#105368 - Lazy1 - Sun Oct 08, 2006 5:31 am
Split from here
The GPL, while maybe not "evil" is completely useless.
Everyone seems to throw it into their project seemingly for the hell of it, especially audio libraries.
Any less restrictive license would do, but nooo.
They had to go and choose one that would leave so many existing projects with existing licenses have next to no options.
I'm all for open source, but when a section of text basically fucks your project over I get pissed.
As for re-inventing the wheel, honestly, how many people are capable of writing audio libraries that not only sound good but have good filesizes?
Some things need to be left to the pros, but unfortunately they're all just continuing to throw that horrible license into every project possible.
I wouldn't be surprised if there is a hello world app somewhere licensed under it.
#105399 - Sausage Boy - Sun Oct 08, 2006 2:03 pm
Lazy1, if you had actually taken the time to read what the FSF thinks, you'd realize that placing libraries under the GPL is actually pretty smart. The point is to give an advantage to open source programs against commercial software. Commercial companies can not use the library, as it would force them to license their entire program under the GPL, but people who write free, GPL'd software can.
When you see it from that perspective, it really makes sense.
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/why-not-lgpl.html
_________________
"no offense, but this is the gayest game ever"
Last edited by Sausage Boy on Mon Oct 09, 2006 5:04 pm; edited 1 time in total
#105423 - Lazy1 - Sun Oct 08, 2006 5:17 pm
Oh sure, it's very smart to license everything under something that fucks over people with existing licenses that are incompatible.
That is all I care about, and that is the main reason why the GPL should disappear entirely.
#105435 - Optihut - Sun Oct 08, 2006 6:03 pm
| Lazy1 wrote: |
Oh sure, it's very smart to license everything under something that fucks over people with existing licenses that are incompatible.
That is all I care about, and that is the main reason why the GPL should disappear entirely. |
Why don't you change your existing licence and make it compatible then?
#105438 - Mr. Picklesworth - Sun Oct 08, 2006 6:19 pm
| Lazy1 wrote: |
Oh sure, it's very smart to license everything under something that fucks over people with existing licenses that are incompatible.
That is all I care about, and that is the main reason why the GPL should disappear entirely. |
The solution is simple: If your own license is incompatible with GPLd software, or if you don't want to release your source,
Don't use the software that someone offered you for free.
That's not to mention how there's a good chance they gave you a damn good selection of fast mirrors to download it from.
When you use software, you accept its terms.
Period.
(Hm... this reminds me of a few other sad tales with people moaning about the quality of some DS homebrew...)
Anyway, I've used MPL a lot over here. It seems a bit happier than GPL... I forget why though, so I'll have to read it again :/
I have found that actually talking with the original developers of software with these licenses can get some nice little deals going. As long as they're okay with what you're doing, it's fine.
The license doesn't really take precedence over a solid communication with the developer, unless that person turns out to be a real jerk, which is surprisingly rare.
_________________
Thanks!
MKDS Friend Code: 511165-679586
MP:H Friend Code: 2105 2377 6896
Last edited by Mr. Picklesworth on Sun Oct 08, 2006 6:47 pm; edited 1 time in total
#105442 - Lazy1 - Sun Oct 08, 2006 6:46 pm
First of all, I did release my source - not because some text forced me to but because I wanted to.
Second of all, who said I put the license there to begin with?
You can't just go changing licenses around, thus making some libraries unavailable to projects that desperately need them
You all seem to be missing the point of what I'm saying, now it's just your personal fight to defend the GPL despite this critical flaw.
Luckily for me, someone in IRC pointed out an LGPL mp2 decoder that I can use with Wolfenstein which was released under the ID Software license.
I don't give two shits if applications use the GPL license, hell it's even a good idea. But it has NO place in a library!
#105443 - Mr. Picklesworth - Sun Oct 08, 2006 6:50 pm
Agreed there, sort of.
However, it still is the case that the developers chose to make a library which promotes GPLd software.
As I said (edited in, so you may have missed it) it doesn't hurt to communicate with those people to see if an agreement can be met.
_________________
Thanks!
MKDS Friend Code: 511165-679586
MP:H Friend Code: 2105 2377 6896
#105444 - Lazy1 - Sun Oct 08, 2006 6:56 pm
I would, but in the source readme they basically said not to email them about anything.
#105445 - Darkflame - Sun Oct 08, 2006 6:56 pm
Theres certainly truth to the fact many people slap a GPL on without thinking.
Its like "I want my software to be free, supporting the good guys, therefor go with GPL".
_________________
Darkflames Reviews --
Make your own at;
Rateoholic:Reviews for anything, by anyone.
#105457 - Sausage Boy - Sun Oct 08, 2006 8:42 pm
I believe a person capable of writing a good sound library is capable of deciding which license fits his moral beliefs, and if you don't share his views, go look somewhere else, he didn't want you to use the library in the first place.
_________________
"no offense, but this is the gayest game ever"
#105466 - Lazy1 - Sun Oct 08, 2006 9:03 pm
What kind of shitty response is that?
If you'd come down from that high horse you'd see that many people have existing licenses that are INCOMPATIBLE with the GPL.
If the library author wants to be an asshole and lock all those people out then be my guest.
#105467 - Lynx - Sun Oct 08, 2006 9:06 pm
| Quote: |
| Probably somebody who wants to take from the community without giving back to the community |
My point exactly.. They want other peoples hard work to be free, but they don't feel their hard work should be free.. Sounds like a duble standard, doesn't it?
Even libs, someone had to do the hard work.. and their work is important to them. If you want to use their hard work, you PAY THE PRICE and follow the GPL..
I love it.. this falls into the same thing when people complain about homebrew.. it's free! You want something better, go buy a commercial version of it.. So, if you want to piss and moan about a lib that is GPL, how about you go buy a commercial version that does the same thing the GPL'd lib does? Yeah.. screw that.. I'm not going to pay money for something when I can piss and moan about a GPL'd version that I can get for free!
I can see if you spend $300 to liscense a lib, and it sucks.. complain all you like, you paid good money for something that sucks.. and it's your every right to complain.. But, when all you spent was a few minutes of your time downloading something.. if you don't like it, or it's liscense.. ya'know what? TO DAMN BAD!
_________________
NDS Homebrew Roms & Reviews
#105468 - mntorankusu - Sun Oct 08, 2006 9:07 pm
| Lazy1 wrote: |
What kind of shitty response is that?
If you'd come down from that high horse you'd see that many people have existing licenses that are INCOMPATIBLE with the GPL.
If the library author wants to be an asshole and lock all those people out then be my guest. |
If you want to use someone else's library, you have follow their rules for using it. If you don't want to, make your own. It's as simple as that.
#105469 - Lazy1 - Sun Oct 08, 2006 9:09 pm
You are also missing the point, I don't care about using it or not.
I care that they are chosing such a restrictive license.
#105473 - kerrle - Sun Oct 08, 2006 9:45 pm
The GPL isn't particularly restrictive - it has essentially one requirement, that the resulting program also be open - and that's entirely reasonable.
If you don't like that, you're entirely free to pay someone for an alternative library. Heck, many authors of GPL software will relicense for individuals when approached with a serious offer.
If your project has an existing license that isn't GPL compatible, that's hardly the library author's fault.
By choosing the GPL, the author isn't "being an ass and locking people out" - he's just saying that the condition for using his contribution to the community is that you also make a contribution.
#105474 - Lazy1 - Sun Oct 08, 2006 9:52 pm
If your working for fun, and expect no monetary gain spending money on a license is not an option.
There are plenty of other licenses out there that will allow developers already working on projects with an existing license to link against it.
If someone hadn't pointed out an LGPL mp2 decoder to me wolf3d for the DS would never have the original music. It was very frustrating to know that some text was blocking me from using all of the well known audio libraries.
Sure things are fine now, but you have no idea how frustrating it was and I'm sure other developers have had the same experience and feel the same way.
#105476 - Darkflame - Sun Oct 08, 2006 10:21 pm
| Quote: |
| By choosing the GPL, the author isn't "being an ass and locking people out" - he's just saying that the condition for using his contribution to the community is that you also make a contribution. |
Yes, but the point is degrees of separation, what your contributing might be open, but the existing thing your having to use from someone else might not be.
What I belief Lazy1 is trying to say there are other licences that allow us to use code, but wouldn't be allowed to work with a GPL.
Thus if your using one free thing, and another free thing and open thing, to make a third free thing, you might not be able too because of the GPL license.
_________________
Darkflames Reviews --
Make your own at;
Rateoholic:Reviews for anything, by anyone.
#105498 - tepples - Sun Oct 08, 2006 11:56 pm
| kerrle wrote: |
| The GPL isn't particularly restrictive - it has essentially one requirement, that the resulting program also be open - and that's entirely reasonable. |
Except a lot of free software licenses aren't compatible with the GPL due to technical problems such as a patent retaliation clause.
Which MP2 decoder is this, by the way? How does MP2 compare to GSM Full Rate in quality per kbps and CPU cycles per sample?
_________________
-- Where is he?
-- Who?
-- You know, the human.
-- I think he moved to Tilwick.
#105502 - Lazy1 - Mon Oct 09, 2006 12:21 am
It was libmp2dec.
Oddly enough however, I think my old build of sox may have been broken.
I just tested GSM at 44100hz and it sounded fine, and only 512kb for a 56 second song.
I will definately look into this.
#105504 - tepples - Mon Oct 09, 2006 12:28 am
You'll want to use 32768 Hz on a DS because that's the native sample rate of the built-in DAC.
Toast is a popular Free GSM codec under a simple permissive license. I've ported it to GBA, under the same license. It runs at a fixed data rate of 1650 bits per 1000 samples. It was originally tuned for speech at 8000 Hz and 13.2 kbps, but it seems to perform OK at higher sample rates too.
_________________
-- Where is he?
-- Who?
-- You know, the human.
-- I think he moved to Tilwick.
#105778 - telamon - Wed Oct 11, 2006 9:01 pm
| Darkflame wrote: |
What I belief Lazy1 is trying to say there are other licences that allow us to use code, but wouldn't be allowed to work with a GPL.
Thus if your using one free thing, and another free thing and open thing, to make a third free thing, you might not be able too because of the GPL license. |
Indeed, it seems many here have failed to understand the scenario. It's a tough situation lazy1 has found himself in, being crushed in the middle between two incomapitable licenses. But in my opinion he has quite severely misunderstood the situation himself. He has directed the flamethrower into the wrong direction and is now proppelling himself backwards. The incompatible license is not GPL, it's the ID Software license.
So to sum things up.
Instead of writing an email to IDsoft explaining his situation and petition them for a solution, he ended up creating a close to useless thread turning on the heat for every freelancing developer out there.
The only flaws in GPL I can see is that not everyone reads it before licensing their code under it.
There is as earlier mentioned in this thread several different prewritten licenses which could be better for your particular project.
the best thing would be if you simply wrote your own if you don't have time to read through a prewritten license.
But then there still is the LGPL or BSD(new) license which in most cases is better suited for a library. That ofcourse is still up to the original author to decide.
If revenge really is what lazy1 wants, then I suggest he writes a very useful library, then release it under the old BSD license and request that anyone using his code must somewhere display the text "I'm the bastard of a monkey and I sell software for money."
_________________
http://manifested.ath.cx
#105819 - TJ - Thu Oct 12, 2006 7:07 am
"close to useless" seems quite generous.
#105821 - Lynx - Thu Oct 12, 2006 7:12 am
| Quote: |
| must somewhere display the text "I'm the bastard of a monkey and I sell software for money." |
Now.. is there a font limitation with that? :D
_________________
NDS Homebrew Roms & Reviews
#105827 - Darkflame - Thu Oct 12, 2006 10:01 am
If sold, all the text displayed must be Comic Sans.
_________________
Darkflames Reviews --
Make your own at;
Rateoholic:Reviews for anything, by anyone.
#105890 - Lynx - Thu Oct 12, 2006 10:56 pm
I meant size.. I'll just use Size -5 Comic Sans... no problem.
_________________
NDS Homebrew Roms & Reviews
#105892 - Lazy1 - Thu Oct 12, 2006 11:04 pm
I didn't create the thread, it was split from another topic which I derailed.
I also never said I was interested in revenge, I was just pointing out that the GPL has no place on such common and necessary libraries.
Argue all you want, my view on this will never change.
Maybe this thread should get locked?
It can only go further downhill...
#105903 - tepples - Thu Oct 12, 2006 11:40 pm
| Lazy1 wrote: |
I was just pointing out that the GPL has no place on such common and necessary libraries.
Argue all you want, my view on this will never change. |
OK, then I guess you agree to disagree with Mr. Stallman's view on the topic.
_________________
-- Where is he?
-- Who?
-- You know, the human.
-- I think he moved to Tilwick.
#105906 - Mr. Picklesworth - Fri Oct 13, 2006 12:06 am
| Quote: |
Maybe this thread should get locked?
It can only go further downhill... |
Agreed. There's no point; just folks arguing for the sake of it. Shouldn't be in this section, anyway...
_________________
Thanks!
MKDS Friend Code: 511165-679586
MP:H Friend Code: 2105 2377 6896
#105916 - tepples - Fri Oct 13, 2006 1:43 am
Yeah, this topic is like a weeble's bottom: completely round.
_________________
-- Where is he?
-- Who?
-- You know, the human.
-- I think he moved to Tilwick.
#105932 - kusma - Fri Oct 13, 2006 9:40 am
What I kind of dislike about the entire GPL-package, is that the fanatics kinda re-define freedom to suit their mission. To me, freedom includes the ability to use something and NOT share the source.
For free software developers to give advantages only to other free software is kinda like a Wall-Mart giving discounts only to whites; You're not contributing to THE community, you're contributing to A community. Not every OSS license is compatible with the GPL.
#105936 - keldon - Fri Oct 13, 2006 10:57 am
How can anyone complain about GPL? If it didn't exist then it is very unlikely that you would have access to the source code you wanted in the first place. If they allowed it for anyone then people like microsoft, and many other commercial companies could get great financial gain from the open source community without giving anything back.
It helps the community in different ways, but why should it benefit commercial entities without benefiting itself?
| Quote: |
| What I kind of dislike about the entire GPL-package, is that the fanatics kinda re-define freedom to suit their mission. To me, freedom includes the ability to use something and NOT share the source. |
Well I think that the point of that is so that by using my code, you will also have to contribute back to the community. Also if you do not include my source code with your project when you use my code, then people will have to track down my code from me; although you could just post a link to my website.
I don't think that comparison fits. Race is not a 'fair' distinction, but whether you are giving your software for free is. Just imagine microsoft building an OS on top of the linux kernel and making billions from it.
#105938 - kusma - Fri Oct 13, 2006 11:39 am
| keldon wrote: |
| Quote: | | What I kind of dislike about the entire GPL-package, is that the fanatics kinda re-define freedom to suit their mission. To me, freedom includes the ability to use something and NOT share the source. |
Well I think that the point of that is so that by using my code, you will also have to contribute back to the community. Also if you do not include my source code with your project when you use my code, then people will have to track down my code from me; although you could just post a link to my website. |
My argument is that the source code isn't really free if I don't have the freedom to use it without tracking you down and get a license. I do NOT argue that you have to give me all freedom, I'm just saying that the FSF definition of freedom is a bit odd.
IMO BSD-style licenses is much closer to "real" freedom, but even those usually limit the user in some way. Imposing a certain license is quite damn far away from free use, hence rendering the FSF-definition of freedom quite useless. Freedom is a mighty word, and it's often abused. I believe that the FSF is contributing to that, and their community is benefiting from it at the expense of other communities.
#105939 - Sausage Boy - Fri Oct 13, 2006 1:02 pm
So you think that freedom should be the freedom to do anything you like? Like, uhm, killing people, using people, etc, right? Most practical definitions of freedom include something like "as long as it doesn't hurt other people's freedom". Killing someone would hurt their freedom, don't you think? The GPL works the same way, it makes sure that other people got the freedom you got as well.
I, at least, wouldn't feel very free in a society without laws, where everyone could do exactly what they wanted.
_________________
"no offense, but this is the gayest game ever"
#105940 - kusma - Fri Oct 13, 2006 1:22 pm
| Sausage Boy wrote: |
| The GPL works the same way, it makes sure that other people got the freedom you got as well. |
In what way? If I modify a piece of source and release only a binary, I don't hurt other peoples freedom to do the exact same thing. I cant see why my freedom to change some code would or should automatically grant other people the right to my changes. (Other than the obvious of course - when the license removes the freedom to keep changes to yourself)
Look, I'm not saying that everyone should drop GPL, I'm just saying I'm a bit upset by the way the FSF use the word freedom. When you wave your big freedom-flag, you should grant a developer the freedom to choose a license for their modification IMO. After all, it's their changes.
And of course, one should always respect a license no matter if one agrees or disagrees with it.
#105948 - sgeos - Fri Oct 13, 2006 3:05 pm
The FSF perpetuates a form of viral freedom. They do this to make sure that things stay free at the expense of making things complicated.
If you don't like the FSF's complicated viral freedom, I actually suggest the public domain. The public domain is so much simpler. Just because something is in the public domain doesn't mean that credit doesn't have to be given.
-Brendan
#105995 - Lynx - Sat Oct 14, 2006 12:05 am
| Quote: |
| imagine microsoft building an OS on top of the linux kernel and making billions from it. |
Uhh.. They can.. They would just have to make the source for it available. It's the whole "Free speach, not free beer" that is talked about. There is nothing stopping ANYONE from making money using the GPL. Nothing! You don't even have to modify anything to make money. Grab any version of Linux, toss it on a laptop that you bought for $300, and sell it for $300+ $100 for Linux. There is nothing wrong with that. You just have to make the source of what you put on it available. Or, charge them $300 for the laptop, and $100 for installing Linux.. it doesn't matter.
What you are talking about is M
_________________
NDS Homebrew Roms & Reviews
#105998 - keldon - Sat Oct 14, 2006 12:50 am
| kusma wrote: |
| Sausage Boy wrote: | | The GPL works the same way, it makes sure that other people got the freedom you got as well. |
In what way? If I modify a piece of source and release only a binary, I don't hurt other peoples freedom to do the exact same thing. I cant see why my freedom to change some code would or should automatically grant other people the right to my changes. (Other than the obvious of course - when the license removes the freedom to keep changes to yourself)
Look, I'm not saying that everyone should drop GPL, I'm just saying I'm a bit upset by the way the FSF use the word freedom. When you wave your big freedom-flag, you should grant a developer the freedom to choose a license for their modification IMO. After all, it's their changes.
And of course, one should always respect a license no matter if one agrees or disagrees with it. |
I think it is all down to greed. Come on, you are getting someones code for free. They only reason why they offer you their code is on the premise that you will not make millions from something they made without giving them a penny. The GPL ensures that such a thing will not happen. It would be better that you quit the complaining and simply not use the freely available source. Consider the world without GPL and live with that if GPL is such a problem for you; since if it did not exist then it is unlikely that the code that you wanted to use would exist aswell.
#106003 - tepples - Sat Oct 14, 2006 1:11 am
I'm willing to live with the GPL, and so are a lot of other developers. The problem is that many other popular licenses are not compatible with the GPL. What would it take to get Id Software to relicense the Wolfenstein 3D engine under the GPL, the way Id did with the Doom engine?
_________________
-- Where is he?
-- Who?
-- You know, the human.
-- I think he moved to Tilwick.
#106010 - Lynx - Sat Oct 14, 2006 2:55 am
| Quote: |
| They only reason why they offer you their code is on the premise that you will not make millions from something they made without giving them a penny. The GPL ensures that such a thing will not happen. |
Uhh.. No it doesn't. The GPL has NOTHING TO DO WITH MONEY! NONE AT ALL! Stop bringing it up! There is nothing stopping anyone from making millions of dollars from GPL software!
Second paragraph:
| Quote: |
| When we speak of free software, we are referring to freedom, not price. Our General Public Licenses are designed to make sure that you have the freedom to distribute copies of free software (and charge for this service if you wish), that you receive source code or can get it if you want it, that you can change the software or use pieces of it in new free programs, and that you know you can do these things. |
As for:
| Quote: |
| Consider the world without GPL |
Then the source or application he wants to use would come with a liscense he must pay for. Either way, he wouldn't be able to use it.
_________________
NDS Homebrew Roms & Reviews
#106016 - Lazy1 - Sat Oct 14, 2006 4:21 am
| tepples wrote: |
| I'm willing to live with the GPL, and so are a lot of other developers. The problem is that many other popular licenses are not compatible with the GPL. What would it take to get Id Software to relicense the Wolfenstein 3D engine under the GPL, the way Id did with the Doom engine? |
I don't know, from what I read in the source release readme ID wants nothing to do with the old Wolfenstein source.
#106018 - Dwedit - Sat Oct 14, 2006 4:51 am
| sgeos wrote: |
| If you don't like the FSF's complicated viral freedom, I actually suggest the public domain. The public domain is so much simpler. Just because something is in the public domain doesn't mean that credit doesn't have to be given. |
Ah yes... the public domain. It let Jaleco, Atlus, and Hudson use PocketNES's source code without crediting anyone, or even acknologing where the emulator came from.
_________________
"We are merely sprites that dance at the beck and call of our button pressing overlord."
#106030 - keldon - Sat Oct 14, 2006 8:57 am
| Lynx wrote: |
| Uhh.. No it doesn't. The GPL has NOTHING TO DO WITH MONEY! NONE AT ALL! Stop bringing it up! There is nothing stopping anyone from making millions of dollars from GPL software! |
Sorry my mistake, what I should have said is that if it was as you said then you could take GPL code, make millions with adjustments and not give any code back to the community that is the basis half of your work.
It is limiting, but there is good and bad to it. What it means is that propellerheads - for example - cannot make use of GPL licenced code without their project being under the GPL. Having said that you can provide a host package under the GPL and create your program as a paid for add-on.
#106041 - kusma - Sat Oct 14, 2006 2:07 pm
| keldon wrote: |
| I think it is all down to greed. Come on, you are getting someones code for free. [...] |
My opinions here have nothing to do with money. If you don't want anyone to make money of your code, just state it in the license. I'm all fine with that. The problem is, as tepples points out, that not even all open source licenses are compatible with GPL, restricting usage even from free software. The example of Firefox springs to mind.
| keldon wrote: |
| Having said that you can provide a host package under the GPL and create your program as a paid for add-on. |
No, you can not. GPL does not differ on static and dynamic linkage, and run-time linkage as used in normal plugin/add-on systems would be considered as normal linkage. If you make a plug-in to GPL software, your plug-in would have to be GPL as well.
#106042 - tepples - Sat Oct 14, 2006 2:11 pm
Not strictly. A plug-in that communicates through a documented interface on pipes or sockets is not considered linked.
_________________
-- Where is he?
-- Who?
-- You know, the human.
-- I think he moved to Tilwick.
#106046 - sgeos - Sat Oct 14, 2006 5:17 pm
The ownership/license status of a file will not change regardless of the program used to open it. You could write a GPL engine and then make proprietary data modules for that engine. That, of course, doesn't solve licence conflicts within the engine itself.
I suppose if you are feeling daring or stupid you could just ignore license restrictions altogether. Evidently GamePark (GP32) wasn't GPL compliant at first. Nor are they now, so far as I can tell; some of their assembler code is not open.
-Brendan
#106064 - MrD - Sat Oct 14, 2006 9:31 pm
Allow people to get a copy of your source code, sure.
All they have to do is write to you, and you'll send them a copy of the source for an appropriate fee. (Those floppy disks sure are expensive these days, eh?)
Either that, or just don't use GPL code. :/
You could always write to the author and request some kind of mega triple-license, or something like that.
_________________
Not active on this forum. For Lemmings DS help see its website.
#108513 - scuzzo84 - Thu Nov 09, 2006 7:46 pm
bsdl > GPL
#108554 - keldon - Fri Nov 10, 2006 1:21 am
| scuzzo84 wrote: |
| bsdl > GPL |
You would think so, but consider these licenses as an organisation. When you look at it this way you see that GPL (and other such binding licenses) are organisations that allow anyone to use it's resources providing it adds its resources related to the license back to the organisation.
As time progresses each license will have a larger set of technologies which will allow more code to be provided under a single license. Now remove the license, and what you have is everything not GPL. Either live with it or without it (when you think of it that way). It is like complaining that you cannot work for a company and then use their technology when you leave.
#108640 - Lynx - Fri Nov 10, 2006 8:50 pm
| Quote: |
| It is like complaining that you cannot work for a company and then use their technology when you leave. |
Excellent point!
_________________
NDS Homebrew Roms & Reviews
#108651 - josath - Fri Nov 10, 2006 10:06 pm
Or it's like complaining that your new company cannot work with your old company, unless your new company gives away everything.
#110064 - zzo38computer - Sat Nov 25, 2006 4:04 am
I think GPL is useful. Open source is useful. LGPL isn't very good. But I never managed to apply the license correctly... Eventually I will (see other topic).
I found this picture http://zzo38computer.cjb.net/images2/ms.jpg
_________________
Important: Please send messages about FWNITRO to the public forum, not privately to me.
#116420 - Vich - Thu Jan 25, 2007 3:35 pm
The fact is that many replies are about opinions and personal flavors.
I personally like LGPL best for libraries because:
- People who want to do everything will have to publish their modified source-code
- People who just want to use it (and thus indirectly promote my library) can do that without any restrictions.
This way, people who want to profit from using the library and building something around it(not modifying it) can just do that. On the other hand: people who want to profit from modifying the library and then selling the modified one as their own in a closed-source license can't just do that.
To me it's something like "give it to the public, but make sure they don't abuse your generosity".
If you get something for free, you might expect restrictions when you're planning certain commercial implementations.
On the other hand: if you're a hobby developper without commercial ambitions but you just don't like the LGPL license I provide, you're not having the same thoughts about free source-code and I, thus - in my opinion - you shouldn't be using my source-code.
_________________
[project website] [personal website]
#116434 - tepples - Thu Jan 25, 2007 6:53 pm
LGPL isn't always suitable either. LGPL requires either some sort of DLL system or some sort of user-operable linker, as well as user-writable program storage, so that a program can be relinked with a new version of the library and run. Or are you open to negotiating a separate license (possibly involving payment of a buyout or royalties) for commercial developers who want to include your code into a program that will run on a closed system such as the Nintendo DS?
_________________
-- Where is he?
-- Who?
-- You know, the human.
-- I think he moved to Tilwick.
#116440 - Vich - Thu Jan 25, 2007 7:48 pm
| tepples wrote: |
| LGPL isn't always suitable either. LGPL requires either some sort of DLL system or some sort of user-operable linker, as well as user-writable program storage, so that a program can be relinked with a new version of the library and run. |
True, it has its limitations, but sadly I'm not experienced with legal matters, so I have no knowledge to change the LGPL license to my exact needs.
Plus, I'm not planning on sueing hobbyists when they statically link my engine to a DS application while their source is closed. As long as they don't claim credit of the engine themselves and as long as there's no profit-making involved, you won't hear me complain.
| Quote: |
| Or are you open to negotiating a separate license (possibly involving payment of a buyout or royalties) for commercial developers who want to include your code into a program that will run on a closed system such as the Nintendo DS? |
That one is simple to answer: absolutely.
I encourage writing open source software, but I don't disencourage filling my bank account :)
In my opinion, open source software can perfectly co-exist with closed-source licenses, because that way, the open source developper gets the means to develop further on the open source application (or making a living from it, if ever).
I never mentioned this on my webpage, but I definitely will when version 1.0 is released.
Of course everyone is allowed to send me bussiness proposals, but that might not be smart since most features are still in beta(although most of them are unittested), some features are even in alpha and I've only just started the tutorials of one of the projects. The code itself is well-documented, but I'll need to spend a weekend in the future to write doxygen tags :P
_________________
[project website] [personal website]
#116444 - HyperHacker - Thu Jan 25, 2007 9:00 pm
I have a simple, BSD-like license for my programs. Essentially, if you use my source files, modified or not, those files have to be available. The rest of the program is something you made and you're welcome to do whatever you want with it. (I need to add something for copying pieces of my code into other files though.) The idea behind GPL and LGPL is good, but the idea that if you use this piece of GPLed code then you have to make your entire program open-source is just too restrictive and IMO doesn't make sense. As much as I support open-source, it's important to keep in mind that many people make a living writing and selling software, and they just couldn't do this if they had to release the source code. This frequently stops companies from implementing something in their program because all the code they can find to do it is GPLed, going open-source is not at all feasible, and writing such code from scratch would take far too long. Plus, why should I have to give out all of my code just because I used a piece of your code?
_________________
I'm a PSP hacker now, but I still <3 DS.
#116453 - Quirky - Thu Jan 25, 2007 9:58 pm
| Dwedit wrote: |
| Ah yes... the public domain. It let Jaleco, Atlus, and Hudson use PocketNES's source code without crediting anyone, or even acknologing where the emulator came from. |
Loopy didn't seem to have a problem with it IIRC. he was happy that more people got to play old NES games. You can see his point - if it had been some other more restrictive licence, these games would never have been available for people to play. And after all, having fun is what it's all about, right?
| scuzzo84 wrote: |
| bsdl > GPL |
Or maybe BSD == GPL... In this paper it is put forward an argument to the effect that the terms of the BSD require BSD code and modifications to BSD code to be licensed under the terms of the BSD license.
| tepples wrote: |
| LGPL requires either some sort of DLL system or some sort of user-operable linker, as well as user-writable program storage, so that a program can be relinked with a new version of the library and run. |
Does LibGBA (LGPL) not have such a clause? It is IMO the only way to make a statically linked binary for GBA/NDS with a LGPL library possible in any circumstance - homebrew or commercial. Otherwise you would have to release your whole program under LGPL. Though releasing the .o files is possibly acceptable for homebrew games.
#116462 - Lynx - Thu Jan 25, 2007 11:43 pm
| Quote: |
| Plus, why should I have to give out all of my code just because I used a piece of your code? |
Because it's mine, and my liscense requires it? (speaking in general, of course nobody would actually use my code.. )
I guess I don't understand the argument. Companies ARE making money from open source software. People ARE being paid to write open source software.
So, what would you do if the software you want to use wasn't open source at all? Would you purchase their liscensed binaries?
_________________
NDS Homebrew Roms & Reviews
#116474 - keldon - Fri Jan 26, 2007 1:52 am
I say this, forget that the code is open source. Consider that the code exists to a single body! This body grows by people using it freely but adding to it. If you allow people to use the body without adding to it then the body grows at a much slower pace.
Think about that first! You are using someone elses code that is likely to only exist because of code that came before it!
#116476 - chishm - Fri Jan 26, 2007 3:56 am
Here's a dilemma for all you amateur copyright lawyers out there. If I release a DLDI patch (the patch itself, not the destination program) under GPL, and someone patches their program with it, does that bring the program under GPL? Now suppose I put the patch target code (the DLDI placeholder) under GPL, but release an unrestricted public-domain patch. If someone builds their code using the patch target, then patches it with the public-domain patch and releases the binary, does it come under GPL or not?
_________________
http://chishm.drunkencoders.com
http://dldi.drunkencoders.com
#116482 - HyperHacker - Fri Jan 26, 2007 5:22 am
| Lynx wrote: |
| Quote: | | Plus, why should I have to give out all of my code just because I used a piece of your code? |
Because it's mine, and my liscense requires it? (speaking in general, of course nobody would actually use my code.. ) |
That's just it. Your code is yours and you're free to do what you want with it. How does that translate to you saying what I can do with my own code?
| Quote: |
| I guess I don't understand the argument. Companies ARE making money from open source software. People ARE being paid to write open source software. |
The only company I know of making a significant amount of money from open source is Mozilla, and I never did quite understand how. Others make some through donations, but little of it is profit. How do you go about selling a program when anyone can just download its source?
| Quote: |
| So, what would you do if the software you want to use wasn't open source at all? Would you purchase their liscensed binaries? |
I'd go about looking for another or write my own.
_________________
I'm a PSP hacker now, but I still <3 DS.
#116484 - Firon - Fri Jan 26, 2007 6:26 am
| HyperHacker wrote: |
| How do you go about selling a program when anyone can just download its source? |
Don't provide binaries, only provide source. Sell the binaries. Or, sell support (and perhaps a boxed copy), which is what a fair amount of OSS companies do. Or beg people to buy copies of the thing.
A lot of people won't go through the effort to compile something themselves, or in many cases simply can't (95% of Windows users...), so it might be another "incentive" to buy it.
Last edited by Firon on Fri Jan 26, 2007 7:01 am; edited 1 time in total
#116486 - sgeos - Fri Jan 26, 2007 6:34 am
| Firon wrote: |
| HyperHacker wrote: | | How do you go about selling a program when anyone can just download its source? |
Don't provide binaries, only provide source. Sell the binaries. Or, sell support (and perhaps a boxed copy), which is what a fair amount of OSS companies do. Or beg people to buy copies of the thing. |
You could sell things like assets for a game- art, stages, stories. The engine is free, but the quest isn't.
-Brendan
#116489 - HyperHacker - Fri Jan 26, 2007 7:28 am
Mmm, some good ideas there. I think the only company I've ever seen selling support (aside from actually repairing a product or sending a technician) is Microsoft though. $3.95 a minute to ask why Windows doesn't work on their phone support line, yeah, sure.
_________________
I'm a PSP hacker now, but I still <3 DS.
#116499 - keldon - Fri Jan 26, 2007 11:51 am
| HyperHacker wrote: |
| Lynx wrote: | | Quote: | | Plus, why should I have to give out all of my code just because I used a piece of your code? |
Because it's mine, and my liscense requires it? (speaking in general, of course nobody would actually use my code.. ) |
That's just it. Your code is yours and you're free to do what you want with it. How does that translate to you saying what I can do with my own code? |
Did you read my post? Consider again GPL as a single entity; it requires this mechanism to grow - and at the same time because of this clause you have the code that you are using. Without this clause a majority of the GPL code would not exist!
#116502 - HyperHacker - Fri Jan 26, 2007 12:19 pm
You're looking at the situation from a completely different viewpoint. I suspect if the GPL had never existed that much of the code licensed under it still would. Ideally this clause results in more code being licensed under GPL, but in practice it can result in the GPL code simply not being used. GPL code is a bit like saying sure, you can borrow a cup of sugar to make your cake, but only if you'll give a slice to anyone who asks. You seem to be looking at this from the angle that now if someone else wants a piece of cake, they don't have to go to the trouble of making their own. I'm looking more at the angle of why do you get to make this decision, maybe it's not feasible, maybe I'm a baker and was planning to sell the cake, etc. (Mind the somewhat crappy analogy, it's 4AM <_<)
_________________
I'm a PSP hacker now, but I still <3 DS.
#116505 - Lynx - Fri Jan 26, 2007 12:37 pm
Keldon, personally, have no idea what you are talking about when you compare it to a body... But I agree, if it wasn't required to release the source, money hungry people would be snatching up other peoples hard work, make a few minor (or major) modifications, and then require people to pay for something they didn't create. By having this requirement, a developer knows that his hard work will always be available to him, and if you make it better, he knows that he will also benefit from your hard work, not that you only benefit from his hard work.
| Quote: |
| That's just it. Your code is yours and you're free to do what you want with it. How does that translate to you saying what I can do with my own code? |
I'm not telling you what you can do with your own code.. I'm telling you that if you want to use my code, you have to follow my rules.. If you don't want to follow those rules, then don't use my code.. Being the owner of that code, itsn't it only fair that I be able to set the rules for it's use?
Nobody is forced to use the GPL. People CHOOSE to use it. Now, your going to say, "but, if I want to use your code, I'm being forced to use the GPL.".. well.. Only if you CHOOSE to use my code.. Therefor, your not forced into anything. Now, you may not like your choices, but they are still there for you to make a decision.
| Quote: |
| The only company I know of making a significant amount of money from open source is Mozilla |
Well, I'm not going to try to list all the companies I can think of, but a couple of easy ones are IBM and Digium. Both are hardware companies.. You'd be amazed at how much money IBM invests into Open Source.. But, if the new GPL comes out (with all the software patent BS), I think we might find open source die (as well as Linux) at the hands of it's "creators". If you do enough research, I think you will find that a majority of open source software is driven by a company or market. Once companies are forced to leave OSS, the developers left behind doing it for "fun" and not money will greatly dwindle.. but that is another thread all together.
| Quote: |
| I'd go about looking for another or write my own. |
You have that exact same option with GPL'd stuff as well.
| Quote: |
| I think the only company I've ever seen selling support (aside from actually repairing a product or sending a technician) is Microsoft though. |
Don't take this wrong, I'm not trying to be an ahole.. but it seems your sheltered from OSS in general. A lot of companies sell support for OSS. Not just "big" name companies like RedHat but your local computer service provider. Any computer contractor/consultant that supports Linux/OSS is "selling support". Any hardware company that provides OSS on their hardware and charges for support is selling support.
Even if you take your computer to a major computer retailer to have anything done on it, you are purchasing support. If they use OSS to remove all your spyware you just paid for OSS support. Now, of course the major guys aren't going to use OSS because they want to charge you $40 for a piece of software that does the exact same thing you could have gotten for free.. but the little guy down the block, who doesn't make much from selling you $40 software, but makes his money from the installation/support he provides, may use OSS to fix you up.
Oh.. btw, I'm making money from OSS. Just not significant money.. yet. ;)
Edit: Just saw your baker post.. :) You can always get your sugar from someone that doesn't want you to give the cake away for free.. But.. I doubt they will give you the sugar for free.
_________________
NDS Homebrew Roms & Reviews
#116508 - keldon - Fri Jan 26, 2007 1:46 pm
Hmmm, Sun, Novell, Miramax, hp all make money from OSS. And excuse my terminology, when I say body, I mean body in the sense of an organisational body. But the concept still remains, GPL (and any other license) should be considered an organisation.
You work for a company then the code you create with them is not your own anyway! With GPL it is the same deal, only that you can use it again under those terms! But you can make a project and tie it in with an open source project, where the open source part is just an add on - that way you wouldn't need to provide source for the rest of it.
#116547 - Optihut - Fri Jan 26, 2007 6:36 pm
| HyperHacker wrote: |
| You're looking at the situation from a completely different viewpoint. I suspect if the GPL had never existed that much of the code licensed under it still would. Ideally this clause results in more code being licensed under GPL, but in practice it can result in the GPL code simply not being used. GPL code is a bit like saying sure, you can borrow a cup of sugar to make your cake, but only if you'll give a slice to anyone who asks. You seem to be looking at this from the angle that now if someone else wants a piece of cake, they don't have to go to the trouble of making their own. I'm looking more at the angle of why do you get to make this decision, maybe it's not feasible, maybe I'm a baker and was planning to sell the cake, etc. (Mind the somewhat crappy analogy, it's 4AM <_<) |
If you want to sell your cake, why not get your own sugar then?
#116553 - Firon - Fri Jan 26, 2007 8:07 pm
| Lynx wrote: |
| But, if the new GPL comes out (with all the software patent BS), I think we might find open source die (as well as Linux) at the hands of it's "creators". |
Linux isn't making the switch to v3. No one is forced to switch to it, either.
#116555 - keldon - Fri Jan 26, 2007 8:35 pm
A patent is invalidated if it can be proved that the technology existed before the patent was issued!
#116579 - Lynx - Sat Jan 27, 2007 2:02 am
Firon, I replyed to your post here.
_________________
NDS Homebrew Roms & Reviews
#116606 - sgeos - Sat Jan 27, 2007 7:58 am
| keldon wrote: |
| A patent is invalidated if it can be proved that the technology existed before the patent was issued! |
The prove part sounds like it could be involved. What is the process like?
-Brendan
#116631 - Lynx - Sat Jan 27, 2007 4:52 pm
Well, as with anything that requires court, I'm sure it will involve a bunch of money hungry lawyers and a lot of everyones money. So, although it's easy to write and say, doesn't mean it's easy to do.
_________________
NDS Homebrew Roms & Reviews