Browse Source

Improve the FAQ's even more

Signed-off-by: Gavin Howard <gavin@yzena.com>
master
Gavin Howard 4 months ago
parent
commit
b829d74d96
Signed by: gavin GPG Key ID: C08038BDF280D33E
  1. 23
      YCL_FAQ.md
  2. 23
      YNL_FAQ.md
  3. 23
      YOL_FAQ.md

23
YCL_FAQ.md

@ -161,8 +161,11 @@
A compiler's output is *also* transformative, especially if it does
optimizations. This especially applies if the compiler is doing [link-time
optimization][32] using [inlining][33] with code from different sources. A
compiler can even [transform an `O(n)` algorithm into an `O(1)`
optimization][32] using [inlining][33] with code from different sources. In
that situation, a compiler is combining multiple sources in non-obvious
ways, just as machine learning models do.
A compiler can even [transform an `O(n)` algorithm into an `O(1)`
algorithm][28]!
In other words, unless [GitHub Copilot][26] wants to throw out copyright on
@ -269,6 +272,21 @@
Because of the recursive definition of ["this software"][14]. See the
previous question.
27. **Why did you write this FAQ when nobody has asked you any questions yet?**
To establish intent. If these licenses have to be tested in court, then if
my intent is clear, that can help judges and juries resolve ambiguities and
decide if a license violation happened.
The [GPL][3] did the same thing. However, in that case, the license
includes the intent in the [Preamble][36] to the license, which muddies the
waters. The reason for this is because if the [Preamble][36] conflicts with
another part of the license, which part wins?
To stop that from happening, I set forth my intent in this FAQ, but I also
explicitly made it a separate document (in the repository). That way, if the
FAQ conflicts with the license, the license wins hands down.
[0]: https://yzena.com/yzena-copyleft-license/
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyleft
[2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viral_license
@ -305,3 +323,4 @@
[33]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inline_expansion
[34]: https://www.markdownguide.org/getting-started
[35]: https://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0.html
[36]: https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-3.0.en.html#preamble

23
YNL_FAQ.md

@ -192,8 +192,11 @@
A compiler's output is *also* transformative, especially if it does
optimizations. This especially applies if the compiler is doing [link-time
optimization][32] using [inlining][33] with code from different sources. A
compiler can even [transform an `O(n)` algorithm into an `O(1)`
optimization][32] using [inlining][33] with code from different sources. In
that situation, a compiler is combining multiple sources in non-obvious
ways, just as machine learning models do.
A compiler can even [transform an `O(n)` algorithm into an `O(1)`
algorithm][28]!
In other words, unless [GitHub Copilot][26] wants to throw out copyright on
@ -301,6 +304,21 @@
Because of the recursive definition of ["this software"][14]. See the
previous question.
29. **Why did you write this FAQ when nobody has asked you any questions yet?**
To establish intent. If these licenses have to be tested in court, then if
my intent is clear, that can help judges and juries resolve ambiguities and
decide if a license violation happened.
The [AGPL][3] did the same thing. However, in that case, the license
includes the intent in the [Preamble][36] to the license, which muddies the
waters. The reason for this is because if the [Preamble][36] conflicts with
another part of the license, which part wins?
To stop that from happening, I set forth my intent in this FAQ, but I also
explicitly made it a separate document (in the repository). That way, if the
FAQ conflicts with the license, the license wins hands down.
[0]: https://yzena.com/yzena-network-license/
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyleft
[2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viral_license
@ -337,3 +355,4 @@
[33]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inline_expansion
[34]: https://www.markdownguide.org/getting-started
[35]: https://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0.html
[36]: https://www.gnu.org/licenses/agpl-3.0.en.html#preamble

23
YOL_FAQ.md

@ -143,8 +143,11 @@
A compiler's output is *also* transformative, especially if it does
optimizations. This especially applies if the compiler is doing [link-time
optimization][26] using [inlining][27] with code from different sources. A
compiler can even [transform an `O(n)` algorithm into an `O(1)`
optimization][26] using [inlining][27] with code from different sources. In
that situation, a compiler is combining multiple sources in non-obvious
ways, just as machine learning models do.
A compiler can even [transform an `O(n)` algorithm into an `O(1)`
algorithm][21]!
In other words, unless [GitHub Copilot][18] wants to throw out copyright on
@ -256,6 +259,21 @@
Because of the recursive definition of ["this software"][10]. See the
previous question.
25. **Why did you write this FAQ when nobody has asked you any questions yet?**
To establish intent. If these licenses have to be tested in court, then if
my intent is clear, that can help judges and juries resolve ambiguities and
decide if a license violation happened.
The [GPL][3] did the same thing. However, in that case, the license
includes the intent in the [Preamble][29] to the license, which muddies the
waters. The reason for this is because if the [Preamble][29] conflicts with
another part of the license, which part wins?
To stop that from happening, I set forth my intent in this FAQ, but I also
explicitly made it a separate document (in the repository). That way, if the
FAQ conflicts with the license, the license wins hands down.
[0]: https://yzena.com/yzena-open-license/
[1]: https://gavinhoward.com/
[2]: https://yzena.com/
@ -285,3 +303,4 @@
[26]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interprocedural_optimization#WPO_and_LTO
[27]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inline_expansion
[28]: https://www.markdownguide.org/getting-started
[29]: https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-3.0.en.html#preamble

Loading…
Cancel
Save