Fix the license

[mooman219]

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

[wademauger]

👍

[kristenmills]

👍

[ethanjurman]

👍

[return]

👍

[imevro]

Sometimes open source community can be ridiculous.

[paulbailey]

💤

[mattyohe]

Good joke.

[lucastorquato]

Yeah!

[JRJurman]

👍

[craigcabrey]

👍

[carterbuce]

👍

[Rumel]

👍

[kocsenc]

🐠

[computermatt]

👍

[pklebba]

xD

[He-Pin]

+1

[Danappelxx]

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

[schwa]

[mooman219]

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

[iconmaster]

Apple:

[amro]

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

[bclymer]

👍

[mrmacbob]

Absolutely!

[jeremytregunna]

Vote to close, not constructive.

[codestergit]

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

[azdavis]

👎 this seems really childish

[connorshea]

grabs popcorn

[jamesbascle]

This is some quality trolling.

Bravo.

[FeliciousX]

👍

[John-Shaw]

👍

[ghost]

(。・`ω´・)

[spencermurray]

👍

[azdavis]

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]

👍

[pwarren]

👍

[mohoromitch]

👍

[sczyh30]

→_→

[ianychoi]

👍

[sunfjun]

👍

[bells17]

👍

[EdwinTrejo]

| √ |

[sosng]

👍

[Macmee]

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

[312362115]

👍

[ne-sachirou]

👍

[Raymooond]

[ryh]

AGPL-3.0 is better for you GPL guys

[vus520]

[Bernard-Bernie-Sanders]

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]

[ayberk]

This is high quality humor right here.

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

[natedejager]

[tdtds]

👍

[sikosis]

GPL == cancer

[laplaceliu]

[vansteki]

🐹

[tkremenek]

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.