this post was submitted on 04 Jul 2023
13 points (100.0% liked)

Now Lemmy Explain: Simple Explanation for Complex Topics

1591 readers
1 users here now

Locked for now. Will reopen if there is interest.

Inspired by r/eli5 and Casually Explained.

Now Lemmy Explain: Starting the "Now Lemmy Explain" community.

I've always felt like the name "Explain Like I'm 5" is patronizing (yes, I know, it's from an Office joke). I want to see a community that's better and more entertaining to read than how it was on reddit.

Now Lemmy Explain: The Rules:

  1. All post title must start with "Now Lemmy Explain: "
  2. All topics are allowed (within reason) but try to avoid ones that will start a flame war.
  3. Keep your explanation concise and entertaining. Remember though, comedy is subjective.
  4. Be excellent to one another, and have fun.
  5. If you see someone else do a great job explaining a particular topic, you are encouraged to cross-post it here, but be sure to credit the original poster for their contributions.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
[email protected]
13
Now Lemmy Explain: Difference between Open Source Licenses (lemmy.world)
submitted 1 year ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]
3 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

One of my own, but posted elsewhere to explain various open source software licenses.

For this, I assume you understand what compilation is.

  • MIT and Apache are “Do whatever you want with my code, just give credit with this license file”, but Apache is a bit more detailed and has a bit more on patent clause.
  • GPL can be summarized into 2 provisions: “You have to share the source code alongside compiled executables” (.exe for windows), and “if your executables compile with GPL code, then the rest of the code that compiles also has to be GPL licensed” (Which is why some call it a viral license)
  • However, the loophole with GPL code is that if you are running anything with GPL code running on a server, you are not distributing the executable if you are only accessing it through a web page, so you don’t have to share the source code, and AGPL closes that loophole by saying “You still have to share the source code for AGPL licensed programs if you are using it as a service”
  • Companies hate GPL code since they can’t legally keep modified software close sourced, which means that Facebook won’t be able to develop proprietary extensions for AGPL licensed software like Lemmy or Mastodon.
top 3 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 6 points 1 year ago (1 children)

To confirm: at all companies I worked at, using GPL software was banned in all circumstances. I understand that some GPL variants allow some stuff in some cases; but the legal teams everywhere I worked did not consider those sufficient to take a risk, so all GPL was banned, always.

I remember once saying “this sounds like the exact use case MongoDB was created for” while working for Apple, and a more senior engineer cry-laughed about it. Turns out Postgres has a surprising amount of mature JSON storage and querying features (I think some are provided through extensions), so that’s where we went instead.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Yeah, the GPL rule has been what I've seen as well, which is why I was very surprised when Facebook released LLaMa training code under GPL.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago

Oh? I had no idea… Maybe they have solid reasons to never want to make any money out of it, and therefore want to make sure that no one else can either? Totally guessing, I’m not even sure if that makes sense…