|
raouls wrote:
me having actually taken the time to sit down and read through both
Man, you really have a lot of free time 
Now, when I think about it, that's why GPL talks so much about freedom - you need a lot of free time to read it and even more to understand it 
My programming blahblahblah blog. If you ever find anything useful here, please let me know to remove it.
|
|
|
|
|
If you are using open souce code in your application it would be normally covered by the LGPL (or equivilant), not GPL - this is standard for libraries.
This means that you must release your code to the public domain only the parts of your program that directly modify the library. If you only access the library through an API then you don't have to do anything.
That is my understanding of the license anyways, I'm not really an expert.
|
|
|
|
|
Are you talking about free as in the author of the code, or free as in the user of the code.
GPL provides the best freedom for the author in that another company does not have a license to gain income from your code.
GPL does not unrestricted freedom to the user of the code. But, an author probably doesn't want to do that.
|
|
|
|
|
Peter Ritchie wrote:
GPL provides the best freedom for the author in that another company does not have a license to gain income from your code.
Hmmm, that sounds like 'protection', not 'freedom' to me.
My programming blahblahblah blog. If you ever find anything useful here, please let me know to remove it.
|
|
|
|
|
Why is that not freedom for the author? The GPL says nothing about granting total freedom of price, or granting total freedom of use.
-- Peter
|
|
|
|
|
jaxterama wrote:
When using code, I shouldn't have to feel that I am being forced into a licensing scheme for MY code that uses someone elses code.
Well, it is their code you are using, they have as much right to choose the conditions under which they allow you to use their code as a company that sells closed source lets you see their code under restrictions, don't they?
|
|
|
|
|
The decision to make software:
* commercial closed source
* commercial but you can buy the source
* open source licensed restricted to use in other open source products
* open source licensed with a fee for commercial use
* simply free retaining copyright
* simply free with no copyright
is really up to the developer(s). Unfortunately, I don't think developers think about the licensing/copyright complexities before putting something out in the public domain. There's a lot of code downloads on CP where there's no copyright from the author. (And the opposite is true too--there's times when the code is based on someone else's code without any acknowledgement).
There's an almost 10 year old article I found:
http://www.cjmag.co.jp/magazine/issues/1995/jun95/06piracy.html[^]
* Patent law provides a production/sales monopoly on inventions; though this
protection is broad, it requires thorough identification of prior art and
proof of the uniqueness of the invention.
* Copyright law establishes a set of (transferable) publication rights.
* Trademark law protects the identifying names, logos, and other symbols used in manufacturing or service businesses against unfair competition.
* And trade secret law protects unpatented and concealed processes, compounds, or tools with competitive advantage.
So it all depends on what the developer feels is appropriate for how he/she wants to establish the rules governing the use of the code.
What amazes me though is how emotional people get over open source licensing, and some the arguments that are so incredibly irrational. I guess it's hard to separate the zealotry that drives open source licensing from its usefulness.
Marc
MyXaml
Advanced Unit Testing
|
|
|
|
|
I agree with most everything you said. However I think that "open source licensed restricted to use in other open source products" (e.g. GPL), are pure evil. Not because they're anti-capitalistic (which they are) but it is about imposing a communistic belief system on others by restricting their development to free-use if any GPL code is used. I think commercial, $$$ licenses are freer than GPL!
Simple licenses are best. Developers should either make their code free (while retaining copyright) or commercial, or a combination (a free non-commercial license and a $$$ commercial license).
|
|
|
|
|
> Not because they're anti-capitalistic (which they are) but it is about imposing a communistic belief system on others by restricting their development to free-use if any GPL code is used. I think commercial, $$$ licenses are freer than GPL!
You're kidding, right???
You could just as easily argue that distibuting commercial software is imposing an evil, capitalistic belief system on others.
Definitely there is particular philosophy behind GPL, but I don't see any imposition happening. No-one has held a gun to my head and forced me to use GPL software. Or commercial software for that matter. Personally I'm pleased to have both options.
|
|
|
|
|
Don Clugston wrote:
You're kidding, right???
You could just as easily argue that distibuting commercial software is imposing an evil, capitalistic belief system on others.
Funny, I don't recall ever seeing a component or source license (commercial or otherwise) that stated that you absolutely MUST charge a fee for any software you develop using the component.
Grim (aka Toby) MCDBA, MCSD, MCP+SB
SELECT * FROM user WHERE clue IS NOT NULL
GO
(0 row(s) affected)
|
|
|
|
|
> Funny, I don't recall ever seeing a component or source license (commercial or otherwise) that stated that you absolutely MUST charge a fee for any software you develop using the component.
I've encountered many examples myself.
The LZW compression algorithm immediately springs to mind. It prevents you from distributing a free program that can read GIF files.
|
|
|
|
|
Free should be completely FREE. No strings attached. Commercial should be commercial.
I don't expect licenses to drastically restrict the use/distribution of my software (specifically, using 3rd-party constituent code and components).
With commercial royalty-free components I have the choice to create freeware or commercial software. With GPL you don't get that right.
GPL is a licensing scheme who's basic tenet is that all software should be monentarily free. I don't agree.
|
|
|
|
|
Marc Clifton wrote:
There's a lot of code downloads on CP where there's no copyright from the author.
You mean license, not copyright? Copyright is granted automatically to an author.
Marc Clifton wrote:
I don't think developers think about the licensing/copyright complexities before putting something out in the public domain
I couldn't agree more.
cheers,
Chris Maunder
|
|
|
|
|
Chris Maunder wrote:
You mean license, not copyright? Copyright is granted automatically to an author.
Ah, what I actually meant is that the downloaded source code has no copyright or even a comment from the author "I wrote this". Doesn't happen too often, but it's pretty wierd when it does.
Marc
MyXaml
Advanced Unit Testing
|
|
|
|
|
Marc Clifton wrote:
It really depends
First, I really agree with that statement. But then again there is a little contradiction between the survey's headline and its details. While the Headline What type of source code license do you prefer? is quite ambiguous (this is where I also would say it depends on the situation) my vote was more an answer to the second questions: What license would you use for code you wish to share with the community? For me true sharing with the community means not wanting to make money out of it. So I don't care if some hobby programmer uses the code or some big company. Consequently I voted for Unrestricted use and redistribution whereas I basically meant the BSD License[^].
Best regards
Dennis
|
|
|
|
|
For my consultancy work I have a set of libraries that I use across projects. These are all BSD licenced. I do this so that I can retain copyright but my clients are also free to have other developers work on the projects in the future.
Although I am evaluating using GPL for full projects that I'm considering open-sourcing. For the general purpose libraries though, I'll stick with BSD because I don't like restricting developers who may find the libraries useful.
Michael
CP Blog [^]
|
|
|
|
|
|
I have tried to use many open-source components. But the larger projects are simply to complex to use without proper documentation.
And thats whats missing all the time. I tried for example the axiom 3d engine. No docs provided. Asked for it, no reply.
I dumped the project and started writing my own engine. Its sad to throw good stuff away because of bad documentation.
"Every rule in a world of bits and bytes can be bend or eventually be broken"
|
|
|
|
|
Some are intensional  You may have to pay some "consultancy fee". 
Best regards,
Paul.
Jesus Christ is LOVE! Please tell somebody.
|
|
|
|
|
Paul Selormey wrote:
You may have to pay some "consultancy fee".
Nail on the head.
IMO the biggest problem with "free software, paid services" is that this approach promotes sloppy software, or at least sloppy software interfaces. Not even malicous/intentional, but when making something "user friendly" means farewell to the hand that feeds you, it is not done.
we are here to help each other get through this thing, whatever it is Vonnegut jr.
boost your code || Fold With Us! || sighist | doxygen
|
|
|
|
|
Yes, and that is a bad thing about that kind of open-source.
I would be better of with a little help on the forums here and some articles, that way I can make the programs myself.
|
|
|
|
|
Who voted that down? And why?
Paul Selormey wrote:
You may have to pay some "consultancy fee".
I agree that I think that is what is happening in some OSS.
Although, sometimes I think that it is because the developers think that it unimportant detail and think that their product is so great that everyone will instantly understand it. For instance, DotNetNuke. It is a great piece of software but the documentation sucks. Kudos to Bo Nørgaard of Bonosoft for writing a really useful and easy to understand introduction to setting up DNN in Visual Studio and a really nice simple tutorial about how to create your first module. See: http:\\www.DotNetNuke.dk[^]
Do you want to know more?
WDevs.com - The worlds first Developers Services Provider
|
|
|
|
|
Colin Angus Mackay wrote:
Who voted that down? And why?
Probably the same guy who always gives Paul's posts 1. I think somebody has taken a dislike to the sig.
Michael
CP Blog [^]
|
|
|
|
|
|
Colin Angus Mackay wrote:
I'm guessing that it is someone with a platinum rating, because I expected my vote to bring the overall vote to 3 (if they were gold) or higher.
Hmm. I hope it wasn't a platinum user. There are so few and I like to think they don't just vote without commenting.
Michael
CP Blog [^]
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
