👍

@ArseniyShestakov

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@ArseniyShestakov

ArseniyShestakov commented Dec 3, 2015

AGPLv3 👍

@ventolinmono

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@ventolinmono

ventolinmono commented Dec 4, 2015

👍

@Rukachan

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@Rukachan

Rukachan Dec 4, 2015

@fcharlie
Allowing people's freedoms to be denied does not comply with the free spirit.

Rukachan commented Dec 4, 2015

@fcharlie
Allowing people's freedoms to be denied does not comply with the free spirit.

@DingSoung

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@DingSoung

DingSoung Dec 4, 2015

ARE YOU BEING FUNNY

DingSoung commented Dec 4, 2015

ARE YOU BEING FUNNY

@mtunique

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@mtunique

mtunique commented Dec 4, 2015

👍🏼

@gmittal

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@gmittal

gmittal Dec 4, 2015

👍 Great. Let's do it.

gmittal commented Dec 4, 2015

👍 Great. Let's do it.

@matthewschlue-wf

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment

matthewschlue-wf commented Dec 4, 2015

👍

@comfyneet

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@comfyneet

comfyneet commented Dec 4, 2015

👍

@Salada

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@Salada

Salada commented Dec 4, 2015

👍

@julongdragon

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@julongdragon

julongdragon commented Dec 4, 2015

👍🏼

@John-Shaw

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@John-Shaw

John-Shaw commented Dec 4, 2015

👍

@XYangX

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@XYangX

XYangX Dec 4, 2015

(。・`ω´・)

XYangX commented Dec 4, 2015

(。・`ω´・)

@spencermurray

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@spencermurray

spencermurray commented Dec 4, 2015

👍

@azdavis

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@azdavis

azdavis 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.

azdavis 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.

Show comment
Hide comment
@AdiFahmi

AdiFahmi commented Dec 4, 2015

👍

@pwarren

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@pwarren

pwarren commented Dec 4, 2015

👍

@mohoromitch

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@mohoromitch

mohoromitch commented Dec 4, 2015

👍

@sczyh30

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@sczyh30

sczyh30 commented Dec 4, 2015

→_→

@ianychoi

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@ianychoi

ianychoi commented Dec 4, 2015

👍

@sunfjun

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@sunfjun

sunfjun commented Dec 4, 2015

👍

@bells17

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@bells17

bells17 commented Dec 4, 2015

👍

@EdwinTrejo

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@EdwinTrejo

EdwinTrejo commented Dec 4, 2015

| √ |

@sosng

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@sosng

sosng commented Dec 4, 2015

👍

@Macmee

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@Macmee

Macmee commented Dec 4, 2015

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

@312362115

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@312362115

312362115 commented Dec 4, 2015

👍

@ne-sachirou

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@ne-sachirou

ne-sachirou commented Dec 4, 2015

👍

@Raymooond

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment

Raymooond commented Dec 4, 2015

@ryh

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@ryh

ryh Dec 4, 2015

AGPL-3.0 is better for you GPL guys

ryh commented Dec 4, 2015

AGPL-3.0 is better for you GPL guys

@vus520

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@vus520

vus520 commented Dec 4, 2015

image

@Bernard-Bernie-Sanders

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@Bernard-Bernie-Sanders

Bernard-Bernie-Sanders 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 :)

Bernard-Bernie-Sanders 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.

Show comment
Hide comment

jpittman commented Dec 4, 2015

really?

@ayberk

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@ayberk

ayberk Dec 4, 2015

This is high quality humor right here.

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

ayberk 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.

Show comment
Hide comment

natedejager commented Dec 4, 2015

@tdtds

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@tdtds

tdtds commented Dec 4, 2015

👍

@sikosis

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@sikosis

sikosis Dec 4, 2015

GPL == cancer

sikosis commented Dec 4, 2015

GPL == cancer

@laplaceliu

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment

laplaceliu commented Dec 4, 2015

wang

@kazuho

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@kazuho

kazuho 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;

kazuho 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.

Show comment
Hide comment
@vansteki

vansteki commented Dec 4, 2015

🐹

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

@tkremenek

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@tkremenek

tkremenek Dec 4, 2015

Member

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.

Member

tkremenek 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.