Hi, I'm Mark Pilgrim. You may remember me from such classics as "Dive Into Python" and "Universal Character Encoding Detector." I am the original author of chardet. First off, I would like to thank...
Well at first, nice that we have a kernel developer here, it’s not so easy to get your code into. And second, nope, I do not contributed to the kernel. I once wrote a module for educational purposes a long long time ago. Then FUSE came along and it helped me to solve the task with “more comfort”.
Perhaps this is our fundamental difference. I write code, solve my small task and have fun by doing it. If someone can get something of it, it’s twice as nice.
And that’s fine. And everybody should license his code as he likes.
But my point stands. String copyleft is important.
That does not mean that LGPL is always a good idea, and charted is a good example, as the python stdlib is MIT licensed, and therefore an LGPL charted has no chance of getting accepted.
Btw, the easiest first step would have been: mail every contributor (there are not that many in that case) that provided more then hast some minor fixes and ask for permission. That is a valid way to change the license.
I agree at the point, that everyone should use that license he like.
Btw, the easiest first step would have been: mail every contributor (there are not that many in that case) that provided more then hast some minor fixes and ask for permission. That is a valid way to change the license.
No, I think, that would not work this way, you have to ask every contributor, no matter how big the influence was. And everyone must agree unanimously. It’s almost an impossible task.
You don’t need it to be unanimous, but if it’s not unanimous, you have to rewrite the parts from people who refused or can’t be contacted. If their sum contributions aren’t too big, it can be feasible but a lot of work. If too many or if key contributors refuse, the work can scale exponentially.
You are not logged in. However you can subscribe from another Fediverse account, for example Lemmy or Mastodon. To do this, paste the following into the search field of your instance: [email protected]
This is the official technology community of Lemmy.ml for all news related to creation and use of technology, and to facilitate civil, meaningful discussion around it.
Ask in DM before posting product reviews or ads. All such posts otherwise are subject to removal.
Rules:
1: All Lemmy rules apply
2: Do not post low effort posts
3: NEVER post naziped*gore stuff
4: Always post article URLs or their archived version URLs as sources, NOT screenshots. Help the blind users.
5: personal rants of Big Tech CEOs like Elon Musk are unwelcome (does not include posts about their companies affecting wide range of people)
6: no advertisement posts unless verified as legitimate and non-exploitative/non-consumerist
7: crypto related posts, unless essential, are disallowed
Well at first, nice that we have a kernel developer here, it’s not so easy to get your code into. And second, nope, I do not contributed to the kernel. I once wrote a module for educational purposes a long long time ago. Then FUSE came along and it helped me to solve the task with “more comfort”.
I did contribute once. And it was a pain. 20 lines of code but hours of work, Mailinglists, feedback, …
Don’t het me wrong , it was fun. But would I have done the same for BSD, so that apple could use this? Hell no
Perhaps this is our fundamental difference. I write code, solve my small task and have fun by doing it. If someone can get something of it, it’s twice as nice.
And that’s fine. And everybody should license his code as he likes.
But my point stands. String copyleft is important.
That does not mean that LGPL is always a good idea, and charted is a good example, as the python stdlib is MIT licensed, and therefore an LGPL charted has no chance of getting accepted.
Btw, the easiest first step would have been: mail every contributor (there are not that many in that case) that provided more then hast some minor fixes and ask for permission. That is a valid way to change the license.
I agree at the point, that everyone should use that license he like.
No, I think, that would not work this way, you have to ask every contributor, no matter how big the influence was. And everyone must agree unanimously. It’s almost an impossible task.
You don’t need it to be unanimous, but if it’s not unanimous, you have to rewrite the parts from people who refused or can’t be contacted. If their sum contributions aren’t too big, it can be feasible but a lot of work. If too many or if key contributors refuse, the work can scale exponentially.
I agree regarding consesus. Unlikely, but: heaving major contributions greenlighted and only replace parts of the code are fat note feasible.
No communication happened to my understanding at any point with any contributor.