Oh yes, I want to spend a lot of time coding an app, and only get money for supporting it... code shouldn't have to be free.
Posted on 2004-01-21 15:18:05 by f0dder

Oh yes, I want to spend a lot of time coding an app, and only get money for supporting it... code shouldn't have to be free.


I totally and absolutely agree with that :)

the (if not only) purpose of the GPL is to be viral as far as I've ever read it.
Posted on 2004-01-21 15:24:59 by Hiroshimator
:sweat: Have ppl stoped coding for fun now days?

btw ever read this?
Frequently Asked Questions about the GNU GPL:
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#DoesTheGPLAllowMoney
Selling Free Software - http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/selling.html
(yes I've read it all - it's really not -that- much text)
The word ``free'' has two legitimate general meanings; it can refer either to freedom or to price. When we speak of ``free software'', we're talking about freedom, not price. (Think of ``free speech'', not ``free beer''.) Specifically, it means that a user is free to run the program, change the program, and redistribute the program with or without changes.

Since free software is not a matter of price, a low price isn't more free, or closer to free. So if you are redistributing copies of free software, you might as well charge a substantial fee and make some money. Redistributing free software is a good and legitimate activity; if you do it, you might as well make a profit from it.
Posted on 2004-01-21 16:06:50 by scientica
Sure, you're allowed to take money for your software. The little problem here is... so are everybody else. For YOUR software, too. This is one reason I'd never freaking ever use GPL for a commercial product (and yes, there *is* a chance I'll end up doing coding for a living). For a free project, I wouldn't use GPL either... I release something for free, and somebody else profiting from it? Not a chance in hell.

GPL is an atrocious virus, and I can't understand why any coder would use it. Free software should be about GIVING rights, not taking them from the original authors.
Posted on 2004-01-21 16:18:48 by f0dder
things like this make me want to puke and the GPL is filled with them.
Posted on 2004-01-21 16:48:26 by Hiroshimator
I agree with fodder and hiro. To me, GPL seems like a plague. Ack.
Posted on 2004-01-21 21:58:02 by roticv
Ahh... Now GPL. It is interesting to see how the topic of a thread evolves. :)

I understand why RMS would put that viral clause into GPL intentionally. If you don't know the historical background; in old days, a company used the code RMS contributed and made a comercial software (long before GPL v.1 came along). Naturally, RMS got mad about it and, voila, the virus is born. And, if you don't know it, GPL is referred as a 'viral' license long before MS described it as such.

I don't like the way RMS uses the word 'free'. I don't know if it is still on GNU website, but, I read a pretty lame excuse about not calling 'liberty' software. Calling GPL'ed software 'free' is _not_ honest. Of course, if software is a person, software itself has freedom under GPL, and software will appreciate it. But, the person who writes or contributes to it has no freedom to do what (s)he wants. (Here is the point where I can quote 19th century usage of the word 'fetichism' in an influential book.)

If TCP/IP has been GPL'ed, the network would have been quite different from what we have now. (Maybe Novell could still dominate the network under widespread Windows installation.) If kerberos has been GPL'ed, the security area would have been quite different. And, if X has been GPL'ed, GUI environment for linux would have been devastating - even worse than the current state.

GPL is great in some cases though, for example, when one has a vague idea but is more or less challenged. See how the example program in C&B evolved.

But, if you ask me; unless I evaluate myself incompetent, I would not release my code under GPL. I would either make it free (not in RMS's twisted usage, but in BSD way) or sell it.
Posted on 2004-01-22 01:35:09 by Starless
hiro:
//things like this make me want to puke and the GPL is filled with them.

lol! "and if it uses "fork" etc" ... hahaha

in french we have 2 explicit words: libre and gratuit. not much of a help though, since there is only libre used by ref to software :)

yes, programming is work, like if you build a table and sell it, for example.
the problem is the result is immaterial. so what? you ve spent hours working.

if ppl give them for others to benefit from it thats ok, its a great and admirable concept, but you cant put the blame on ppl that want to get paid. there are not only ppl that program for fun.

if i did a big freetime project for fun, i used to think i would throw it away without restrictions, cause anyway ppl can rip it so why bother :)

but it can be disturbing to know ppl can make money with it, so ... maybe gpl was a good idea...
the quirk is that its very hard to define all these restrictions/rights precisely from a lawyer s point of view...
Posted on 2004-01-24 17:50:06 by HeLLoWorld

but it can be disturbing to know ppl can make money with it, so ... maybe gpl was a good idea...

GPL allows other people to sell your work.
Posted on 2004-01-24 17:54:00 by f0dder
well HelloWorld, it's even more than that :/

I like to use BSD-style license myself, which bars me from using anything GPL due to its viral nature. How 'free' is that?

The only thing GPL promotes is itself, it certainly isn't freedom :notsure:
Posted on 2004-01-24 17:59:07 by Hiroshimator
Instead of GPL do your own license.

GPL let other people fill ups CDs, sell your work, profit from it, and guess what you cannot say anithing about it.
So there are predators outthere that benefit from the GPL. And what happens if you latter want to change your licence?

Correction
Guess what you will need to continue give new version under GPL since they are derivative work from a GPL source (your code).

Is wrong.

http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#ReleaseUnderGPLAndNF

Explains that altough its ethically tainted you have the right to put the code under various licenses. So in their words, you are just unetical if you use YOUR OWN GPL'd code on a close source Application.
Posted on 2004-01-24 17:59:56 by Xanatose
http://www.gnu.org/doc/book13.html

Why doesn't the FSF put their books on a similar license as GPL? Then everyone can copyand modify their book, even put pretty pdf copies of it into cds. Finally it will be free as air :alright:

Im being sarcastic. :mad:
GNU is a business look how much they charge for others people code:

https://agia.fsf.org/

Prices are from $35.00 for software for Windows and MS DOS to $5,000.00 for a deluxe package in that they compile the code for you???

IMHO, freedom, freedom to steal your code. :)

Finally

Why does the FSF require that contributors to FSF-copyrighted programs assign copyright to the FSF? If I hold copyright on a GPL'ed program, should I do this, too? If so, how?

Whatever you do, dont give them your copyright, otherwise you can be found in a position that you cannot use YOUR OWN CODE for a closed source application. Since they will own the copyright, not you.
Posted on 2004-01-24 20:07:09 by Xanatose

Oh yes, I want to spend a lot of time coding an app, and only get money for supporting it... code shouldn't have to be free.

the libarays are under the LGPL you can link to them
without putting your code under the GPL
and as long as you don't use GPL code you don't have to
release under the GPL

If you don't want your code being free don't use free code in it
other than the system libs under the LGPL
Posted on 2004-01-26 19:09:15 by rob.rice
With LGPL, you have to make your object files available so other people can re-link with newer versions of the LGPL libraries. Which means they have full access to my symbols, and can rip off my objects/libraries if they want. No can do.

There's nothing 'free' about *GPL, except for freeloading. Oh yeah, and the freebase people who release under GPL must be doing.

Btw, with a signature like that, don't you think you should be trolling around some other forum?
Posted on 2004-01-26 19:25:30 by f0dder
no
Posted on 2004-01-26 19:53:15 by rob.rice
maybe it's a public service message: he's fallen out one and now is trying to warn everyone. :grin:
Posted on 2004-01-27 03:47:23 by Hiroshimator
As for GPL: I don't like it much... the problem I usually see with it is that whenever you use a tiny bit say less then 1% functionality in your program, you still have to release everything under GPL, which is really unacceptable.

I sometimes use other people's code in some PHP I write and I always have to be very wary of the license so that I do not use GPL, LGPL or similar. Why? I license my code (without the 'foreign code') as BSD but GPL would forcibly overrule that, which is not something I want.

GPL is a very rude license.
Posted on 2004-01-27 03:53:22 by Hiroshimator
GPL is a very rude license.


What a coincidence, it is often promoted by rude people :)
Posted on 2004-01-27 11:14:24 by Henk-Jan
I found this thread today, and I felt to add something to it. This thread is a quite interesting debate, however I think some important points was missed out.

I will share with you my experience in the Linux-Windows problems.
My "real" Linux experience started last year's November. Until then I tried two times Mandrake Linux, but it got me very mad. I had VERY BAD experiences with Mandrake. I read everywhere that Mandrake is good for beginners, that's why I choosed it. The install went fine, but I had 2 huge problems:
    - I HAD ABSOLUTELY NO IDEEA, WHAT IS HE DOING during the install process;
    - I HAD NO IDEEA which packages should I install.

Ok, I installed KDE, and after it I got the surprise. When I launched an application it started after 5-10 seconds. And I thought that Linux is crap, and it is slow, and worth nothing. This behavior realy pissed me off, a simple application launches in few seconds, and the computer is doing nothing (the HDD Led was not bright). After many-many search on goolgle I found that I did not set a host name. After setting a host name to my computer, suddenly the applications started normally, and Linux got normal. I think this is ridiculous.
The other thing that bothered me, was that Mandrake tries to hide all the config files. You will have no ideea what is happening, what other options are, etc. If you f*uck up something in the system, you will not get to solve it.
Conclusion: I think Mandrake is NOT GOOD for beginners (at least for those who want to learn linux internals and what is realy happening).

After hearing that Linux is so good, and well, etc, and after this realy unpleasant experience I started to speek, as HelloWorld spoke on this thread: Linux is crap, Windows is better organized, the gui is good, etc, etc. Plug and Play, task scheduling etc., etc. And I realy believed what I said to everyone. I did an anti-linux propaganda.
Meantime I forgot a VERY SMALL detail in my philosophy: actually I did not now anything about Linux, but I did comment it.

On my second years of study at the faculty (3 years ago) I started to use the Xilinx ISE Foundation software, and the ModelSim from MentorGraphics. Perhaps those of you, who are working in the software business, and IT, maybe you don't have bad experiences with Windows, but my problems started to begin. These huge 3rd party (I mean not developed by M$) big corporate softwares runs realy BAD with windows. I'm saying this form my experience. During the project, I got very mad because of Windows: after 3-4 years of working with Xilinx and simulating with ModelSim I had to restart my computer to get the system work. Xilinx ISE Synthetiser started to do stupid things. Actually it becamed a horror, that I cannot worked normally, this implided that I started to fear that in any minute the software might crash. Evidently you cannot get production this way. I LOST MANY PRECIOUS OURS of working because of these crashes.
I think you cannot say that those two softwares are badly written, and they don't know how to program, and they are crap. These are one of the most seriously programmed and designed softwares for FPGA design and VHDL simulation.

Another example: the "famous" AutoCAD. My father is an architect, he is working with it from 15 years, even from MS-DOS era, (when AutoCAD relase 12 was on the top). I'm managing his computer, I know everything that does not go well. You cannot imagine how many times is crashing that software. Day by day, at the critical commands, when something more complex and more memory consuming operation should be done. Again, where is the problem? AutoCAD or Windows?

Another example: Protel. Have you worked with it? I'm sure if you had, you know what I'm saying about it's crashing. Etc. Etc.

Let me speaking about MS Office: Try to make a Word document of around 20-30 pages, and do some "live" external links to different excel tables. My father had to do such things for the documentations of different building documenations. Damn, after 20-30 pages, Word started to crash each time. Software which was made by MS. If you are using Word for doing some serious documentation, and you are importing some external objects, drawings, embedded word objects, I'm sure you know what I'm talking about, that you cannot trust Office.

Our computer's are expensive, genuine Intel mainboard, P4 HT, etc. I cannot say, that our computers are not adequate. So from where are the problems originating? Do you thing that many big corporate (not GNU, GPL, etc) softwares are badly designed, and strangely they all have that common time-to-time crash feature?

Let me saying something: WINDOWS IS NOT DESIGNED FOR dealing with mass data, and with applications that are realy pushing your computer to the limits. I'm not saying that in every day life, windows is not ok, but in research, and real production you cannot count on it. And I learnt this from my experience, and I think that I invested too much time in Windows.

Those bad experiences urged me to do something with this problem, I cannot continue with this fear, that in every minute my Windows can crash. I decided to give another try to Linux, because Xilinx ISE had also a linux version. I decided to try it, and to compare it, to see what is realy going on.
This time I wanted to learn Linux seriously. Many people thinks that learning linux comes from itself, the same is with learning assembly language. Very few of my friends had the endurance to learn assembly language, instead they said that it's old fashioned, etc. and the most common cliche: today compilers generate equal or better optimized code than direct assembly language, so it does not worth. You all know this is not true.
To the recomendation of one my friend I installed Gentoo Linux. This time everything was different: the install guide, the documentation was realy well written. I succeded to install it from the 1st, even with kernel compiling, without any previous experience. AND I LOVED IT, because by the install process I saw the internals, I understood what is happening inside. This is the BEST distro to learn, because here nothing is hide, but of course it's harder also, you have to be careful what you do. But from this reason it's also exciting.
Suddenly I found myself working with Linux day and night, I realy love to play with it with configurations, to see the possibilities. I read the forums day and night, that's the best source for all kind of problems. I found on the forum all the support, and help for all my problems, it's amazing. I managed to set up my hardware sensors too, I did not have any driver problems.

It's also a strange and good feeling, when you let your computer to recompile the whole system (upgrade or you modified the compiler optimization flags), and it does compilation (complex and difficult task) over 48 ours without any seg. fault, or other kind of error. You won't believe it unless you try it. I hardly believe you can do the same on Windows

Try the same Eagle (PCB CAD) version, under Windows and Linux. You will se the difference (also in graphics speed and the startup time, and when it loads the libraries). It's twice as fast under Linux. Honestly. And both are binary precompiled, you cannot even say that I recompiled with optimized flags.

Try to work with huge files: my linux is working approx 1.5-2 times faster with the HDD than XP. Not to speak about OpenGL: both in speed and quality(!!) are significant differences.

Before, I tought that this could not be possible, and that those buggy, crappy, etc. GNU and GPL software could not be better or reliable than the comercial ones, but now I'm trying to believe that this is not 100% true. Yes, there are people who are not programing (just) for money, even if we consider them crazy. Why is KetilO doing RadASM IDE, and Hutch the MASM32, and the others? Why does OllyDbg exists? And these are extremely good programs, and they also are free. Why is Hiroshimator "wasting" his time (and money) on this forum? I'm sorry if I did not mention the others.
If they wouldn't do this, we wouldn't exist. I'm often thinking about how do these people live, if they spend their time with this, when are they earning money, etc. But they are the proof, that it can be done, and on very professional level.

I tend to believe, that these GNU, GPL, and other free softwares are getting better. If you write a software for yourself, probable you will write it in a good manner, you will not trick yourself, even if your program is just under development. However in the case of a comercial company there is only one rule: profit. Quality of software does not count, does not matter HOW it works, what it matters is only the fastest time to market. Where is the professionalism? Or maybe I'm just too idealistic in thinking?

I'm sorry folks for my infatuation  :D I know that this is a Win32 and not Linux Assembly Language forum, but I needed to share whit someone these feelings. I just saw in the last half-year that there is a completely new/other world beside the Windows assault, and it's realy good to feel again that I can work comfortably, feeling that I did not felt for a long time under Windows.

And returning to Xilinx ISE, it's also strange that almost every screenshots that I saw in different documentation on the internet from that software are linux based, not windows one. What do you think, why...?? Why started bigger companies do make also Linux version of their softwares? It seems, that something is changing in this field.

Under Linux if there's some problem you always have possibilities, under Windows you are stucked. And the key to Linux is the same as for assembly language: endurance and perseverence (I think), but the time invested definitely worth. It's similar with a simulator game for example. If you have a simple game with a few option, it gives you a good feeling, when you play with it. If you got a new one but with a lot of configurable options, you get lost in it (at the beginnig). It will not give you a significant better feeling, unless you try to play with options, and you set up for your needs. It's more difficult, but you will get a tuned system, for your needs.

As a conclusion: I realy regret that I did not started to learn Linux sooner. Windows is ok for a certain level, because it must be known, but Linux is an adventure, a completely new experience.

I'm sorry that my post ended to be so long, and I'm sorry that I'm bothering you with my personal feelings. I welcome any comments on it.
Regards,
bszente
Posted on 2005-05-11 17:55:50 by bszente
Go with FreeBSD.  All problems solved.
Posted on 2005-05-11 18:05:51 by drhowarddrfine