Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

I disagree but I understand your perspective, and that's fine. I mostly wanted to communicate "the choice of license was mostly out of needing to just pick one, it was not ideologically motivated."


I understand what you mean but wouldn't you say that in itself seems a bit careless considering the scope and context of this project?

But I get it, at least it doesn't have no license.


I don't think it's careless because I think that for someone who does not really care about the ideology here other than "I want people to be able to use my code," I think that the MIT license or similar is actually the closest license to their intent.

I also don't think it's careless because "Go with community norms" is a considered way to choose something.

Finally, this isn't really about "careless" exactly, but if I were the authors of this project, I would deliberately choose MIT/Apache2.0 over the GPL, and so like, I dunno, suggesting that they're not being responsible because they didn't pick the GPL isn't a framing I'd agree with.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: