RedHat sells RedHat linux Enterprise and gives you the source code.
Posted on 2004-02-03 10:16:31 by greenant

I wonder how any sane programmer can like a license that takes away his rights :/

It doesn't take away my rights
Posted on 2004-02-03 10:17:53 by greenant
Hmmmm, there's no such program as RedHat Linux. It is just a distribution, containing a bunch of applications etc (the same goes to SuSE, Mandrake). Individual applications from that distribution are not sold. And what they are selling is a professional technical support, printed documentation etc. not the system (Linux) itself.
Posted on 2004-02-03 10:23:09 by Morris


It doesn't take away my rights


Can you include it in a commercial (= no-public-source) application? No.
Posted on 2004-02-03 10:27:08 by Morris
My choice is open source and I think GPL is the best solution for me.
I can sell my programs and I can ask money to anyone wants to get source code from me.
I think that a programmer (and a software house) should make money not selling software but selling services (documentation, techincal support, merchandise, other...)
I'm not saying that other sofware houses (like microsoft) should convert to open source, and I'm not saying that is easy to live in the opensource world.

Now I'm a student and I don't make money from my code. So the best solution now for me is GPL
Posted on 2004-02-03 10:36:13 by greenant
GPL allows people to take your code and sell it, even without having done any modifications. Sure, they'll still have to provide source, but somebody else profiting from my work would leave me with a sour taste in my mouth.

GPL, unless exceptions have been made, disallows non-free plugins in free applications. This is bad, unless you're a free-software fascist.

The GPL says "v2 or any later version". Theoretically, this would allow GNU to come up with a radically changed GPL, stick their license on your software, and distribute it. While they can't disallow you from keeping v2 license, a large userbase could be shifted to their version if they have added enough features.

GPL promotes anarchy. Just look at the amount of VI and EMACS clones out there. While VI and EMACS are both pieces of shit software, it would probably have been a benefit for the community if developer effort had been concentrated on a single version.

GNU encourages you to hand over your copyright to the FSF.

GPL allows you to make in-house modifications of GPL'ed software and not distribute sources, as long as you keep the modified version in-house... just how free is that?

You basically lose any control of your application once you release it under GPL.

Free/Open software can be a good idea in a lot of circumstances, but
GPL is viral, and outside a very few projects it should be seen as a disease...

Part of GPL's free means freeloading on other people's work. Also, do keep in mind that RMS founded the Church Of GNU just to have tax benefits... and then he dares to speak about 'moral' and basically call properietary software developers sinners?
Posted on 2004-02-03 11:24:45 by f0dder
Originally posted by f0dder
GPL allows people to take your code and sell it, even without having done any modifications. Sure, they'll still have to provide source, but somebody else profiting from my work would leave me with a sour taste in my mouth.

I know. But who is so stupid to pay something if he can find the same product FOR FREE and IN A LEGAL WAY?


GPL, unless exceptions have been made, disallows non-free plugins in free applications. This is bad, unless you're a free-software fascist.

You can't distribuite non GPL plugins with GPL software but you can use non GPL plugins with GPL software.
For example. Imagine Photoshop is under GPL. I create a super plugin, I don't give the source code and I sell it 0.000.000.
You can buy it and use it with Photoshop but you can't distribute it with (in the same package, on the same cd rom, ...) Photoshop


The GPL says "v2 or any later version". Theoretically, this would allow GNU to come up with a radically changed GPL, stick their license on your software, and distribute it. While they can't disallow you from keeping v2 license, a large userbase could be shifted to their version if they have added enough features.

I agree with you. I have removed this line from the licence. I can do It


GPL promotes anarchy. Just look at the amount of VI and EMACS clones out there. While VI and EMACS are both pieces of shit software, it would probably have been a benefit for the community if developer effort had been concentrated on a single version.

This is not a problem of GPL but a problem of OpenSource


GNU encourages you to hand over your copyright to the FSF.

But I can keep my copyright, and my copyrights are mine


GPL allows you to make in-house modifications of GPL'ed software and not distribute sources, as long as you keep the modified version in-house... just how free is that?

I agree with GPL. If you want to keep it for you, why you should spread your code?


You basically lose any control of your application once you release it under GPL.

The best win. If I'm not the best (the best coder of my application) I won't win


Free/Open software can be a good idea in a lot of circumstances, but
GPL is viral, and outside a very few projects it should be seen as a disease...

Not in my opinion
Posted on 2004-02-03 11:35:11 by greenant

I know. But who is so stupid to pay something if he can find the same product FOR FREE and IN A LEGAL WAY?

Enough people, actually. I think there's been a bunch of cases where people have ripped off free software like cdex, changed the UI a bit, bundled with some plugins, and sold it as a commercial package. Besides, I think it's plain *wrong* that other people can sell *my* work.


You can't distribuite non GPL plugins with GPL software but you can use non GPL plugins with GPL software.

Nope, this is considered as linking with the GPL application, and is thus prohibited by the GPL. The same goes for a proprietary program and a GPL plugin, see http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#GPLAndPlugins .


I agree with you. I have removed this line from the licence. I can do It

Are you sure you can do this? If so, that's a good thing. Too bad most people include the "v2 or any later" line.


This is not a problem of GPL but a problem of OpenSource

No, not if you specify the license correctly. If I released a programs as opensource (opposed to freeware/public domain), I'd include a section stating that people cannot distribute derivative works without my written acceptance, and that any source code improvements must be sent to me. This probably wouldn't be considered 'open software' by gnu, fsf and other wankers, and a lot of people might be against such a license, but imo it's the best way to go for open software - to have a consistent code base.


I agree with GPL. If you want to keep it for you, why you should spread your code?

You spread your code, under GPL. Company X modifies your source for internal use, adding a number of improvements that would be good for the general public, but keeps it for internal use only (allowed by GPL), and profits massively from this.


The best win. If I'm not the best (the best coder of my application) I won't win

Same goes for commercial software, except that competing companies don't have your codebase to start from.

Oh, and the whole idea of selling support, not your code... what's is WRONG with you people? I'm a programmer not a tech support guy. I don't know how many people are capable of designed good software *and* supporting it at the same time - and you'd definitely have to do both to make a living as a coder under the free software model. Then again, this might be why open source documentation is usually so crappy, why everybody makes up their own standards, etc ;-)
Posted on 2004-02-03 12:10:21 by f0dder
GPL is something that I would never use. Why should I restrict myself on the use of my own software ? And if I offer the source code then anyone can use it, I don't care, that's what the source was offered for. If they want to sell it fine, if they want to modify it fine by me too. My license is simple and direct, like the one that comes with Zlib, and BTW just because you provide source you do not loose the copyrights that you do not expressly give up.
Copyright ? 2004 Edgar Hansen (Donkey)

This program is free for any use as long as the source of the program is not misrepresented. It can be distributed with any package including commercial software without requiring permission

This program is distributed as freeware and WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY including the implied warranty of MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE

I mean seriously, if someone rips off your software that you are giving away for free, are you going to pay a lawyer to sue the guy ??? I wouldn't waste my time or money, I just give them the permission outright and don't break my ass worrying about it, because in reality if somebody stole it I wouldn't do anything about it anyway. Just make sure that they still say that I wrote it and I'm cool with anything at all.
Posted on 2004-02-03 13:14:39 by donkey
From GPL faq

If a program released under the GPL uses plug-ins, what are the requirements for the licenses of a

plug-in.
It depends on how the program invokes its plug-ins.
.........
If the program dynamically links plug-ins, but the communication between them is limited to invoking

the `main' function of the plug-in with some options and waiting for it to return, that is a borderline

case.



No, not if you specify the license correctly. If I released a programs as opensource (opposed to

freeware/public domain), I'd include a section stating that people cannot distribute derivative works

without my written acceptance, and that any source code improvements must be sent to me. This probably

wouldn't be considered 'open software' by gnu, fsf and other wankers, and a lot of people might be

against such a license, but imo it's the best way to go for open software - to have a consistent code

base.

I mean that is a bad habit of OpenSource world. This can't happen in the CommercialSoftware wolrd

because nobody has free access to source code.
Instead of working togheter at the same project, each single programmer create his own version and distribute it under a different name. GPL permit this, but also other free licences permit this.
One problem of Free Software and Open Source is anarchy, and I don't like anarchy.
A perfect model for everyone doesn't exist. It is only a RMS utopia.

But I think that "for me" GPL is the best way to protect my code.
My choice is to give for free my program and it source code. The GPL doesn't restrict my choice but helps me. GPL restrict the right of other programmers that want to use my code.
I never found any problems with GPL but other people that want to join to my project or want to use my code, sometimes have problems because of "GPL restrictions".


You spread your code, under GPL. Company X modifies your source for internal use, adding a number of improvements that would be good for the general public, but keeps it for internal use only (allowed by GPL), and profits massively from this.

I don't know any license that enforce Company X to spread its modifyed code.

Imagine that donkey release code of his TBPaint. Microsoft adds to it the ability to import all kinds of images (png, bmp, ico, gif, psd, psp, tiff, ....) and use them as button.
This is a beautiful thing that is very usefull for everyone. But Microsoft decide to keep this new TBPaint for internal use only?
Does donkey freeware license enforce Microsoft to publish this new code? No

We have two different ideas of OpenSource. I don't think your idea is the worst and mine is the best. They are only incompatible. So I decide GPL because it respects my idea of programmers rights.
If you have another idea, you can choose another license. There are many licenses...:grin:
Posted on 2004-02-03 15:49:45 by greenant
As you quote from the GPL faq, fork'ing is okay, using a DLL invoking a "main" function is a borderline case, which means that it might or might NOT be accepted... and as soon as you pass internal data structures around and/or have a plugin API, it doesn't matter whether you load a DLL or have external apps that communicate via sockets, pipes or whatever. Do read the FAQ again.


One problem of Free Software and Open Source is anarchy, and I don't like anarchy.
A perfect model for everyone doesn't exist. It is only a RMS utopia.

Nice to hear some sensible words from you, and good that you're not a RMS devotee :)

(snip snip)

Does donkey freeware license enforce Microsoft to publish this new code? No

No, his license doesn't, and GPL permits it too - but you can make your own license that forbids this. Of course it would be sortof hard for you to prove that they did this, but hey ;)


If you have another idea, you can choose another license. There are many licenses...

Yep. I'd just hate to end up coding for a system that has become so GPL-infested that it's next to impossible doing anything sensible without releasing your source under GPL... that could be a danger with linux, which I doubt many people have thought about.
Posted on 2004-02-03 16:18:47 by f0dder
Well, what if somebody writes a plug in that has a large variety of custom filters and he wishes to keep the code to himself as it represents a large investment of his time and he may want to include it in his own commercial package. If TBPaint is GPL he might not be able to do it and respect the license. I don't care if someone modifies my code and keeps it to themselves, 90% of TBPaint is there to respond to user requests and I personally don't use most of the nearly 50 paint and manipulation functions. I certainly don't begrudge anybody writing a plug in and keeping it to themselves so why would I object to them writing a custom version. If you include plugin support in your application it is because you are trying to encourage this behaviour. I have over 10,000 active users of TBPaint and it is still growing abiet slower, I am not in a position to keep track of everything that people do with it and frankly don't really care much as long as it works as expected. I am not likely to release the source however, as I want to control the direction that the tool takes and do not want others to muck it up and have the work attributed to me. By keeping my code I control the application, any one who asks can have any snippet of the code and I give it freely without restrictions but TBPaint remains closed source.
Posted on 2004-02-03 16:21:25 by donkey
Plugin idea is based on a project I'm developing.
It is a password auditor based on a client / server structure (I thnik it is called "distribuite computing").
Password auditing is done through plugins. Now only md5 plugin is ready but anyone is free to write his own plugin

The other plugin idea is based on Gremaf, my MAME Frontend.
I want to add the ability to save in a file the list of selected games.
The user applyes filters and get ont the screen, in a listview, a list of games.
I want to save to a file this list.
I want to create a plugin system, so the main program passes to the plugin a pointer to the data, and the plugin convert it into a file (html, pdf, rft, txt, ...)

Does anyone know wich RFC are about zip? I want to study zip and try to create my own unzip library
Posted on 2004-02-03 16:34:29 by greenant
Donkey, that sounds completely sane to me. And there isn't really any pressing reasons to opensource it, if your plugin system is elaborate enough (I haven't played with TBPaint myself, so I don't know).

Greenant, sounds like people will not be able to develop plugins for your applications that do not comply with the GPL... most likely more than just a "simple main" will be required.

I don't think there's a RFC for zip, but search for "appnote.txt", it's probably even included with the info-zip source. Iirc, the zip format is pretty trivial to parse, and zlib has the decompression methods necessary to handle just about every sane zip-file you'll encounter.
Posted on 2004-02-03 16:44:17 by f0dder
Btw, googling for appnote.txt, this was the first hit I found: http://www.pkware.com/products/enterprise/white_papers/
Posted on 2004-02-03 16:45:23 by f0dder
1. search www.wotsit.org
2. might help http://www.winimage.com/zLibDll/unzip.html
3. make your own license :grin:
Posted on 2004-02-03 16:46:11 by arkane
I downloaded rfc 1951 (deflate) and 1952 (gzip format).
Now I'm learning zip file structure. Maybe I will use zlib because it is more flexible than info-zip
Posted on 2004-02-04 04:57:57 by greenant