Hacker News Reader

HNHacker News

Top New Best Ask Show Jobs

Comment by gshdiwuehdhwu | Hacker News Reader

Full thread

gshdiwuehdhwu·

agpl3

they will have to open source all code and data that produced the derivative work.

why reinvent the wheel?

View on HN

We need a more permissive MIT- or BSD-style license.

The GPL is good for some purposes, but too restrictive for others.

What is the use-case for a permissive license that does not permit use by code-fragment-compiler AI systems?

I use MIT- and BSD-licensed code at work in a closed-source commercial system. The documentation for our system acknowledges our use of the open-source code, and I'm sure the authors are proud to be part of our codebase (with attribution). That's the use-case.

Other than the ZFS-on-Linux situation (which is only a problem because the CDDL was intentionally written to cause it), what is the GPL "too restrictive" for? In the ideal world, literally all software would be AGPLv3.

In the ideal world, literally all software would be CC-0.

Copilot is an example of something which should exist, in this form or optimally a much better one.

Copyright is an example of something which should not exist, in any form. As with patents, it's fundamentally a drag on innovation and development.

> In the ideal world, literally all software would be CC-0.

No, because then companies would release heavily obfuscated binaries of everything and not provide the source, or worse, require you to run everything in their cloud and never release anything to you.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com