They matter as long you're willing to enforce them, and have the time and money to do so.
In that case, you may be able to submit some form of take down request to GitHub against that project and other projects who are using your library.
https://github.com/search?q=bouk%2Fmonkey&type=commits
edit: wow, one of the projects that depended on your library was arduino up to 2020. https://github.com/arduino/arduino-cli/commit/09b4e8804fbd61...
edit2: was also used by AWS up to last week when they removed it. https://github.com/awslabs/karpenter/commit/d84365e8c44178ea...
the library is currently in use by Heroku/SalesForce to build deploy java apps (or something like that) https://github.com/heroku/java-buildpack/blob/master/go.mod
I wonder what sort of settlement you could get if you were to send them a lawyer for real.
The damages probably amount to $0. "Don't use this code, no seriously don't" isn't exactly an advertisement of the value it provide.
which doesn't even use go.
And they'd like you to even move away from that replacement to an ever newer replacement: https://github.com/heroku/buildpacks-jvm
This is why the GPL is more developer friendly than other licenses. If a business doesn't like the GPL you can offer to relicense your code, ... for money. And money is the restitution you seek when the license is violated.
Non-free licensed code has been on GitHub for quite some time. It's not only about free software and you should not assume so, as in all software.
Edit: changed FOSS to "free"
It would be an interesting precedent, forcing companies to comply with everything their advertisements say and doing away with any sort of fine print and ToS. I’m all for it, in fact. Total Ankh-Morporkization!
By technicality, the license has been violated by quite a large variety of corporations: Microsoft, AWS, Heroku, Bilibili, Baidu, Apache, Arduino, etc. [0~6], and much much more [7]
Crazy.
[0]: https://github.com/microsoft/bedrock/blob/a0ab244a80a94133cb...
[1]: https://github.com/awslabs/karpenter/pull/609
[2]: https://github.com/heroku/java-buildpack/blob/master/go.mod#...
[3]: https://github.com/bilibili/overlord/blob/b524449801b5411583...
[4]: https://github.com/baidu/openrasp/blob/f992962207bec063eda6f...
[5]: https://github.com/apache/camel-k/issues/2067
[6]: https://github.com/arduino/arduino-cli/issues/740
[7]: https://sourcegraph.com/search?q=context:global+%28bou.ke%7C...
If you do personal projects that are open source it's equally important to know what licenses your dependencies have if you release those projects to the public.
I would describe an end user count, revenue size, etc in order to apply special circumstances to corporations. Drone.io does a great job of this.
The lawyer seemed genuinely surprised and said they would read up on it. I'm pretty sure my bringing this up in a friendly manner caused them to question their assumptions. Had I picked a fight during the presentation I'd just be labeled a basement dweller.
However, this lawyer also told me something interesting. To some extent it doesn't matter whether I was able to change his mind. As long as other lawyers in the field have this bogeyman concept in mind, the use of GPL will get flagged in due diligence, etc. and it's easier to simply not use a component with strong copyleft when developing a product (unless it's as irreplaceable as Linux).
This is a long-winded way of saying that selling exceptions will likely scare off potential purchasers long before they are in a position to consider the purchase. Most shops have a blanket "no GPL ever" policy and a dev won't even bother with the component even for a prototype.
For example, using an LGPL based JavaScript library just leaves me confused every time. I read the LGPL 3.0, read some stack overflow answers, and read the GNU website. Yet I am left without being 100% certain that I can minify the LGPL JavaScript into a single file with my own source code (because JavaScript is not object code, and because sending JavaScript to the browser is distribution).
With BSD/MIT licences everything is clear and less ambiguous, and if I get something wrong then it is usually something easy to fix.
If I were a general counsel, I wouldn’t trust all my developers to follow the GPL licenses properly nor would I trust developers to correctly avoid simple mistakes. A default ban limits liability, reduces risks of negative publicity, and anyone that needs an exception has to justify it.
Idealistically, I love the GPL, and I truely believe in the goal of share and share alike.
Practically I understand why following the *GPL licences is difficult and that it involves multiple risks for a business, and so many commercial businesses sensibly prefer to avoid the costs.
> (F) Platform Limitation- The licenses granted in sections 2(A) & 2(B) extend only to the software or derivative works that (1) are run on a Microsoft Windows operating system product, and (2) are not Excluded Products.
So you could not deliver it on Safari, but also not on Chrome if it ran on Mac.
Aaaand that is why the JSXLSX implementation was developed, exactly the same as xlsx.js but without the restriction.
Sure, it's funny, but it's a joke at the expense of everyone else. This is like going to a party and walking up to every person and making a joke at their expense. Were the jokes funny? Maybe. Does everything think you're an asshole? Almost certainly.
In this case the license was silly, but if this library had been GPL, it’d still have been a massive violation by most of those big companies, and that’s something we need to pay more attention to.
People shouldn't use software without checking the license, but if you're making a joke, for a pattern that's actually something used in the industry, because you believe that pattern is bad, yeah, you should label it a joke.
If someone spends the time to integrate mystery code without taking the time to check the license allows it then frankly they dug that hole themselves.
You absolutely have the power to end the controversy by switching to a more mainstream license then adding a clear disclaimer like “use at your own risk”.
GitHub currently lists 465 projects that depend on your library, which means more than a handful of devs find it useful.
(We fleshbags could probably use more widespread application and understanding of formal language and notation as well—the most cumbersome description of linear interpolation I’ve ever seen was in the section on a real estate tax hike in the tax code; it had paragraphs! I mean, I feel for those who didn’t have a good time in high-school algebra, but I don’t see how they could reasonably deal with that monstrosity either.)
Algebrophobia apparently is a thing.
Culturally, yes, and I can’t help but be awed at how stupid and self-inflicted it is. (See “Mathematician’s lament”, et al.) Introducing algebra into legal practice now would probably be a spectacularly bad idea even if it were possible. That’s why I mentioned “more widespread application and understanding of formal language”. Passing this hurdle is a massive ordeal—if I meaningfully contributed to it and knew that, I could probably die a happy man—but, I mean, we were talking disembodied brains in VR here.
By the way, can anyone explain what it is people actually like about A Brief History of Time? I went on to study some of this stuff, but the book appears both unnecessarily convoluted and surprisingly stingy with actual information compared to my preferred pop sci fare. I like me some enigmatic promises of explanations, but Hawking’s were left mostly unfulfilled, or so it seemed to me.
To give a few examples, https://www.google.com/books/edition/The_Boy_s_Own_Annual/X7...
"Sure as goodness, I thought you both did it as a lark", from a book published in 1895, so it's reasonable to assume it was already in some level of common idiom by then. It's unlikely The Boys Own Annual was trail blazing in its use of language.
Or https://www.google.com/books/edition/The_Fortnightly_Review/... from 1929. "D you remember I got certified as a lunatic for trying to make a living by betting that one horse would reach a post before another, I admit it was silly, but I only did it as a lark"
Language changes and evolves over time. You're attempting to be King Canute, except maybe one apparently deluded enough to believe the courtiers, only not as the tide is on the way in, but as the tide is long past and you've almost drowned.
The ship sailed on the point you're making before you were even born.
Shush.
> on/as a lark idiom
> US, informal
> just as a way to have fun
> She entered the race on/as a lark.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/as%20a%20lark
> lark noun [C] (ACTIVITY)
> an activity done for enjoyment or amusement:
> He started hang-gliding years ago as a lark.
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/lark (definition from the Cambridge Academic Content Dictionary)
On a lark, for a lark, as a lark, larking about, and so on are all common. It's not some obscure quotation or meaning, it's just a simile comparing with the bird (perceived as happy).
The “lark” in the idiom “on a lark” has nothing to do with a simile to birds. It derives from an old Norse word which means “to play.” https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/lark#Etymology_2
Using correct terms helps to communicate effectively. What is wrong with promoting correct use of English? I always appreciate it when my coworkers promote correct programming idioms to me, it helps me become a better programmer.
As has been mentioned elsewhere, language is constantly changing. It isn't even that slow of a process. As a result the vast majority of linguists view linguistics as a descriptive rather than prescriptive science. The "prescriptive" approach to linguistics is much more common among teachers but hopefully that is also being tempered.
The reason why this matters is because prescriptive approaches to language have a long history of being used to enforce class, ethnicity and geography based discrimination.
I think there is a fine line to walk here. If you are going to fight against the changing of language, you need a good reason. I personally really dislike the confusion of "literal" and "figurative" (where "literal" now figuratively means "figurative") because it clearlt reduces the expressivity of the language. In contrast, the advent of "irregardless" doesn't reduce the expressivity of the language (though it foes add some minor complexity as it is an annoying exception in the meaning of the "ir" prefix.) Similarly, the common use of "me" instead of "I" in "and" clauses is commonly touted as a misuse of language even though I have never encountered as usage where it added ambiguity and is extremely common. I've had people tell me they take it as a marker of low intelligence while those same people will make a very similar mistake by switching "me" for "myself" in and clauses.
I do think there is value in teaching people about the historical and cross-cultural uses of language, as this increases our ability to understand eachother. I also think there are times where we should push back against language shifts that descrease the effectiveness of the language. However, I think it has to be done with care to avoid perpetuating injustice and becoming irrelevant as the real language in use shifts.
In your particular case, you seem to be denying the existence of fairly commonly used phrases that don't actually have any negative impact on the information carrying ability of the language.
This is a sloppy argument. Nothing about teaching correct English enforces discrimination and in fact it does the opposite by leveling the playing field.
If one day teachers stopped teaching grammar, that would only worsen the linguistic shift across the races and classes, allowing them to more easily discriminate between each other.
Even if you want to erase the idea that there is a “correct” English, the inevitable presence of the differences in speech will regress the concept to “my tribe’s English” and eventually “my tribe’s language.”
Teaching and promoting a standard and correct English promotes a more liberal society. I’m puzzled that sloppy arguments like the one you made above continually permeate culture when it only takes a few logical steps to see how it results in an outcome opposite to what you want.
That's where we are already. What you propose is forcing the other tribes to speak your tribe's english.
I am not saying that there aren't advatages to teaching people about other tribe's dialects. If you combine that with inclusive policies you can merge dialects. When you enforce a specific dialect, then you exclude and alienate speakers of other dialects and this will INCREASE linguistic drift.
I see nothing sloppy about my argument and I don't think that particular word (especially when you make no effort to explain what is "sloppy") is more of an ad hominem attack than perhaps you intended.
> When you enforce a specific dialect, then you exclude and alienate speakers of other dialects and this will INCREASE linguistic drift.
How exactly would that happen? It would provide a means for other dialects to adopt the standard dialect and communicate with the wider community. That’s the opposite of increasing linguistic drift. In the situation you’re suggesting, you’re expecting everyone to understand and communicate in every other dialect simultaneously. That’s just an unrealistic expectation.
> That's where we are already. What you propose is forcing the other tribes to speak your tribe's english.
I propose everyone who desires to participate in the English-speaking world voluntarily unite and find consensus under standard English. Stop taking something personally that isn’t personal and speak the standard English so that we may all better communicate and information can more freely disseminate across more populations.
Imagine if people started making the argument that correcting incorrect Python was racist/classist and people should just start forking Python if they do not like standard Python. That would be silly yet that is what you are suggesting. Obviously having a single agreed-upon dialect of Python is beneficial to everyone and it shouldn’t be personally offensive to recommend that people program in standard Python.
It definitely is not a talking point. This is a stance I have arrived at after studying linguistics, philosohy of language and psychology then doing lots of traveling and spending over a decade thinking about it, all as someone who is inclined towards engaging in language pedantry. If there are errors in reasoning, those errors are mine since it is a stance I arrived at without hearing it from other people.
> How exactly would that happen?
How it always happens? How much time have you spend in multi-lingual contexts? How do you think creols and slang develope? Language naturally evolves to fit the needs of people who use it.
> I propose everyone who desires to participate in the English-speaking world voluntarily unite and find consensus under standard English.
Who decides what is standard? Can the standard change? Is it fair to set that standard as something that one group learns at home and another group has to study and practice to use?
> Stop taking something personally that isn’t personal
It's hard to get more personal than the language you think in and use to talk to the people closest to you.
> we may all better communicate and information can more freely disseminate across more populations.
You say "we", but the "we" for whom it is easier is limited to the people that already speak the annoited "correct" dialect.
> Imagine if people started making the argument that correcting incorrect Python was racist/classist and people should just start forking Python if they do not like standard Python.
Programming "languages" aren't actually languages in any sense that makes your argument here have any value. Programming "languages" are actually complicated mathematical notations. Funnily enough, your example, python, actually has two versions in use. If everyone refused to use python 3 because it was "bad python" then the communtiy would have been worse off.
The fundemental problem with your position is that it is inherently hypocritical, arbitrary and self-serving. You distinguish between the age of "as a lark" and "on a lark" based on an arbirary point in time. There are plenty of idioms / meanings that are younger than "as a lark" but that you hypocritically would accept as just fine. For example, you use the term "forking" in a manner that is both semantically and grammatically very new. If a word or usage arises as part of your dialect, it automatically becomes part of the "standard", but if it arises in the dialect of an outgroup then it qualifies as "incorrect english".
I am not opposed to developing language standards, but those standards need to be both responsive to shifts in the language and inclusive for a wide range of dialects. Ideally you can also teach this standard without impicitly judging people as stupid and uneducated when they use their native dialect. You also need to be careful about using adherence to this standard as a gatekeeper to prevent people from having equal opportunities.
> How it always happens? How much time have you spend in multi-lingual contexts? How do you think creols and slang develope? Language naturally evolves to fit the needs of people who use it.
This is a failure to demonstrate how promoting language standards may result in increased discrimination.
Again, whether a language standard is promoted or not, people will discriminate against others who differ from them. The existence of a language standard removes the confusion and ambiguity as to what the correct form of the language is. This enables everyone to participate in the usage of the language equally.
> Funnily enough, your example, python, actually has two versions in use. If everyone refused to use python 3 because it was "bad python" then the communtiy would have been worse off.
Right and it took an official body with authority over the language to get everyone to reunite over Python 3. If no official body stepped up and no standard version was declared, there may still be large fragmentation between Python 2 and 3. Everyone clearly understands fragmentation of a language community is a stark negative. You are suggesting we pretend that a standard form of English does not exist which would only result in further fragmentation of English, which just as in Python, would be a bad thing for the community at large.
> Ideally you can also teach this standard without impicitly judging people as stupid and uneducated when they use their native dialect.
No one in this thread ever suggested using language standards for this purpose. And again, the existence of a language standard is largely orthogonal to this phenomenon. Judging people as stupid comes from differences in people, not language standards. In the absence of the existence of a “correct English” the judgements would transition from “you are not speaking correct English” (which is shared by all) to “you are not speaking my tribe’s English” (which is unique to a single tribe and would be a lot more tribally divisive).
> Who decides what is standard?
Whoever is the appropriate authority of the language. It could be a national government or an academic organization. Language standardization isn’t a new concept, nearly all European languages have gone through a standardization phase. It’s a solved problem. This is the equivalent of saying we can’t standardize Python because there is no obvious way to decide who is allowed to standardize it. That is just silly. Either an interested committee will form or a pre-existing authority will take on the responsibility.
It does that right now, no "may" about it.
> Again, whether a language standard is promoted or not, people will discriminate against others who differ from them.
"Promoted" is a too nice a word when the reality is that the standard is used limit the opportunities of people who don't follow the standard.
> You are suggesting we pretend that a standard form of English does not exist
It doesn't exist. There is no single standard English, there isn't even a standard set of spellings for English.
> Judging people as stupid comes from differences in people, not language standards.
I've literally had people tell that they assume someone is stupider if they use the "me" instead of "I" in an "and" clause.
> Whoever is the appropriate authority of the language. It could be a national government or an academic organization. Language standardization isn’t a new concept, nearly all European languages have gone through a standardization phase.
There is no such authority for English, so there is no standard?
Also, "standardisation" didn't work for German or Spanish (the other two European languages I speak) as local dialects diverge significantly from the "official standard". It is far from "solved".
> This is the equivalent of saying we can’t standardize Python because there is no obvious way to decide who is allowed to standardize it.
That isn't what I said at all.
> In the absence of the existence of a “correct English” the judgements would transition from “you are not speaking correct English” (which is shared by all) to “you are not speaking my tribe’s English” (which is unique to a single tribe and would be a lot more tribally divisive).
Those judgements already happen. Teaching people about each other's dialects would make them less foriegn and lead to less judgement and better understanding.
When you take that position that there is "one correct English", that makes it harder to encourage people to learn each other's dialects and it encourages discrimination against people whose dialects differ more from the one correct English.
Finally, I'll repeat myself: I am not wholey opposed to language standards on principle. A good language standard would be determined inclusive organization that is representative of all its speakers, would be a living standard that changes as the underlying language and it's dialects change (i.e descriptive), and would understood as common reference point for communication rather than as the one correct way of using that language ( i.e. not proscriptive).
English does not have such a such a standard and other language standards I am aware of are not super effective and tend to be rather eurocentric and not inclusive of their broader populations.
> It does that right now, no "may" about it.
If language standards indeed cause discrimination, please demonstrate how. Otherwise this is a baseless claim.
> I've literally had people tell that they assume someone is stupider if they use the "me" instead of "I" in an "and" clause.
So you think if a standard English did not exist, then people would no longer judge others who speak differently from them as stupid?
> A good language standard would be determined inclusive organization that is representative of all its speakers, would be a living standard that changes as the underlying language and it's dialects change (i.e descriptive), and would understood as common reference point for communication rather than as the one correct way of using that language ( i.e. not proscriptive).
Right so you support the idea of a language standard, likely for all the benefits I’ve listed, except when people use them to make other people feel bad. Just a note to everyone reading this: the subject of making people feel bad is a social phenomenon that is entirely orthogonal to whether or not a language standard is “proscriptive.” The term he is looking for is “normative” and all standards, language or not, must be normative to a degree.
That wasn't my claim. My claim was that prescriptive approaches to language facilitate and magnify discrimination and have historically frequently been used to justify and enforce discrimination. You can look at how regional UK dialects affect employability and education outcomes. You can look at the way speakers of the ebonics dialect have been forces to learn to change not just their dialect but their accent to get jobs. There is such a wealth of examples of the roles that language plays in descrimination that suggesting otherwise seems odd to me.
> So you think if a standard English did not exist, then people would no longer judge others who speak differently from them as stupid?
I think if we encouraged people to gain more exposure to other dialects in school and didn't teach people that those dialects are wrong then there would be less judging of people based on how they speak rather than what they are saying.
> Right so you support the idea of a language standard, likely for all the benefits I’ve listed, except when people use them to make other people feel bad.
That is not what I said. I might support a standard, depending on how that standard is determined, how it is promoted and how flexible it is to change.
My concerns with linguistic standards has nothing to do with "making people feel bad" and everything to do with denying opportunities to people. I've stated this repeatedly so I'm not sure why this isn't getting through...
> The term he is looking for is “normative” and all standards, language or not, must be normative to a degree.
No, the term is the one I used originally but then mistyped in my last response "prescriptive" ("proscriptive" is the opposite, telling people what not to do rather than what what to do.)
"Normative" and "prescriptive" are similar but distinct terms. When you tell people how to speak, that is prescriptive, when you judge people based on how they speak, that is normative. So in my view, prescriptive linguistics encourages normative behaviors around language.
If you apply for a job in China and you only speak broken Chinese, resembling a pidgin language, it’s not “discrimination” if you are not hired. Similarly, if you apply to a position where you are expected to speak standard English and you only speak a lesser known dialect, that is not discrimination either. It’s not meeting job requirements. Yes it’s unfortunate that those who don’t have the skill of speaking standard English cannot obtain those jobs, just as it’s unfortunate non-Chinese speakers cannot obtain jobs in Chinese-speaking areas. The good news is that we have brains that are capable of learning new skills.
> My claim was that prescriptive approaches to language facilitate and magnify discrimination and have historically frequently been used to justify and enforce discrimination.
This is just false. Discrimination is a social phenomenon that itself is causal to your so-called prescriptive approach to language, not the other way around. In other words, the pre-existing discriminatory attitude causes the exclusionary behavior in language not vice versa. It’s silly to blame racism/classism on the promotion of correct English. Especially when the existence of a standard for correct English makes it clear and unambiguous for new people entering the English-speaking world how they can most effectively communicate with existing English speakers.
Except the dialects are often local to the places where the opportunities are being sought and can exist due to a long history of racism driven segregation...so you analogy is completely erroneous.
> In other words, the pre-existing discriminatory attitude causes the exclusionary behavior in language not vice versa.
I'm glad to hear you admit alteast part of this. If you grant that discrimination leads to some language prescriptions, is it that hard to see how those prescriptions, when used normatively by people with no intention of racism, can end up perpetuating the exact racist attitudes that lead to the creation of those language prescriptions?
This is precisely my point: this history and the current reality means that we should be care about how and when it is worth spreading prescriptive approaches to language, ideally limiting it to times when ambiguity is created or meaning is lost.
“Local” is totally subjective. The core point is that requiring that a job application speaks in a certain manner is not necessarily unjust and likely in the vast majority of cases is a pragmatic matter. Language / dialect is not an intrinsic property of someone’s identity. People are able to learn new accents, dialects, and languages. Accents being the easiest to learn. It’s not a protected class. The existence of a standard makes it easier for newcomers to learn the language.
> If you grant that discrimination leads to some language prescriptions, is it that hard to see how those prescriptions, when used normatively by people with no intention of racism, can end up perpetuating the exact racist attitudes that lead to the creation of those language prescriptions?
No, that’s nonsense. If someone’s feelings are unintentionally hurt because they are made aware that their English is not correct, that is not racism.
OED cites P.G.Wodehouse (for a lark), and J.Krantz (of a lark).
The phrase “as a lark” probably emerges as a mixture of “as a joke” and “on a lark.”
Why did I not spell this out in the blog post? For my own amusement. I also think it shows that licenses really don't matter all that much as some people think, they are not computer code.