Comment by mustache_kimono | Hacker News Reader

Comment by mustache_kimono | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

mustache_kimono

> Kinda? Historically there were indeed concerns about reimplementation and copyright.

Free software projects should welcome multiple implementations and interoperability, because these are the mother's milk of free software. It's frankly incoherent, given values of free software, that a reimplementation of, for example, Unix coreutils (GNU) would find fault with a reimplementation of itself (uutils).

Notwithstanding how philosophically incoherent it is, a desire, now that Linux and free software have some market power, to be a bully back, to grasp for monopoly power, to play AT&T, is really distasteful. What's exciting about free software is not the artifact, Linux or coreutils or sudo, but that anyone can create new and interesting alternatives. That users get to make choices about which implementation to use. The existence of FreeBSD does not make Linux worse. It makes it better! The "solution" to an MIT licensed coreutils is a GNU licensed fork which is 10x better. Instead, we get complaints which amount to a kind of free software entitlement, an endless pissing and moaning about how other people won't do new things your way.

This is a major problem in the way that most normies view the GNU and the GPL. In the past, I may not have chosen the GPL for my own projects, but I'd be pleased to contribute to a GPL project. Now, I'd have a hard contributing to a GPL project, because of just how toxic this attitude (no other license matters but ours) is.

The fact that it is free software shouldn't make things different since it's a matter of copyright law. It's fine to copy the interface - the implementation not really. There would certainly be NO problem if a close reimplementation was under the GNU GPL (as a derivive work). But a close reimplementation can't have a different license.

This was a discussion of the philosophical/meta/attitudinal issues, and why this is kinda a bizarre attitude for a free software project to hold.

Legally -- implicit in your comment are unstated assumptions about what is copied from the implementation. Suffice to say -- I disagree that a so-called "clean room" implementation is always required re: software published on the internet, or that the act of simply reading GPL code taints one forever, re: that code. The reason why is the reason why reading a book does not taint one forever and prevent one from writing one's own book -- "You should have used a while loop instead of a for loop here, now you're going to copyright prison." See, and pay close attention to the "Merger Doctrine": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idea–expression_distinction

It's my view that copyright is a rather weak IP protection, and GPL-type advocates have misconstrued the law of copyright for years, especially "derivative works". Mostly because they've been misinformed about the law by mendacious FOSS leadership cough like the FSF and SFC.

Now I'd agree with you, if there is something especially clever/creative about the GNU implementation that the reimplementation copies, that might be an issue, but again, even then, it seems especially rich for a reimplementation to find fault with another reimplementation.

You might also take a look at another comment of mine re: some aspects of this matter: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38164958

*derivative work

a reimplementation that copies the interface has no need to copy the license. GPL people just get scared because they know their license can't prevent people from rewriting their own software (of course, such an idea is ridiculous).

the GPL is not a perfect license, there is no such thing.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com