On Sunday 09 April 2006 02:57 am, Gazoduc wrote:
PS: or another example, closer from Rails : Basecamp. If Rails was GNU
GPL, then Basecamp would have to be open source. Anyone could install
Basecamp anywhere. There would be very cheap Basecamp hosting making
money without adding much value and out goes 37signals…
Well except that no one is copying Basecamp. The GPL v2 has a bit of a
whole
when it comes to hosted web applicatoins that v3 is supposed to try to
address.
Gazoduc wrote:
Henrik =?iso-8859-1?Q?Orm=E5sen?= wrote:
Ore another example: If Linux used BSD licence, Microsoft would have
the opportunity to make an closed source Linux who would make it
possible to run MS programs, better integration with Windows
etc. witch would get a lot of existing and new Linux users, and that
way be a big hit against the free software movement.I think it’s better not to give MS and other anti-free software
companies such opportunities.I do not agree. I prefer Microsoft earning money with a good OS (Linux
clone or whatever) then Microsoft earning money with a bad OS.By the way, what do you think of this :
http://63.249.85.132/open_source_license.htm ?
PS: I feel very close to what I read on ZefHemel.com :
I for one don’t agree with the FSF’s vision, I feed my children from
money I get for writing
commercial software and I don’t feel bad about it.
I enjoy writing software and giving it away for free as well - and if I
contribute to a open
source project that uses a BSDish license I get the additional benefit
that I may use my own
code (plus improvements made by others) for the commercial software I
write.
If a big company comes and takes my code, modifies it and redistributes
it as a commercial
product, this is no problem for me.
I don’t believe in “free software”, I believe in improved software and
that the commercial
company will realize that it is in their better interest to contribute
their changes back
instead of merging my changes with theirs over and over again over time.
Henrik =?iso-8859-1?Q?Orm=E5sen?= wrote:
Ore another example: If Linux used BSD licence, Microsoft would have
the opportunity to make an closed source Linux who would make it
possible to run MS programs, better integration with Windows
etc. witch would get a lot of existing and new Linux users, and that
way be a big hit against the free software movement.I think it’s better not to give MS and other anti-free software
companies such opportunities.
I do not agree. I prefer Microsoft earning money with a good OS (Linux
clone or whatever) then Microsoft earning money with a bad OS.
By the way, what do you think of this :
http://63.249.85.132/open_source_license.htm ?
On 4/8/06, Matthew P. [email protected] wrote:
every application which uses typo in any way shape or form. This
includes even just copying some lines of code from the flickr parser
for example. GPL taints all source code its copied into.
Which, of course, is seen as a feature, not a bug, as it grows the pool of
Free Software available to the world at large.
s/Free Software/GNU GPLed software/
Let’s ignore the propaganda in at least one place, shall we? The GNU
GPL is a highly restrictive licence. This is a feature, not a flaw,
and trying to disguise the restrictiveness is dishonest.
At best.
-austin
On 4/8/06, Matthew P. [email protected] wrote:
for the most part, still is). It doesn’t even go particularly far about
doing so, either – it doesn’t require you to give up any more to your
downstream users as your upstream users gave up for you. On the one hand,
it’s great that you’re giving downstream users the ability to make your
changes closed, but you have to balance that against the potential loss of
freedom for other people who are downstream from your downstream users.It’s not a simple tradeoff, and different people will value different
outcomes differently. But calling the GPL “doublespeak”, or it’s advocates
“zealots”, is pretty nasty.
Obviously, you didn’t actually read what I wrote. Based on other
posts, you’re a bit of a GNU GPL zealot. That’s fine, but GNU GPLed
software isn’t “free”. It’s heavily restricted distribution. With the
GNU GPL v3, it’s going to be entering the territory previously held by
those most awful of things, EULAs.
I have no problem with a Share-Alike licence, which is essentially
what the GNU GPL is. I do have a problem with people trying to
describe it as something other than it is, which is exactly what the
supporters of the GNU GPL end up doing most of the time. They have
learned it straight from the source, though. Stallman is often at
the centre of the worst misunderstandings of the GNU GPL.
-austin
Gazoduc wrote:
PS: or another example, closer from Rails : Basecamp. If Rails was GNU
GPL, then Basecamp would have to be open source. Anyone could install
Basecamp anywhere. There would be very cheap Basecamp hosting making
money without adding much value and out goes 37signals…
This is factually incorrect in several ways.
Rails was extracted from Basecamp, so the copyrights for Basecamp
preceed Rails.
Even if it were the other way and Rails were released under the GPL,
no one forces anyone to release the code that runs on their server. You
can’t go to the Yakima-Herald and say, “Give me the source code that
runs your website because Rails was released under the GPL.”
–
Ray
Austin Z. wrote:
On 4/8/06, Matthew P. [email protected] wrote:
Let’s ignore the propaganda in at least one place, shall we? The GNU
GPL is a highly restrictive licence. This is a feature, not a flaw,
and trying to disguise the restrictiveness is dishonest.At best.
Not clear what your point is here. You are agreeing that it is feature,
so why the contention? Or did you make a typo?
–
Ray
Sun, 09 Apr 2006, Austin Z. skrev:
Obviously, you didn’t actually read what I wrote. Based on other
posts, you’re a bit of a GNU GPL zealot. That’s fine, but GNU GPLed
software isn’t “free”. It’s heavily restricted distribution. With the
GNU GPL v3, it’s going to be entering the territory previously held by
those most awful of things, EULAs.
As fare as I have understood the GPLs restriction is to preserve the
softwares freedom. Just like restrictions against oppression. What
kind of freedom is freedom of having slaves? The freedom of taking
others free code, make some modifications, and then sell it as closed
source (maybe in a way that even out-compete the original free
project) are not exactly the same, but an related thing.
I will have restrictions against other stealing my free work (mainly
done in the spare time) for making restricted software.
I have no problem with a Share-Alike licence, which is essentially
what the GNU GPL is. I do have a problem with people trying to
describe it as something other than it is, which is exactly what the
supporters of the GNU GPL end up doing most of the time. They have
learned it straight from the source, though. Stallman is often at
the centre of the worst misunderstandings of the GNU GPL.
Are there other restrictions on the GPL, than those for restricting
people to take others free code and put it in restricted software?
Hei Gazoduc!
Sun, 09 Apr 2006, Gazoduc skrev:
I do not agree. I prefer Microsoft earning money with a good OS (Linux
clone or whatever) then Microsoft earning money with a bad OS.
If I contribute to an free software, I would not like that MS “steals”
my work to make more profit witch I and porer persons than my self has
to pay a lot of money on. MS wouldn’t made a Linux OS unless they
could get more money out of people. And as you know: They don’t need
to get it directly from selling the OS. They use they monopole
situation f.x. on OS’es to build other monopoles. That way they get
people on the hook and later charge them.
By the way, what do you think of this :
http://63.249.85.132/open_source_license.htm ?PS: I feel very close to what I read on ZefHemel.com :
I for one don’t agree with the FSF’s vision, I feed my children from
money I get for writing
commercial software and I don’t feel bad about it.
I have no problem with that. I don’t see the relevance of this. Its
okay, that you get money on writing commercial software, that isn’t an
argument for me to give you code I have written for free that you can
get more money from. Especially when this puts my work and my product
in the shadow of your and your company’s better closed source
app. with my work as the basis.
I enjoy writing software and giving it away for free as well - and if I
contribute to a open
source project that uses a BSDish license I get the additional benefit
that I may use my own
code (plus improvements made by others) for the commercial software I
write.
As I said. Thats good for you who are an professional programmer. I’m
not and I don’t like the thought of joining an open source project,
where suddenly all the core developer stops contributing to the open
project, but in stead take the code (including mine) to an closed
project where I later have to pay to get access to their new
improvements (again build on also my sweet and tears).
If a big company comes and takes my code, modifies it and redistributes
it as a commercial
product, this is no problem for me.
Again: I don’t agree.
I don’t believe in “free software”, I believe in improved software and
that the commercial
company will realize that it is in their better interest to contribute
their changes back
instead of merging my changes with theirs over and over again over time.
Way is it necessarily you who are the lead developer? What about my
example, where I’m not? Ore an company with a lot of developer takes
the whole ting, then my contributions aren’t necessarily so important
that it out-weight the loss off licenses as an consequence would bee
of giving the code out free.
This isn’t just history. There are companies that make money out of
making better apps than the free ones in academic special
areas. They’re not poplar among the developer of the free apps. Giving
away code to them aren’t what they dream (at least good dreams) about.
Regards
Henrik
Sun, 09 Apr 2006, Austin Z. skrev:
Let’s ignore the propaganda in at least one place, shall we? The GNU
GPL is a highly restrictive licence. This is a feature, not a flaw,
and trying to disguise the restrictiveness is dishonest.
GPL has restrictions against restrictions. BSD (and alike) has freedom
to restrictions. What gives most freedom? That depends of you are
of they who are taking ore losing freedom (just like the freedom of
baying slaves is tightly knight to the slaves loss of freedom).
Sun, 09 Apr 2006, David N. Welton skrev:
not and I don’t like the thought of joining an open source project,
Foundation. With a large enough group of developers, you can be pretty
sure that it would be unlikely that they all go work on some proprietary
version.The tricky thing is going from a small project to one with a big enough
group of committers, but that’s not easy for anyone.
Well I still don’t feel 100% safe. What if MS want to hire all the
core developers, and gives them a weary good offer? Some will of course
reject, but are you sure you can’t risk a split?
And off course. Not every project have the chance to get the size of
Apache…
Henrik Ormåsen wrote:
I enjoy writing software and giving it away for free as well - and if I
contribute to a open
source project that uses a BSDish license I get the additional benefit
that I may use my own
code (plus improvements made by others) for the commercial software I
write.
As I said. Thats good for you who are an professional programmer. I’m
not and I don’t like the thought of joining an open source project,
where suddenly all the core developer stops contributing to the open
project, but in stead take the code (including mine) to an closed
project where I later have to pay to get access to their new
improvements (again build on also my sweet and tears).
That’s an understandable sentiment.
One way to create BSD-ish code that doesn’t run this risk is to make
sure it has a big, healthy and diverse developer community, which is
something we try and ensure for our projects at the Apache Software
Foundation. With a large enough group of developers, you can be pretty
sure that it would be unlikely that they all go work on some proprietary
version.
The tricky thing is going from a small project to one with a big enough
group of committers, but that’s not easy for anyone.
–
David N. Welton
Linux, Open Source Consulting
On Sun, Apr 09, 2006 at 03:40:18PM +0200, Gazoduc wrote:
By the way, what do you think of this :
http://63.249.85.132/open_source_license.htm ?
Pretty random, and factually inaccurate in a couple of spots, based on a
quick skim. Damn long, too.
Henrik Ormåsen wrote:
Sun, 09 Apr 2006, David N. Welton skrev:
One way to create BSD-ish code that doesn’t run this risk is to make
sure it has a big, healthy and diverse developer community, which is
something we try and ensure for our projects at the Apache Software
Foundation. With a large enough group of developers, you can be pretty
sure that it would be unlikely that they all go work on some proprietary
version.The tricky thing is going from a small project to one with a big enough
group of committers, but that’s not easy for anyone.
Well I still don’t feel 100% safe. What if MS want to hire all the
core developers, and gives them a weary good offer? Some will of course
reject, but are you sure you can’t risk a split?
Possible, but increasingly unlikely as the developer community grows.
The best example of that happening is Sun ‘taking over’ the BSD code,
but that was a long time ago, before many of the pieces were in place to
do truly open development. And in some cases, you’re likely going to be
able to grow the developer community faster if you make it friendlier to
people who might want to use bits and pieces of it in a proprietary
setting. Back in its heyday, Tcl had Perl beat hands down in its uptake
as a language to embed for that reason.
And off course. Not every project have the chance to get the size of
Apache…
(The Apache web server is only one of dozens of projects at the ASF!)
It’s all about figuring out what’s right for a particular project, in
any case. I don’t get too fussed over licensing - I use what I want
with my own code, and generally don’t really care too much what other
people use, although I’ve developed something of a preference for BSD
code because I don’t have to think about it at all.
David N. Welton
Linux, Open Source Consulting
On Sun, Apr 09, 2006 at 11:18:07AM -0400, Austin Z. wrote:
for users, which was a pretty revolutionary concept at the time (and,
Obviously, you didn’t actually read what I wrote.
Based on what, exactly?
Based on other posts, you’re a bit of a GNU GPL zealot. That’s fine, but
GNU GPLed software isn’t “free”. It’s heavily restricted distribution.
If you’re basing your entire argument on how you define “free”, then you
can
stop now. We’re never going to agree.
I have no problem with a Share-Alike licence, which is essentially
what the GNU GPL is. I do have a problem with people trying to
describe it as something other than it is, which is exactly what the
supporters of the GNU GPL end up doing most of the time. They have
learned it straight from the source, though. Stallman is often at
the centre of the worst misunderstandings of the GNU GPL.
Are you sure your name isn’t Alexander Terekhov?
On Sun, Apr 09, 2006 at 11:14:30AM -0400, Austin Z. wrote:
If typo was GPL you would have to release the source upon request of
every application which uses typo in any way shape or form. This
includes even just copying some lines of code from the flickr parser
for example. GPL taints all source code its copied into.
Which, of course, is seen as a feature, not a bug, as it grows the pool of
Free Software available to the world at large.s/Free Software/GNU GPLed software/
The FSF defined the term, I think it’s OK to keep using it as they
defined
it. Or do you want the FSF to rename themselves to the Highly
Restrictive
Software Foundation?
On Sun, Apr 09, 2006 at 04:23:58PM +0200, Gazoduc wrote:
I don’t believe in “free software”, I believe in improved software and
that the commercial company will realize that it is in their better
interest to contribute their changes back instead of merging my changes
with theirs over and over again over time.
That’s awfully optimistic of you. Considering the number of companies
who
seem incapable of releasing their source when they’re required to (GPL
code
in binary-only products – consumer routers and Sony DRM, for instance),
I
don’t think that relying on corporations’ enlightened self-interest for
code
release is going to work very well.
Please note that I’m not saying that all source code needs to be free,
or
anything like that, just that if you do want source code to be freely
available, hoping for it isn’t likely to work very well in the general
case,
at the present time.
All this looks very funny… I would never have thought that
professional developers would prefer licenses
that allow locked-in code. As a professional programmer myself, I feel
much closer to BSD like licenses because, sometimes, yes, I sell things
and I do not want to worry about copyright if I want to reuse some of my
good ideas.
Not to search flames, it looks like the less people write code, the more
they care about it being “stolen”
by big companies. The more code you write, the more you care about
reusing it. I do not feel genius enough to boost Microsoft’s business if
they use my code…
Gazoduc wrote:
All this looks very funny… I would never have thought that
professional developers would prefer licenses
that allow locked-in code. As a professional programmer myself, I feel
much closer to BSD like licenses because, sometimes, yes, I sell things
and I do not want to worry about copyright if I want to reuse some of my
good ideas.
If you write code, then you own it. If you don’t want to contribute to
GPL projects, don’t. If you want to write code that you retain the
copyright to, nobody is stopping you.
All you are be prohibited from doing is taking code that other people
have written and released under the terms of their choosing, and
changing the terms to terms that the original creators didn’t want.
–
Ray
On 4/9/06, Henrik Ormåsen [email protected] wrote:
I have no problem with that. I don’t see the relevance of this. Its
okay, that you get money on writing commercial software, that isn’t an
argument for me to give you code I have written for free that you can
get more money from. Especially when this puts my work and my product
in the shadow of your and your company’s better closed source
app. with my work as the basis.
That would mean you could have done better 
You still have the original code, so please, improve it when you know
there is something better.
The way I see it:
BSD/MIT license is for people who want to improve the software world
by letting everyone use the code.
GPL is for the “communists”
OpenBSD needs your help improving the softwareworld, please donate:
http://openbsd.org/donations.html
Yes big code using companies, that includes you!
This forum is not affiliated to the Ruby language, Ruby on Rails framework, nor any Ruby applications discussed here.
Sponsor our Newsletter | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Remote Ruby Jobs