undefined | Better HN

0 pointspyfon1y ago0 comments

At this point I'd include some of the code as binary blobs and "pay me for the source!". In addition to GPL!

0 comments

Temping, but we don't fight their crummy tactics by using the same ones.

pyfonOP1y ago

Why is it crummy? Open source benefits big tech now. Especially for cloud based stuff.

Only open source it if it fucks big tech. E.g. bittorrent or an alternative browser. Or an app on your local machine as a SaaS alternative.

ryao1y ago

Blobs violate clause 2 of the Open Source Definition:

https://opensource.org/osd

We are no longer talking about open source software if you distribute blobs in place of source code.

1 more reply

kstrauser1y ago

Less permissive copyleft licenses like GPL and AGPL go a long way toward preventing that. It’s important to choose them over weaker licenses if you don't want companies using your work without giving back. If you do that, you don't have to do other unusual things to protect your users’ rights.

1 more reply

gus_massa1y ago

GPL does not allow binary blobs. MIT and BSD doe.

jasonlotito1y ago

In the context of this thread (where the commenter is suggesting the author release a binary with a different license), your comment is meaningless.

The author of the GPL code can release binary-only blobs released under something other than the GPL. Suggesting that the copyright holder cannot relicense their code how they want is absurd.

Saying the "GPL does not allow binary blobs" implies that the author is not allowed to release binary blogs, which is not true in the slightest.

gus_massa1y ago

Can billg make a repo with win.com and win.bat, and use the GPL licence because the win.bat is the source code and win.com is only a binary blob?

1 more reply

gunalx1y ago

You are perfectly fine to include your own binary blobs with your own GPL licensed source, you are not violating the gpl as the binary blobs was never under GPL.

PaulDavisThe1st1y ago

and as long as the binary blobs are not derivatives of GPL'ed code ...

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse

0 comments

kstrauser1y ago

Temping, but we don't fight their crummy tactics by using the same ones.

pyfonOP1y ago

Why is it crummy? Open source benefits big tech now. Especially for cloud based stuff.

Only open source it if it fucks big tech. E.g. bittorrent or an alternative browser. Or an app on your local machine as a SaaS alternative.

ryao1y ago

Blobs violate clause 2 of the Open Source Definition:

https://opensource.org/osd

We are no longer talking about open source software if you distribute blobs in place of source code.

1 more reply

kstrauser1y ago

1 more reply

gus_massa1y ago

GPL does not allow binary blobs. MIT and BSD doe.

jasonlotito1y ago

In the context of this thread (where the commenter is suggesting the author release a binary with a different license), your comment is meaningless.

The author of the GPL code can release binary-only blobs released under something other than the GPL. Suggesting that the copyright holder cannot relicense their code how they want is absurd.

Saying the "GPL does not allow binary blobs" implies that the author is not allowed to release binary blogs, which is not true in the slightest.

gus_massa1y ago

Can billg make a repo with win.com and win.bat, and use the GPL licence because the win.bat is the source code and win.com is only a binary blob?

1 more reply

gunalx1y ago

You are perfectly fine to include your own binary blobs with your own GPL licensed source, you are not violating the gpl as the binary blobs was never under GPL.

PaulDavisThe1st1y ago

and as long as the binary blobs are not derivatives of GPL'ed code ...

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse