5 ms·

I think that's a feature not a bug for upstream projects encouraging these rewrites.

by loop22 9mo ago

ekjhgkejhgk 9mo ago
It's harmful if the license of the rewrites if less protective of users, and then the rewrite ends up being very popular.
- MobiusHorizons 9mo ago
  Seems like the users are voting with their feet, right? Maybe respect the users wishes and stop preaching what users should be wanting?
  - bfkwlfkjf 9mo ago
    [flagged]
    - MobiusHorizons 9mo ago
      Obviously I am aware that not all user actions represent choices, but the hypothetical being proposed was specifically in the context of good established free software alternatives existing. In that context users switching to software with more permissive licenses would imply a choice on the users part. It is reasonable to assume this choice implies the users value something about the other software more than they value what the GPL incumbent has to offer. Of course such a choice could be motivated by many things like newer features, slick website, the author’s marketing, but whatever the case if the license was not sufficient enticement to stay, this feels significant.
    - tomhow 9mo ago
      Hey, this is a completely unacceptable comment on HN. Please read the guidelines and make an effort to observe them if you want to participate here. We have to ban accounts that do this repeatedly. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
  - darkwater 9mo ago
    Or maybe the users are just not aware. Licenses flame wars were a thing over 20 years ago, people nowadays can totally don't know about what can happen to a MIT-licensed software.
    - ekjhgkejhgk 9mo ago
      This, thank you.
  - LtWorf 9mo ago
    Users aren't voting. A few people who work at some huge corporations are making these decisions.
    - MobiusHorizons 9mo ago
      Not trying to diminish broader trends in the software landscape, but this thread was talking about big established gnu software (like GPG) and newer rust based alternatives (like sequoia mentioned in the recording). This choice seems fairly unmediated by large corporations. Probably has more to do with the popularity of rust and how well they market, but the license doesn’t seem to matter that much to people.
      - LtWorf 9mo ago
        Uh? So ubuntu replacing gnu coreutils with rust has nothing to do with ubuntu being run by a corporation? And a single developer deciding for the entirety of the debian project just also happened to be a canonical employee by pure chance?
        MobiusHorizons 9mo ago
        I didn’t realize that particular change came with a license change. Thanks for the context.

I think that's a feature not a bug for upstream projects encouraging these rewrites.

by loop22 9mo ago

I think that's a feature not a bug for upstream projects encouraging these rewrites.

It's harmful if the license of the rewrites if less protective of users, and then the rewrite ends up being very popular.

MobiusHorizons 9mo ago
Seems like the users are voting with their feet, right? Maybe respect the users wishes and stop preaching what users should be wanting?
- bfkwlfkjf 9mo ago
  [flagged]
  - MobiusHorizons 9mo ago
    Obviously I am aware that not all user actions represent choices, but the hypothetical being proposed was specifically in the context of good established free software alternatives existing. In that context users switching to software with more permissive licenses would imply a choice on the users part. It is reasonable to assume this choice implies the users value something about the other software more than they value what the GPL incumbent has to offer. Of course such a choice could be motivated by many things like newer features, slick website, the author’s marketing, but whatever the case if the license was not sufficient enticement to stay, this feels significant.
  - tomhow 9mo ago
    Hey, this is a completely unacceptable comment on HN. Please read the guidelines and make an effort to observe them if you want to participate here. We have to ban accounts that do this repeatedly. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
- darkwater 9mo ago
  Or maybe the users are just not aware. Licenses flame wars were a thing over 20 years ago, people nowadays can totally don't know about what can happen to a MIT-licensed software.
  - ekjhgkejhgk 9mo ago
    This, thank you.
- LtWorf 9mo ago
  Users aren't voting. A few people who work at some huge corporations are making these decisions.
  - MobiusHorizons 9mo ago
    Not trying to diminish broader trends in the software landscape, but this thread was talking about big established gnu software (like GPG) and newer rust based alternatives (like sequoia mentioned in the recording). This choice seems fairly unmediated by large corporations. Probably has more to do with the popularity of rust and how well they market, but the license doesn’t seem to matter that much to people.
    - LtWorf 9mo ago
      Uh? So ubuntu replacing gnu coreutils with rust has nothing to do with ubuntu being run by a corporation? And a single developer deciding for the entirety of the debian project just also happened to be a canonical employee by pure chance?
      - MobiusHorizons 9mo ago
        I didn’t realize that particular change came with a license change. Thanks for the context.