[HN Gopher] SDSL - Succinct Data Structure Library
___________________________________________________________________
SDSL - Succinct Data Structure Library
Author : signa11
Score : 69 points
Date : 2022-09-04 11:38 UTC (11 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (github.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (github.com)
| ketzu wrote:
| Oh wow, seeing this on the front page makes me nostalgic of my
| bachelor thesis for the creator of SDSL 10 years ago. I remember
| getting the question "did your resulsts get merged into SDSL?"
| during the defense and, unfortunately, I had to say no because
| they weren't useful in the end.
|
| Glad to see Simon seems to be doing well and the project found
| some attetion!
| wrs wrote:
| Note that this has a GPL3 (not LGPL) license. I'm curious about
| the rationale for doing that with a template-based data
| structures library. Why would you want to limit adoption so much?
|
| (Edit: realized after typing this that yes, LGPL wouldn't change
| anything for a template library. Question remains though.)
| Nokinside wrote:
| As it seems that there is just one copyright holder, the
| obvious answer is that it makes buying commercial licenses more
| likely option.
|
| For a small company or single person who sells code for a
| living, GPL is a great license as a first option. People can
| play with the code and use it for software that is GPL
| compatible. For everything else you must come up with a coin.
| lupire wrote:
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10158322
|
| 1. LGPL doesn't help header code.
|
| 2. It not practical to change a license after receiving outside
| contributions without copyright assignment.
|
| And maybe also 3 they don't have the energy to pursue violators
| and don't really care.
| jltsiren wrote:
| Probably the same reason as with other libraries from the
| academia. When all free licenses are pretty much equivalent
| from your point of view, choosing a license is just a
| bureaucratic formality. The person choosing the license usually
| doesn't think about the issue too much, and they probably don't
| have that much experience with licenses anyway.
|
| The currently active fork of SDSL
| (https://github.com/xxsds/sdsl-lite) has a BSD license. There
| was supposed to be a team developing the fork, but most people
| either left the academia or had their research interests move
| elsewhere. Now there seems to be just a single developer who
| maintains SDSL as a byproduct of SeqAn.
| wrs wrote:
| What surprises me is that I would think the usual goal of an
| academic project is to make it usable as broadly as possible
| (indeed, the least restricted licenses originated from
| universities). And that every institution would have figured
| out license guidance so it wouldn't be an accidental choice.
| WCSTombs wrote:
| > The currently active fork of SDSL
| (https://github.com/xxsds/sdsl-lite) has a BSD license.
|
| How is that legally possible? As I understand, the GPL
| doesn't allow a derivative work to remove the copyleft
| provisions from the license.
|
| Or maybe I misunderstood your comment?
| kroltan wrote:
| Not sure if this is the case here, but you can change the
| license of an open source project by unanimous permission
| of every contributor. (Possibly removing the contributions
| from those who disagree)
|
| This will not revoke the licenses for copies already in
| use, but any future users will be subject to whatever
| license the version they're using uses.
| [deleted]
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2022-09-04 23:01 UTC)