|
Super Lloyd wrote:
Moreover I use Microsoft product, twice I reported a bug in VS.NET and the bug was solved in 1 day too.
There is no way they fixed a bug in one day. They have left the same bugs in their class browser for years I have just had to live with the browser not being able to find half my member functions. I'm told they havent fixed the menu editor bug in which IDs are replaced with numbers, nor have the fixed the bug in which automatically added member functions are declared in a header in one project, and implemented in a .cpp file of another. HOW HARD COULD IT HAVE BEEN TO FIX? We'd almost be better off with a completely unsupported open source IDE.
Nathan Holt
|
|
|
|
|
Nathan Holt at CCEI wrote:
They have left the same bugs in their class browser for years
I agree. I have lost all hope that they even care about ide bugs in vc6.
John
|
|
|
|
|
It also depends on how much $$$$ you have. You can guarantee that Microsoft's big partners get their bugs fixed a lot quicker than ordinary developers.
At least with Open Source, if something really is bugging you, you can always fix it yourself.
An expert is somebody who learns more and more about less and less, until he knows absolutely everything about nothing.
|
|
|
|
|
Navin wrote:
You have to be very careful with GPL stuff in particular.
Not really. Just make sure you don't link any GPL stuff with your own application.
--
Denn du bist, was du isst!
Und ihr wisst, was es ist!
Es ist mein Teil...?
|
|
|
|
|
Oh how widely it has been used (and tested) by others in the past. For instance I use Sam Leffler's litiff library in an app and have no qualms about doing so since I know how popular it is and how few complaints there have been about it.
"One of the Georges," said Psmith, "I forget which, once said that a
certain number of hours' sleep a day--I cannot recall for the moment how
many--made a man something, which for the time being has slipped my
memory."
|
|
|
|
|
Also on the licensing used in the open source code. Open source is not always open source. For example, if using the code requires the opening of "our" code, then that is not acceptable, and therefore no use, however much time may be saved. Also the quality plays a mojor role. Having said that, the ideas and implementation used in the open source code may give a little bit of inspiration when writing ones own code, how this is "legaly" interpreted is another matter, that I think is going beyond the scope of this survey.
bum... and I thought I´d got rid of all the bugs 
|
|
|
|
|
Phil.Benson wrote:
Open source is not always open source
Am I missing something here? Or did that just make no sense?
Law of non-contradiction - "One cannot say of something that it is and that it is not in the same respect and at the same time."
Aaron Eldreth
TheCollective4.com
My Articles
I hereby boycott this poll. Really....
- Leppie
|
|
|
|
|
Fair one, gobbledy-gook. What I meant to say is that not all open source is the same, i.e GPL, LGPL, BSD etc.
As for the rest, I think it´s fairly valid
bum... and I thought I´d got rid of all the bugs 
|
|
|
|
|
Phil.Benson wrote:
What I meant to say is that not all open source is the same, i.e GPL, LGPL, BSD etc.
Yeah, I figured that's what you meant. Just checking.
Phil.Benson wrote:
As for the rest, I think it´s fairly valid
Yes it is. The rest of your comment was well thought out and on-target.
Phil.Benson wrote:
bum... and I thought I´d got rid of all the bugs
Hhmmmm.... Maybe you should open the source. 
Aaron Eldreth
TheCollective4.com
My Articles
I hereby boycott this poll. Really....
- Leppie
|
|
|
|
|
We're at CodeProject, we don't come here for the wit and repartee. 
Open source is a broad concept, are we talking GPL here or is it the full range from public domain through BSD all the way towards the Generally Poor Licence.
Michael
CP Blog [^]
|
|
|
|
|
Have you used Open Source sourcecode in a commercial product?
that is pretty much illegal if the code is licensed under gnu gpl or opensource license.
[edit]
unless you either BUY a commercial license from the copyright owner , OR get a written permission to use it.
dont know about code published here at cp ,that dont contain any license info...
[/edit]
//Roger
|
|
|
|
|
Roger J wrote:
that is pretty much illegal if the code is licensed under gnu gpl
There's a lot of open-source software that isn't GPL. Libraries (if I understand things correctly now) licensed under LGPL can, for example, be used legally.
Roger J wrote:
opensource license.
Just because something has an open source license doesn't mean you can't use it in a commercial product. It just means that it has a license, which all software SHOULD have. The license has to specify the terms of use, which can be whatever the author chooses.
Marc
Microsoft MVP, Visual C#
MyXaml
MyXaml Blog
Hunt The Wumpus
RealDevs.Net
|
|
|
|
|
Marc Clifton wrote:
ust because something has an open source license doesn't mean you can't use it in a commercial product
ofcourse not .. but most opensource licenses DO restrict this.
and most developers are for some reason unaware of this..
//Roger
|
|
|
|
|
Roger J wrote:
but most opensource licenses DO restrict this.
AFAIK only GPL has such restrictions. The vast majority of OSS licenses enable users to include the code into any commercial priduct. Take a look at the list of OSI approved licenses here[^]
My programming blahblahblah blog. If you ever find anything useful here, please let me know to remove it.
|
|
|
|
|
Roger J wrote:
Marc Clifton wrote:
ust because something has an open source license doesn't mean you can't use it in a commercial product
ofcourse not .. but most opensource licenses DO restrict this.
and most developers are for some reason unaware of this..
Tss.. all wrong. GPL alone is not MOST opensource license. There is plenty of other open source licence, like the BSD licence, used in the (quite) popular BSD OS which is not like that, the PNG licence, etc ...
and they let you do whatever you want!
|
|
|
|
|
Open Source != GPL.
All the code I've published on CodeProject is open source, and all of it can (and has, to my fear and eternal worry) be used in commercial applications for free. There's a TON of commercially useable open source code out there.
cheers,
Chris Maunder
|
|
|
|
|
Chris Maunder wrote:
(and has, to my fear and eternal worry)
you should be very afraid...;)
I am sitting in my flame proof buncker, so don't even bother.
by the way, perl stinks.
"I believe god invented man, because he was disappointed in the monkey"
Mark Twain
|
|
|
|
|
Roger J wrote:
that is pretty much illegal if the code is licensed under gnu gpl or opensource license.
No, it depends on the license and whether you derive from the particular product.
Eg i can use a GPL server, and as long as I dont make "hidden" modifications, I can continue to use it in a commercial enviroment (bar my product doesnt derive from it directly). Most GPL licenses are relaxed nowadays with a linking exception, simalar to LGPL. In that case I can link to it, and use it as a support lib eg, unicode handling for example.
top secret xacc-ide 0.0.1
|
|
|
|
|
hey, I just tested your top secret stuff.
cool 
|
|
|
|
|
Clearly you haven't ever actually read the GNU GPL or the Open Source Definition. You are free to sell GPL software and use it commercially, and any licence restricting commercial use of software isn't a valid Open Source licence.
|
|
|
|
|
As you have already been corrected, this depends on the terms of the license in question.
> dont know about code published here at cp ,that dont contain any license info...
Here is a little intersting tidbit: Neither Does Anyone Else! For example, some documentation on CP reads:
Some authors may have specific restrictions on using code in commercial apps such as providing credit in documentation or sending them an email first, but all code can be used for free.
Other documentation reads:
Every article on the Code Project has been contributed for free, and all source code, components and code snippets can in turn be used for free.
And yet some more reads:
[...] You also give CodeProject permission to use it in a fair manner and also permit all developers to freely use the code in their own applications.
Notice any differences there?
When I tried to raise this as a potential issue I got all kinds of (unnecessary) BS back from it. I have to be positive and guess that a simple lack of desire to address the issue was the cause, rather than a lack of ability to fully understand the need for it.
The most interesting situation was a couple of months ago, with the Compact Framework Application Competition (I believe, it might have been another competition): IIRC, the winner's submission was GPLed! This means that it technically violated the terms on the submission guidelines, yet was allowed (and won!) anyway. Not exactly consistent, huh?
Peace!
-=- James
Tip for SUV winter driving survival: "Professional Driver on Closed Course" does not mean "your Dumb Ass on a Public Road"!
Articles -- Products: Delete FXP Files & Check Favorites
|
|
|
|
|
including a third party library that:
you don't have the source code for
don't know how well THEIR company is going to do if there's a problem
don't know if they're going to keep up with new OS's
and don't know how long they're going to be around?
Marc
Microsoft MVP, Visual C#
MyXaml
MyXaml Blog
Hunt The Wumpus
RealDevs.Net
|
|
|
|
|
No difference - in fact it's probably worse.
That's why my feeling is you either grab open source code and know you can modify/patch it, or buy components from a software house that has a good history and reputation.
cheers,
Chris Maunder
|
|
|
|
|
Like someone said above you should carefully evaluate the product you include and see if it meet your quality, support and license requirements of your product.
For instance I do not hesitate to include boost in the stuff I create today.
What scares me are developers that include a large hackish library that solves a small problem and has no support and no quality. To counter the quality issues the developers most probably have made subtle undocumented hacks to the library which means the software will break in subtle ways when I'm forced to update the library. Then they leave everything to me to maintain *sob*.
Of course, this is is not specific to OSS but to all code that is included into a project. Even code that's borrowed from previous projects.
PS. Sorry for ranting
/Mårten
|
|
|
|
|
I agree with you there. We had that exact problem at my last company... we used a cool little graphing component, but the only source code it had was an MFC wrapper around a COM component.
And sure enough, the company completely changed their interface and focus for newer versions, so we couldn't easily upgrade when we outgrew the capabilities the version we were at had to offer.
We ended up having to redo a lot of it by hand. 
An expert is somebody who learns more and more about less and less, until he knows absolutely everything about nothing.
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
