Post #218,253
8/8/05 7:55:39 PM
|
Excuse me. I am a programmer.
And I use application source code in the enterprise. My strong impression is that you're embarrassing yourself in public with your ignorance.
Volunteers do not owe you the right to try to make money via any particular business model. If they want to contribute software under terms that you don't want to accept, then don't accept them. Period.
If the prospect of them donating software under those terms scares you, then you're saying that there is some way for someone else to run a business that would eat yours alive. Figure out how to do that and you'll make a fortune. If you think that lots of people want to find terms that keep you from using their donation in the way that you want to use it, then you are admitting that you're taking advantage of their generosity.
Now it seems that somehow you think that it is a bad thing for people to be able to choose a copyright license that you don't like. I simply don't see that. If I want to donate my time and energy to giving away software, then I should be able to put whatever terms I want on said software.
Sincerely,
Ben
PS And remember that not all software will be released under this license. For instance when I look at the software that we use at work, all is either not GPLed (Perl, Apache, etc), or has non-GPLed free equivalents we could switch to (FreeBSD, vim).
I have come to believe that idealism without discipline is a quick road to disaster, while discipline without idealism is pointless. -- Aaron Ward (my brother)
|
Post #218,267
8/8/05 8:35:29 PM
|
there is a place for all kinds
large companies prefer to use vendors, I always carefully ask the vendors the license terms of all componants of their offering and ask how they are complying with whatever licensing scheme they use. I mostly use gpl in the support tools. When asked I frown upon usage in deployed apps unless the deployer clearly understands the license terms and has taken a run by the legal department prior to making it available to a customer.
Now since perl has permeated the enterprise to become the glue choice, does one have to make all the code available or just the perl scripts?
thanx,
bill
Just call me Mr. Lynch \\
Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free american and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 49 years. meep
questions, help? [link|mailto:pappas@catholic.org|email pappas at catholic.org]
|
Post #218,269
8/8/05 8:47:14 PM
|
Perl's licensing situation is interesting
Perl is available under a choice of the GPL or the Artistic License. I have it on good authority that the Artistic License was designed to be easy to drive a truck through.
Apparently there is a desire to tighten up Perl 6's licensing somewhat. But not too much - after all a number of key Perl people are big BSD fans who detest the GPL. Larry Wall doesn't want to drive them away.
Cheers,
Ben
I have come to believe that idealism without discipline is a quick road to disaster, while discipline without idealism is pointless. -- Aaron Ward (my brother)
|
Post #218,277
8/8/05 9:44:15 PM
|
Not at all, Ben.
Never did I say that people should be prevented from choosing whatever license they choose. I DO believe that GPL3 (as outlined now) is a bad license. I also believe that people who don't care about the implications for business will use it. It DOES eliminate much of the utiliity of makng the source available. This could have a negative effect on business uptake - it makes software released under GPL3 little more than shrinkwrap software, as far as business is concerned. No more customisation for businesses, much of the promise of GPLed software is irrelevant if published under v3. My strong impression is that you're embarrassing yourself in public with your ignorance. I've been programming in the business world for the last 25 years, Ben. I know how business IT works; I've been in the thick of it for a LOOOONG time. My concerns over what I see as a possible bright future for GPLed software, and (in-house) IT is anything but an embarrasment. I don't think it will be the end of all things, but it will hinder/cripple the 'movement' if this thing doesn't undergo some bg changes. Under v3, availability of source code becomes much less of a feature. [link|http://www.runningworks.com|
] Imric's Tips for Living
- Paranoia Is a Survival Trait
- Pessimists are never disappointed - but sometimes, if they are very lucky, they can be pleasantly surprised...
- Even though everyone is out to get you, it doesn't matter unless you let them win.
|
Nothing is as simple as it seems in the beginning,
As hopeless as it seems in the middle,
Or as finished as it seems in the end.
|
|
Post #218,279
8/8/05 9:57:19 PM
|
Perspective is all
Guess we could use the pirates creedo and say that my "improving" and "using" GPL code doesn't amount to theft - since the GPL code is still available to any and all. But that tends to not get us anywhere.
Just as people who write code should be "free" to issue their software under the stupidest license possible, isn't it obvious that we should be just as "free" to persuade them that some licenses are stoopid. Telling them the license sux, doesn't mean that we are knaves and thieves bent on stealing their precious out from under them.
Really, the pro-or-anti business argument is a tad misleading. Truth is that there are some major businesses (e.g. IBM) that commit an enormous amount of manpower and money to open source projects. They do this not out of the kindness of their hearts, but rather out of a conniving plot to make money (especially to keep MS at bay). It would probably be best not to chase these resources away. Not all GPL software is a bunch of kids in the garage trying to stroke their ego.
|
Post #218,287
8/8/05 10:11:53 PM
|
Pirates?
Geez, man - that's like saying BSDed code is being stolen when it is not changed and not released.
As for stealing, well, I never said that either. It's quite simply that availabilty of source becomes far less attractive. Fewer programmers will use it in house. Because business wants to get return and advantage for their efforts. No advantage? No effort.
[link|http://www.runningworks.com|
] Imric's Tips for Living
- Paranoia Is a Survival Trait
- Pessimists are never disappointed - but sometimes, if they are very lucky, they can be pleasantly surprised...
- Even though everyone is out to get you, it doesn't matter unless you let them win.
|
Nothing is as simple as it seems in the beginning,
As hopeless as it seems in the middle,
Or as finished as it seems in the end.
|
|
Post #218,294
8/8/05 10:42:16 PM
|
Pirate analogy is a different issue
It's a common argument against the idea of intellectual property. The argument says that if I "pirate" a copy of your software, I have not taken property away from you - you still have the software. In the same token, if I modify GPL software and start making money from it, I have not taken away the source code from you. My making money from your software does not amount to theft since you still have the source. You may not be able to take advantage of my improvements, but if I wasn't afforded the chance to make money, there'd be no improvements to be redistributed. Anyhow, such arguments don't cut much in the GNU world - which is always odd since they don't believe in IP rights. Anyhow, it's a dead end.
As for why business uses GPL software, the question is a bit more complicated. Some companies would like to make refinements to the software and sell those refinements. Other businesses are only in the business of changing the code for in-house use. And then there are some that try to blend these - ASP sorts of models - where the software is kept in-house but is sold as a service. Finally, some businesses participate fully in GPL software, giving back all modifications to the community - akin to a loss-leader strategy.
I would note that FSF has been vocally opposed to open source licenses that require those that modify the software to make their contributions publically available (even for in-house apps). The JCP being one they have argued against since it requires that you make all modifications available to Sun - Stallman has gone on record saying that this violates the concept of Free Software (though he has many other complaints about JCP that go beyond this one clause). Another license that's been criticized by FSF is the one attached to Squeak, which has a similar clause, though that project is not attached to a corporate entitity.
Personally, I think it's a balancing act that must be made. Lest FSF forget, the purpose of free software is not to prevent others from using or making money off of source code. The purpose is to make as much software available under the GNU terms as possible - and to make that free software as splendid as possible - and to make it as widely used as possible.
|
Post #218,296
8/8/05 10:46:16 PM
|
I disagree
under the GNU terms as possible - and to make that free software as splendid as possible - and to make it as widely used as possible.
It is to allow other programmers to learn and build. Everything else is a side effect, not the pupose.
|
Post #218,308
8/8/05 11:16:18 PM
|
The original instigation for FSF
arose from the experience with the Unix OS under Bell Labs. Programmers, such as Stallman, wanted access to the source code so that they could make improvements. They wanted to share those improvements with other such programmers. AT&T came in and restricted the redistribution of the source code because they owned the OS and all surrounding utilities.
Now how this translates into whose freedoms are being protected is a different issue. Does this mean that I have to make all modifications available to the community under all circumstances? Well, the GPL does not have that general level of a requirement, as it sought to hone in only on those that attempted to restrict access to source code when it was redistributed. The current question is not whether a programmer is forced to release modifications, but in what circumstances a trigger is met that software is being distributed.
The purpose of the FSF was to build a toolset (and subsequent OS) that was based on the free exchange of source. The goal is to make that toolset as useful as possible, such that one need not use software for which one does not have source. Use of that software in proprietary systems is not antithetical to the FSF, other than in the way it effects the quality of free software. Learning and building are but secondary goals to the overall goal of making a set of free software that can be used by users.
But all this is pure pedantry. The reasons why people contribute to free software is quite varied, as noted by Stallman's constant irritation of Linus' engineering indifference. One of the interesting questions in all this is whether Linux (excuse me, GNU/Linux) will go with a GPLv3 license. Remember that the goals of Linux are not necessarily in alignment with FSF. Sure, some distributions may use it, but there will also be many that don't. And most will simply distribute the various components under whatever license (incompatible or not) that happened to be attached.
MySQL, the other example cited, is much different than either FSF or Linux. It is issued under the GPL by a company that also sells a proprietary version. It is in their interest to prevent other companies from improving and selling MySQL services - since that's how they make some of their money. They'd just as well be the only ones making proprietary improvements - not exactly what you'd call the same goals as FSF. The authors of Jasper Reports is in the process of trying to use this same sort of business model.
|
