|
Companies do make profit with Open Source stuff. That's something we know for a fact. But, who're the richest Open Source developers around and how to they end up where they are now?
Norman Fung
|
|
|
|
|
About ten years ago when prgrammimng was just coming into mainstream, basically everybody online stole or borrowed. The net was small, every idea a programmer came up with was revolutionary and new. Now that the whole IT industry is growing up its all changed. Besides codeproject and a few others, most programming sites have become graves filled with pop-ups. The computer industry is now grasping for any morsels, those morsels used to help out other programmers bring forth new ideas. For example the last couple of months i have been working on a program that tries to adapt windows and enabled programs to "adapt" to users "Computing styles". At first i was very excited, i had found a few open souce projects that would help me. They were all buried under GPLs, meant i was going to get sued if i used it. Now though it be nice to sell my code, more important i want to protect my new concepts. I was thinking of making a free .dll or library. I am now in the middle of "re-inventing" the wheel. Why should I? if there are programmers who have done it. I do ont mean why should i learn it, more just why should i spend months programming code already avalable. Its true that the other programmers deserve some kind of benefit, but isn't releasing new technologies into the market beneficial for us all. If it wasn't we wouldn't all be hanging around MSDN everyday lol. If we do not share our ideas, we can never expect new ones. Programming is like building a house, we need our foundation, our innner workings, and a pretty exterior. If a new developer has to build a whole house to introduce a new way to open the front door, new technologies just get lost. And since most new technologies are made by small teams or single developers, its gets even worse. The last few years should already prove that, since any new technology has just been upgrades to older ones. As programmer the ideas must run a lttle more free than others, this allows for progression. This opinion is not in any way directed towards any codeprojects members, i just felt you guys would agree with some of my thoughts. I don't want free code, i just get tired of having to spend months developing something thats already there hidden in licences. To make a long story short:
The computer is the only tool today that has endless possibilities. Logically we as programmers can make a computer do anything we want. Why should we squabble over a few ideas when we're sitting in an ocean of limitless ideas. A few years ago we wouldn't be complaining, but back then ideas were everywhere.
But what do i know i am just a self-taught unemployed programmer  so you guys give me your thoughts.
Discovery consist of seeing what everybody has seen and thinking what nobody has thought -- Albert Szent-Györgyi
Name the greatest of all the inventors: accident --Mark Twain
If thinking outside the box is an advantage, i should feel lucky, Ive never been let in. --Me
|
|
|
|
|
The GPL is there to protect the original authors, It is also there to share open technology with anyone, as in Free, it is often confused as a virus type thing, as it is governed under the Public License, this 'can' be sold to a customer but has to be sold with full source code type scenario (thats how I understand it). The confusion being, some of the code has been GPL'd but the rest of it hasn't, which bit can I sell without handing over all my 'niche' functions? If the customers requirements were already known then would giving the source code to the customer really matter that much?
So I feel there are two arguments toward the GPL:
1) Great for the sharing of technology amongst all who choose to share.
2) Not so great for companies who have niche technologies that they want to keep for themselves and protect from their competetors (although not entirely)
there is open source solutions that address this problem, 50% GPL, 50% NON-GPL, the NON-GPL is where you can create modules or DLL's that will work with the 50% GPL, the 50% GPL you can give away with full source code , who cares as everyone knows that bit anyway, but it helped you complete your project, where the 50% NON-GPL'd covers your proprietary code, that you can keep and not have to release 'the source code for',
heres a great article:
http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20031214210634851
kind regards
steevo
|
|
|
|
|
If you want your software to be truly free, use something such as BSD. Artistic is a good license.
GPL sucks. The GPL people can say it isn't viral as much as they want, but that doesn't change the facts. It is true that someone can not force you to release your code just because you use GPL software. However, when you do get sued for copyright violations, you will have to make a choice. Do you violate a court order? Do you release your software as GPL? Do you remove the GPL code from your project? Do you get a non-GPL license from the author? The end result is that if you use GPL code, it will force itself on you. All other options involve removing the GPL either by removing the code or changing the code from a GPL license. Then it isn't GPL anymore.
Tim Smith
I'm going to patent thought. I have yet to see any prior art.
|
|
|
|
|
The GPL prevents you from releasing your product using GPL components as closed source. There are many companied that make money off GPL products. I agree that the GPL is restrictive, but thats the point of it. The LGPL on the other hand is meant to be available for commercial use.
1) Dynamicly link to the LGPL library.
2) If you make modifications to the library, make those modifications available to your users.
3) Provide a notice saying you are using the library in your software and provide a way for the user to obtain the source code, either through a spot on your distribution media or a url to download from.
"It is true that someone can not force you to release your code just because you use GPL software."
Using GPL software and including it in a closed source product are two very different things. The former is legal, and you are not violating any copyrights. The latter is not, and you are.
"However, when you do get sued for copyright violations, you will have to make a choice."
You had a choice way before that. To steal or not to steal.
BTW, The GPL is by definition viral. I believe you misread something somewhere because no one who knows anything about the GPL would deny it being a viral license. That was the whole point.
|
|
|
|
|
To be more clear abot what i meant I guess what i should have said was that GPL licensing comes with a price, not money, but forcing you to release your code the same way. Lets say if i wanted to use gpl then, release under another licence, i could get sued. It just feels to me that too many companies and programmers are cliching tocode that before they would have shared without a thought. With all the suing and craziness, these days we're afraid to do just about anything without a contract lol. On top of that i have been force to recode because of misreading fine print and i felt like blowing some steam  . Thanks for the link for groksters, but when you boil it all down GPLs are either teasers, or force you to conform to the developers beleif either way its not open source. Thank you for all your replies i feel 
Discovery consist of seeing what everybody has seen and thinking what nobody has thought -- Albert Szent-Györgyi
Name the greatest of all the inventors: accident --Mark Twain
If thinking outside the box is an advantage, i should feel lucky, Ive never fit inside. --Me
|
|
|
|
|
So at last count there were 125 people who read codeproject but don't ever use the code on it..
Or is the code here something other than open source?
I wonder how many of those people are C++ programmers. I find it hard to imagine life without boost and spirit.
|
|
|
|
|
juggler wrote:
Or is the code here something other than open source?
I brought that up at least twice in the past few months, see Here[^] for my most recent post in this particular forum.
I firmly beleive that most Open Source licenses have their own issues to deal with; they have their own restrictions and terms of use in compiled form. The Boost library/libraries and the Spirit framework are special cases because they have a broad use and generally could not be used for anything dangerous or damaging on their own.
But what about specialized code that is present here on the site? For example, I can write an article that shows how one can create a high-performance multithreaded engine that can connect to multiple remote sockets at once and blast data to them. The article talking about how to do this will not be enough to most CodeProject-ians despite the cries of "We want to learn how to do it!" that you hear so often.
So when I include source code, with the intention of someone learning (not stealing) from it, what legal (note that I did not say practical) protection do I have that prevents some inexperienced developer from copying-and-pasting the code verbatim into his Super Spam Blaster application and making cash off of it? (Not to mention that I would very likely be a victim of this application at some point!  )
What if someone creates a DDoS application from it and some so-called computer forensic expert finds identifiers in the application, or in the data it sends, that can be traced back to me (like my use of prefixing class names with JRTS)? Am I damaged by the hassle of having to deal with that? Like the possibility of having to prove that I was not directly involved with the application or any damage it was responsible for?
Or what if some otherwise unknown D.A. trying to earn her bones decides to hold me responsible for the damages done by the application based on the idea of "Bartenders Responsibility"? Or some people just get stupid (anyone remember what happened to ORBZ[^]?) and come after me because they do not know any better? 
There are lots of things that many people do not consider at first... Yes, they may seem a little paranoid  , but since some guy got sued for posting a comment on a forum that they did not like a certain company/service/product (I cannot remember the details of that case), anything is possible these days and you have GOT to CYA.
Peace!
-=- James (Sonork:100.21837)
[Tip for SUV winter driving survival: "Professional Driver on Closed Course" does not mean "your Dumb Ass on a Public Road"!]
[Get Delete FXP Files Now!]
|
|
|
|
|
The majority of programmers here are C++ devs (think this used to be an all MFC / VC++ site at one point), as one I enjoy writing the code myself. Also alot of C++ programmers trust commercial libraries over open source ones. Sometimes its a good thing... sometimes its a bad thing...
I have never actually used any code from this site in one of my applications, but i have read the articles and based my opinions on them. With that said, can anyone truly say thier intellectual property was not tainted by viewing someone elses open source? regardless if they used it or not.
|
|
|
|
|
Not to mention the "brain storming" pleasure/luck of interacting with gurus such as the one you encounter in the boost team.
Jonathan de Halleux.
www.dotnetwiki.org
|
|
|
|
|
I think a best open source licence might be like this
"One can freely use this code in their project either as it is or in modified form , but one cannot repost this article to some open source site with his/her name , even if this code is modified author of original idea should be mentioned"
Otherwise if there is something that is confidential authors can simply post the idea in place of whole code so that other developer could simply understand and implement it in their on ways.
But if still some authors are worried about misuse of their code , then there is no need to post such code to some open source site.
Dont let the problem to come , but if it comes let it come.
Unmanaged in a .NET world
|
|
|
|
|
http://www.opensource.org/licenses/mit-license.php
Basically requires copies/derivatives keep the original copyright notice.
http://www.opensource.org/licenses/bsd-license.php
Basically requires you to keep the original copyright notice in the source, include it somewhere in documentation, and you can't use the authors name to promote your derived product without explicit permission.
|
|
|
|
|
Atif Mushtaq wrote:
But if still some authors are worried about misuse of their code , then there is no need to post such code to some open source site.
[Clarification, "open source" is not the same as "Open Source", like what it means when you say that GNU is Open Source. What do you mean by "open source"?]
If noone posted to the site, then noone would learn anything from it. If the purpose of the site is to educate, then it should educate, not provide a means for theft.
We do not stop teaching chemistry simply because some dip$hit builds an (unstable) cherry bomb and blows his thumb off trying to light it, but we should take precautions to prevent it from happening. (And afterwards, above mentioned dip$hit should tour the nation's schools talking about the dangers of abusing what they have learned!  )
Just my $.02...
Peace!
-=- James (Sonork:100.21837)
[Tip for SUV winter driving survival: "Professional Driver on Closed Course" does not mean "your Dumb Ass on a Public Road"!]
[Get Delete FXP Files Now!]
|
|
|
|
|
I presume the 55 votes for "We never use open source code in our applications" are companies that haven't used any simply because there is no appropiate open source code that they could make use of.
It's stupid to refuse to use open source for no reason.
|
|
|
|
|
Is it really stupid to not to use open source code? Maybe the person you received the code stole it from someone who did copyright it. If possible, I would recommend altering any open source code you receive, to avoid any legal issues.
Aaron Eldreth
TheCollective4.com
|
|
|
|
|
Why bother? It's usually buggy and not worth the legal hassle. Lawyers make enough $$$$$$$$$$$ as it is...
~Nitron.
ññòòïðïðB A
start
|
|
|
|
|
Anonymous wrote:
It's stupid to refuse to use open source for no reason.
The reason, at least for me, is legal. Take the whole Linux/SCO debacle for example. The only open source code I would use is if it were release under the BSD license. I don't create open source software so inherently I cannot use anything GPL'd etc.
Matt Newman
|
|
|
|
|
It's stupid to refuse to use open source for no reason.
For no reason yes, but there is alot of reasons that we do not use open source.
1) legal
2) hard to implement into our current software structure
3) time consuming (have to test, evaluate, and debug the code)
4) the rest of my team feels violated (this is just a developer superstition)
those are 4 good reasons why we dont use it.
|
|
|
|
|
Easy...
Developer A produces software which he holds the copyright.
Developer B takes a copy of that software and claims it to be his own.
Developer B then releases that software under a BSD or even GPL license.
Developer C uses the code in good faith.
HOWEVER, developer C is still in violation of the original copyright. This can cause a serious problem for developer C.
This is the point that most of the Linux and Open Source people don't understand. NOTHING is free from IP or copyright issues. There is still a risk.
Tim Smith
I'm going to patent thought. I have yet to see any prior art.
|
|
|
|
|
As someone has said.
"At the end of the day its just words"
-Peace.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Yep... Just like laws, the Bible, Torah, etc...
Also note that when the laywers, judge and jury decide your fate in a court one day, those are "just words" as well!
(Whoever made that quote needs to get out a bit more...! )
Peace!
-=- James (Sonork:100.21837)
[Tip for SUV winter driving survival: "Professional Driver on Closed Course" does not mean "your Dumb Ass on a Public Road"!]
[Get Delete FXP Files Now!]
|
|
|
|
|
Unfortuanately, In your own words to admit to copyright infringement. I personally make a living off of Open Source software and am active in many Open Source projects. I find it very difficult not to get very very angry at your complete disregard for the law and my IP, my I will state this as calmly as possible. I now feel I have an obligation to find software you're stealing( and yes its theft, go talk to a lawyer ) and report you to the appropriate parties. Its not a victimless crime. You're taking money from my wallet and those like me. Rest assured you're not being singled out, I just don't feel I can post again without starting a flame war.
Take care,
Bobby Ward
|
|
|
|
|
Dont get upset at all!!! I have never stolen any copyrighted software for money. Its just a view point here on the forum. I guess long back I had used one source code only after double confirming that the source code can be used without any problems. I know my responsiblity.
After that never was a case where i had to borrow the code from open source. I write my own logic almost for everything.
This space is empty.
|
|
|
|
|
Some people in this forum do not seem to understand the concepts behind Open Source licenses. If they did, they wouldn't post such STUPID things as 'I use any src code that is available, wheather copy righted or not... [sic!]' or 'If you don't want someone to use your code, don't put it up for everyone to read, that's stupid.'.
You really should read the license the code you use is released under. If you for example used my GPL'd code in your commercial software >>without asking me before<<, I'd sue you for Copyright infringement and other GPL developers would probably do the same.
If a software is released under the GPL it does not mean that you can do with it what you want. The GPL differs from closed source licensens only in that it gives you some extra rights rather than restricting your rights as closed source licenses usually do.
You needn't accept the GPL, but if you don't, you fall back to the Copyright which gives you much less possibilities than the GPL.
So if you don't accept the license some code is released under then don't use it!
Saying 'If they release it, I can do with it what I want!' is just plain stupid, 'cause it ignores the concept of Copyright! If that was true, how could the RIAA sue people for sharing MP3s? 'Hey, they released the music, so they shall not complain if I use it and share it, or what?' Not quite!
It's just the same with software. You get a license under which you may use the software. No matter if it's Open Source or closed. If you ignore the restrictions of the license, you lose it and fall back to Copyright.
Not reading a license before doing unusual things with a software package is really stupid!
Releasing a software as Open Source is just some kind of business model!
If you want to use GPL'd code in a closed source project, contact the developers and get a commercial use license for that code. Most GPL developers will be really happy to provide you with such a license.
---------------
Don't comment your code - it was hard to write, it should be hard to read!
|
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
