Haiku should use the Unlicense or WTFPL license

No, I’m not against the GPL. It is a fine license, that had a greater purpose 20+ years ago than it does today. That is not to say it no longer has a purpose. Did you read that article by Eric Raymond?

My question is, when an AI writes code, what license does it use?

That’s missing the point. I don’t think anyone is offended by the fact we did not chose their preferred licence and planning a fork because of that (what a silly reason for a fork it would be).
The licence was chosen in the beginning of tqe Haiku project so that our code could be reused in as many cases as possible. It was uncertain at the time if BeOS would have an official continuation, and that would have been one place where Haiku sources could be reused.
There is however a drawback: if we really want Haiku to be purely MIT licensed, we wouldn’t be able to integrate any existing code using a different license. However, this is not our approach to this. We do integrate a lot of 3rd party code under different licenses as you can see in AboutSystem. Some examples are the FreeBSD network drivers (under some BSD license) and the NTFS filesyster (GPL). I don’t think this has been a problem to anyone, and if it is, it’s up to them to provide replacements under a suitable license.

5 Likes

I was referring to someone else’s statement without directly quoting them. And having been around when OpenBeOS started, there was in fact a small portion of the community who voiced dismay at not choosing GPL. I too assumed this sentiment would have diminished. But apparently it did not diminish 100%. Yes I agree a fork for this reason alone would be silly. I brought up the possibility in jest, as I wouldn’t put it past the zealous nature of GPL fans. Same person said that Haiku would be alot further along with GPL because it could use GPL code. Which is false for reasons both you and I stated. Haiku can and does use GPL code. Which is part of the beauty of the MIT license. It does a lot with few words.

Yeah I read most of it mate, it seems quite interesting. But why can’t crackers be called hackers though?

The term hacker being used as reference to those who break into systems illegally is a media misappropriation of the term. The term originally meant someone who was adept at building hardware and/or software computer systems. Why would you want to use a definition proliferated by the corrupt media? Hackers build things. Crackers break things.

3 Likes

What about white hat hackers? They don’t illegally break into people’s computers? They break things in order to find more fixes to them?

Though ‘white hat’ hackers are ‘good guys’, a hacker in the sense of breaking into things is still cracking into them, and should be considered a ‘cracker’. A hacker is one who enjoys working with computers, and finds creative ways to make them better. Examples would include Woz, RMS, ESR, Sir Berners-Lee, and individuals like Larry Wall (author of Perl). A dictionary definition can be found here. Also see Revolution OS and The Code to learn more about the culture (granted, it’s Linux-centric, but they are still fun). As a fun bit of trivia, one of the reasons I like Jurassic Park is because Lex mentions “I’m a hacker” in the right sense (plus the cool Quadra tower, SGI Irix, and 3D file viewer (fsn) cameos). :slight_smile:

This page is a fun read too.

P.S. My apologies about all the edits; I forgot to add several links!

1 Like

Think of safes and vaults. The hacker or engineer who designed the safe might hire a safe cracker to find flaws in the safe so the engineer can design a better system. The safe cracker is still a cracker, not a hacker. Calling a cracker a hacker, to borrow the analogy from Hacker How-To, is like calling a car thief an automotive engineer. See the cognitive dissonance?

Only white people can be called crackers! :smiley:

1 Like

Wtf?.. O.O!

1 Like

No need to be quite so surprised, I was just making a word play joke there. Hence the smiley.