Re:UBlockOrigin GPL code being stolen by team behind Honey b...
by PaulDavisThe1st on Thursday January 02, 2025 @10:03PM
(#42581858)
See my reply to DylanXXXXXX immediately adjacent.
I'm not making up my own definitions. I'm contrasting Garrett Hardin's use of the term in his famous book "Tragedy of the Commons", which is the way most people on HN use it with Elinor Ostrom's much more enlightened definition of it in her refutations of Hardin's claims (refutations that Hardin has accepted).
In Ostrom's sense, yes, GPL'ed code comprises a commons. In Hardin's sense, it does not (or at least, it has a bunch of features to it that render his entire thesis about commons inapplicable).
Re:UBlockOrigin GPL code being stolen by team behind Honey b...
by PaulDavisThe1st on Thursday January 02, 2025 @10:04PM
(#42581866)
Also, do let me know how you can legally re-use GPL'ed code if you own code is not GPL'ed, unless you just mean "by reading it".
Re:UBlockOrigin GPL code being stolen by team behind Honey b...
by Brian_K_White on Friday January 03, 2025 @12:12AM
(#42582689)
By not redistributing it.
That is embarassing for such a self professed domain expert to say something as ridiculous as:
"You cannot (re)use any GPL code unless you agree to license your own code under the GPL."
I still don't hear an argument that actually shows how it's not a commons. If you're just arbitrarily declaring it actually means "public domain" I say you don't get to declare that and inventing your own definitions for terms is not a valid argument or even valid comminication, and there is no further point in attempting to communicate with anyone doing that.