|
jaxterama wrote:
However, those are just lesser evils, encouraging stifling behavior
I'm not sure why it is stifling behaviour.
I'm sure most GPL authors would be happy to sell you a commercial licence to their code if you asked. I know I used to dislike the GPL because I thought it was going to take away my ability to make money writing code. I was wrong, outsourcing to cheaper countries is doing that anyway.
I've learnt that it isn't how I licence my source code that makes me money. It is my service to my customers that makes me the money. It's my ability to build software solutions that solve my clients problems that pays the bills.
Michael
CP Blog [^]
|
|
|
|
|
Michael P Butler wrote:
I'm sure most GPL authors would be happy to sell you a commercial licence to their code if you asked.
I believe that's illigal. Isn't GPL a way to give the rights of your code to the public?
In that matter you don't have rights to sell the code any more than i do. 
Once you release something under GPL you can't change the licence later, all future version should also be under GPL and you can't use the same code under a second licence. By doing this you are violating my right! 
( Of course i am not legal expert and never read the GPL. so i might be wrong)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Memory leaks is the price we pay \0
01234567890123456789012345678901234
|
|
|
|
|
Kastellanos Nikos wrote:
I believe that's illigal. Isn't GPL a way to give the rights of your code to the public?
In that matter you don't have rights to sell the code any more than i do.
Once you release something under GPL you can't change the licence later, all future version should also be under GPL and you can't use the same code under a second licence. By doing this you are violating my right!
Not as I understand it. As author of the code you retain the copyright which means you can relicence the code as you see fit. Obviously the GPL version is still there for anybody to use under the GPL terms, but a company unhappy with the GPL can buy a commercial licence from the original author.
Grey areas arise when accepting code contributions back from the community. Usually most projects ask for you to assign copyright to them.
Michael
CP Blog [^]
|
|
|
|
|
> (Of course i am not legal expert and never read the GPL. so i might be wrong)
i can see that you've never read the GPL. the GPL does NOT give your rights to the code to the public. you retain full copyright of all the code you wrote.
the gist of the GPL is this:
- the code remains the property of the author(s)
- you accept the code as is, and don't hold the author liable for any damages you inflict upon yourself 
- when redistributing the application/library/whatever *must* include the source code
- you may not sell the source code or the binary code
- any derived or additional code must also use the GPL
the LGPL is almost exactly the same, except that the last point does not apply... if you use GPL code in your app, it must be GPL too, if you use the LGPL in your app, your app doesn't have to be GPL or LGPL. the MPL (Mozilla Public License) is even less restrictive than that...
--
Raoul Snyman
Saturn Laboratories
e-mail: raoul.snyman@saturnlaboratories.co.za
web: http://www.saturnlaboratories.co.za/
linux user: #333298
|
|
|
|
|
Thanx, for the info.
Still it doesn't seem very usefull for those who'd like to use the program. They can't make any changes/updates to the code unless the copyright holder gives them copyright ownership too. Otherway is like giving their rights to someone else. If they used or going to use the same peace of code on one of their applications is a violation of GPL, right?
Also the LGPL is not for any kind of app but only for drivers and services. If anything gets mixed with your program is dangerous. There is a fine line there, it could easilly said that your program is build around the LGPL.
So, for the public, it's more restrictive than say MIT language. My opinion about GPL has changes but not for the better. 
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Memory leaks is the price we pay \0
01234567890123456789012345678901234
|
|
|
|
|
Michael P Butler wrote:
I used to think that way too.
Hmmmm, somebody is using it now 
Frankly, I was surprised to see Marc Clifton MyXaml under GPL,
but somebody must survive!
Best regards,
Paul.
Jesus Christ is LOVE! Please tell somebody.
|
|
|
|
|
Paul Selormey wrote:
Frankly, I was surprised to see Marc Clifton MyXaml under GPL,
MyXaml is dual-licenced, you can either use GPL or buy a commercial licence. There is a reason why MyXaml went GPL but I'm sure Marc will fill you in on the specifics.
Paul Selormey wrote:
Hmmmm, somebody is using it now
Not yet. However I am thinking of opening up my source archives under the GPL. Cleaning up the code takes forever though and some of the stuff wasn't written by me.
Michael
CP Blog [^]
|
|
|
|
|
The problem with the GPL is obvious - by being viral you are forced to make any code that uses GPL code also GPL'd. This effectively prevents me from using GPL'd code in any commercial work that I do - it certainly does not encourage me to generate more OpenSource software as the FSF advocates.
The LGPL was, I agree, supposed to fix that, but the fact that Richard Stallman actively discourages people from using the LGPL, and the Free Software Foundation have deprecated its use.
This has caused me all sorts of pain, and has put me off the OpenSource world considerably. Some things from OpenSource are great, like Apache, where they can be used out of the box, and you are unlikely to use them as a library. But if you want library code to be actually used by real developers, then you pretty much can't use the GPL.
It becomes even worse in the real world where you use libraries from many sources. At work, we use both BCGSoft, and CodeJock windows libraries. These are not OpenSource, and we have had to pay to get access to the source code. Any attempt to include a GPL'd library into our software would require us to release the entire software base, which we are legally obliged not to do. That means we can use commerial or GPL'd libraries - not both. I recently had to write a lexer and parser from scratch, because none of the libraries I evaluated had suitable licence arrangements.
I agree therefore that GPL is Evil - but worse still, Richard Stallman &c are shooting themselves in the foot by withdrawing backing for LGPL which makes the OpenSource movement usable. They have done it to increase the amount of OpenSource software, but are actually doing the reverse.
Dave
|
|
|
|
|
|
man, do I agree with you!
|
|
|
|
|
have you ever read the Microsoft Windows XP EULA?? it's even worse! and it REALLY *is* evil... the GPL is all about freedom, the EULA is all about how you have no right to anything, and if anything goes wrong it's your fault.
(me having actually taken the time to sit down and read through both)
--
Raoul Snyman
Saturn Laboratories
e-mail: raoul.snyman@saturnlaboratories.co.za
web: http://www.saturnlaboratories.co.za/
linux user: #333298
|
|
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
