headers
Olin Lathrop | 11 May 15:22

Re: [EE]: opinion on Willem programmer?

Byron Jeff wrote:
> The problem is that if you change the license significantly, and end
> users get screwed, with very limited access to source, and little or
> no ability to use that source in any productive way.

Now you're arguing what a good license should be.  "Good" depends on your
goals and measures.  The FSF wants to see executable software with no
restrictions.  That can be useful, but they ignore or usually not even
acknowledge that enforcing that decreases the choices of the end users.

If you really wanted to do something "good" for the end users then I think
using the GPL is not the right approach.  The GPL does force source of any
software that is derived from it to be open.  However to many that
restriction is too costly, so they don't use GPL code.  In the end the goal
of better and lower cost choices for the end users has not been served as
well as it could have been.

I was going to stop replying on this thread, but what made me respond was
your implicit statement that not having source to a program means you're
screwed.  This is of course totally rediculous.  A very tiny minority of end
users might derive some additional advantage from having access to the
source code for a app they are using, but the vast majority wouldn't know
what to do with it, and most of the ones that do have things to get on with
and don't want to bother messing with it.  Source code accessibility is way
overrated.

If you really want to make things as good as possible for end users, you
need to allow people to make a buck by doing so.  Most developers just don't
have the luxury like Richard Stallman has of forgoing compensation for
creating software.  If you want to harness their power, then you need to let
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply |
headers
Byron Jeff | 11 May 20:39

Re: [EE]: opinion on Willem programmer?

On Sun, May 11, 2008 at 09:22:23AM -0400, Olin Lathrop wrote:
> Byron Jeff wrote:
> > The problem is that if you change the license significantly, and end
> > users get screwed, with very limited access to source, and little or
> > no ability to use that source in any productive way.
> 
> Now you're arguing what a good license should be.  "Good" depends on your
> goals and measures.  The FSF wants to see executable software with no
> restrictions.  That can be useful, but they ignore or usually not even
> acknowledge that enforcing that decreases the choices of the end users.

No I'm arguing that licensing is a zero sum game when it comes to rights.
Every right that you grant to one group of folks in a transaction takes
away a right from another group. 

> If you really wanted to do something "good" for the end users then I think
> using the GPL is not the right approach.  The GPL does force source of any
> software that is derived from it to be open.  However to many that
> restriction is too costly, so they don't use GPL code.  In the end the goal
> of better and lower cost choices for the end users has not been served as
> well as it could have been.

I'm usually not a fan of the GPL precisely for this reason. The GPL works
OK when you're talking about an application, but it fails miserably on
infrastructure code (libraries, OSes, etc) for precisely the reasons you
outline.

In general the LGPL is closer to the right mark for infrastructure. It
mandates that changes to the infrastructure have to be propagated, but that
use of the infrastructure is unrestricted.
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply |
headers
Olin Lathrop | 12 May 13:24

Re: [EE]: opinion on Willem programmer?

Byron Jeff wrote:
>> If someone really wanted to take the moral high ground and try to
>> provide the best possible situation for end users of software, he'd
>> let people use his code any way they want.  This is basically what I
>> try to do with my source except in cases where I fear it will cost
>> me compared to not making it free.
>
> The problem with your high moral ground is that virtually
> instantaneously someone unscrupulous will take your code and embrace,
> extend, and suppress the modification for their own benefit.

There you go again.  If I specifically allow this kind of use, which I do
for the majority of my code, then there is nothing wrong, immoral, illegal,
or unscrupulous about it.  You certainly have the right not to like it, but
it's rather arrogant to call it unscrupulous just because it doesn't fit
into your narrow idea of how things should work.

I might even encourage such a endeavor.  Nobody is any worse off than
before.  If you think the modified software isn't worth the price, then you
don't have to buy it.  If you think you can do better, you are free to do
so.  But this new software exists only because the developer could make a
business case for it.  If he was forced to open the code and this was deemed
to make the project unprofitable, then the new software would never have
been created and nobody would be any better off.  At least this way, those
end users who think the price is worth what they get are better off and
nobody else is worse off.  Just the existance of this new software alone may
spur competitors into providing more value.

Note that this situtation regulates itself to ensure this second person adds
real value.  My original code will still be there.  Anyone else can start at
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply |
headers
Robert Ammerman | 12 May 01:30
Picon
Gravatar

Re: [EE]: opinion on Willem programmer?

> If you really wanted to do something "good" for the end users then I think
> using the GPL is not the right approach.  The GPL does force source of any
> software that is derived from it to be open.  However to many that
> restriction is too costly, so they don't use GPL code.  In the end the 
> goal
> of better and lower cost choices for the end users has not been served as
> well as it could have been.

Amen, amen, and again I say amen!

GPL and similar licenses are, in the long run, inhibitory. They prevent the 
development and distribution of much useful software.

Example:

I am a company and I want to develop a really cool program that does "X". My 
business model/planning tells me that the only way I can make money off this 
program is to keep it closed (which, IMNSHO is _very_ often the case).

Now there very conveniently already exists GPLed code that does 90% of X, so 
I can develop my product for Z dollars and sell each copy for (Z/100) 
dollars. Except of course, I can't use this route because an open source 
distribution model just won't work.

On the other hand, I could develop the whole product from scratch for 10Z 
dollars, but now I'd have to sell it for $Z/10 dollars, 10 times as much. Of 
course, the market won't support that price because end-users can get a 90% 
solution for 1/10 the price.

So, as a result I don't build the product, and the end-users' lose the
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply |
headers
Sean Breheny | 12 May 05:26
Picon
Favicon

Re: [EE]: opinion on Willem programmer?

I can't help with the questions/debate but I do have a question of my own:

If you USE GPL'ed software libraries in your code, you do not need to
release the whole code under GPL, do you?

Am I correct that the only time you must release your code is when it
is actually a modified version of the GPL'ed code itself?

Sean

On Sun, May 11, 2008 at 7:30 PM, Robert Ammerman <rammerman <at> verizon.net> wrote:
>  I am a company and I want to develop a really cool program that does "X". My
>  business model/planning tells me that the only way I can make money off this
>  program is to keep it closed (which, IMNSHO is _very_ often the case).
>
>  Now there very conveniently already exists GPLed code that does 90% of X, so
>  I can develop my product for Z dollars and sell each copy for (Z/100)
>  dollars. Except of course, I can't use this route because an open source
>  distribution model just won't work.
>
--

-- 
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist
Permalink | Reply |
headers
Mark Rages | 12 May 05:58
Picon

Re: [EE]: opinion on Willem programmer?

On Sun, May 11, 2008 at 10:26 PM, Sean Breheny <shb7 <at> cornell.edu> wrote:
> I can't help with the questions/debate but I do have a question of my own:
>
>  If you USE GPL'ed software libraries in your code, you do not need to
>  release the whole code under GPL, do you?
>
>  Am I correct that the only time you must release your code is when it
>  is actually a modified version of the GPL'ed code itself?
>
>  Sean

You are incorrect.  Linking against GPL is considered making a
derivative work.  The full source of the derivative work must be made
available to recipients of the binary code.

You may distribute binaries linked against LGPL libraries without
offering source.  (But I don't know of any dynamic linker for PICs.)

Regards,
Mark
markrages <at> gmail
-- 
Mark Rages, Engineer
Midwest Telecine LLC
markrages <at> midwesttelecine.com
--

-- 
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply |
headers
Peter | 12 May 10:04
Picon
Favicon

Re: [EE]: opinion on Willem programmer?

I have seen this debate here and elsewhere over and over again.

Closed source applications are one thing, and closed source drivers and
toolchains are another. In the small company context one's livelihood depends on
the functionality of the toolchains one uses. Closed source drivers and
compilers from small companies or one man shops are often bad news for users,
who are also small companies. One does not have the resources to sue, insure or
otherwise protect against the toolchain or driver maker going out of business,
selling out, or simply dropping dead. How many of the developers and engineers
on this list own thousands of dollars worth of development tools, programmer
boxes and libraries that no-one can use anymore because they are closed source
and the original small businesses that created them no longer exist or no longer
support them? To me, the need to be able to 'put a screwdriver and a soldering
iron' to my uninsured tools it vital, in case (and that happens rather often),
they don't do something or they need to do something new. That means that I have
a strong need for open source drivers and toolchains. This is not about
politics, it's real life.

Politics is where one needs to choose which kind of open source model to adopt,
not whether one needs it. BSD (free as in free beer and you keep the glass), GPL
(free forever), LGPL or 'freeware', I only care about that when the time comes
to 'release' a patch or an application. Not before. Because, even the GPL
permits anything to be done to it as long as it is not distributed. And I am not
into that. I need my patches for myself ... although I share them freely if they
are needed.

So one can talk politics *after* the usability angle is covered properly. I am
not saying that closed source drivers and toolchains from small developers are
bad, I am saying that the open source version of the same is better, and that it
has saved my day many times.
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply |
headers
Byron Jeff | 12 May 09:52

Open Source from the user perspective (was Re: [EE]: opinion on Willem programmer?)

On Mon, May 12, 2008 at 04:04:31AM -0400, Peter wrote:
> I have seen this debate here and elsewhere over and over again.

The keeps coming up because many commercial developers see software as a
product instead of software as a service.

> Closed source applications are one thing, and closed source drivers and
> toolchains are another. In the small company context one's livelihood depends on
> the functionality of the toolchains one uses. Closed source drivers and
> compilers from small companies or one man shops are often bad news for users,
> who are also small companies. One does not have the resources to sue, insure or
> otherwise protect against the toolchain or driver maker going out of business,
> selling out, or simply dropping dead.

And since they original developer thinks of software as a product, once the
transaction for the product is done, from their point of view that
transaction is over.

> How many of the developers and engineers
> on this list own thousands of dollars worth of development tools, programmer
> boxes and libraries that no-one can use anymore because they are closed source
> and the original small businesses that created them no longer exist or no longer
> support them?

Exactly.

> To me, the need to be able to 'put a screwdriver and a soldering
> iron' to my uninsured tools it vital, in case (and that happens rather often),
> they don't do something or they need to do something new. That means that I have
> a strong need for open source drivers and toolchains. This is not about
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply |
headers
Cedric Chang | 12 May 23:29

[OT] : Open Source from the user perspective (was Re: [EE]: opinion on Willem programmer?)

I would like to see intellectual property vendors required to escrow  
all the source and if the IP owners go down under ( ha ha ) , the  
source becomes available to users of the IP.  I don't want to see  
this as a law.... rather as a standard practice that buyers expect  
from vendors.  I have seen many wonderful products disappear when the  
vendor disappears and no one knows where the vendor or the IP got to.

cc
--

-- 
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist
Permalink | Reply |
headers
Sean Breheny | 13 May 00:15
Picon
Favicon

Re: [OT] : Open Source from the user perspective (was Re: [EE]: opinion on Willem programmer?)

I have heard of this being done in individual cases under NDA and
other such agreements. The entire IP would revert to the user party to
the agreement if the original IP owner went out of business.

Sean

On Mon, May 12, 2008 at 5:29 PM, Cedric Chang <cc <at> nope9.com> wrote:
> I would like to see intellectual property vendors required to escrow
>  all the source and if the IP owners go down under ( ha ha ) , the
>  source becomes available to users of the IP.  I don't want to see
>  this as a law.... rather as a standard practice that buyers expect
>  from vendors.  I have seen many wonderful products disappear when the
>  vendor disappears and no one knows where the vendor or the IP got to.
>
>  cc
>  --
>  http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
>  View/change your membership options at
>  http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist
>
--

-- 
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist
Permalink | Reply |
headers
Peter | 13 May 18:45
Picon
Favicon

Re: [OT] : Open Source from the user perspective (was Re: [EE]: opinion on Willem programmer?)

Cedric Chang <cc <at> nope9.com> writes:
> source becomes available to users of the IP.  I don't want to see  
> this as a law.... rather as a standard practice that buyers expect  
> from vendors.  I have seen many wonderful products disappear when the  
> vendor disappears and no one knows where the vendor or the IP got to.

It is not a law it is reality. Talk to someone in the telco, scientific, medical
electronics, aerospace or military technology domains and you will see that
these industries have 'slightly' more concern for the lifetime of their
investments than the average mp3 player maker, salesman or buyer. In the second
hand, services (like maintenance and operations)  and refurbished equipment
markets there are two options for each complex piece of equipment: a) provide
documentation including pin-outs and some arcane details and sell for the going
price or b) sell for the price it is worth on the scrap metal market.

It's the 'consumer' slant on electronics which has propagated into software that
is causing the current problem, sometimes known as upgrade-itis. It is bad
enough that one's <censored popular word processing program> documents tend to
'lose' formatting and tables whenever a <censored popular operating system
maker> upgrades some library or the program itself (and that happens every 3-4
years at most, or so I have seen it happen during the last 13+ or so years). Now
how do you use documentation in that format when the time comes, say, 10 years
into the lifespan of a product that is meant to last 20+ years? Oops? I was
reading recently that the aeronautical industry *still* uses microfiches
attached to a special kind of punched card to maintain and distribute data about
spare parts. Surely that is not an accident in an industry that used computers
since before almost anyone else did.

And we are not talking tool-chain and drivers yet, just pin-outs scrambled by
formatting loss. I have seen schematics drawn in programs that no longer exist,
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply |
headers
Gerhard Fiedler | 13 May 22:51

Re: [OT] : Open Source from the user perspective (was Re: [EE]: opinion on Willem programmer?)

Peter wrote:

> Just for laughs, and slightly off topic, I found some old *nix source code on
> the net, from ~1985 or so, compiled it after minor cosmetics (header files
> changed etc) on a recent machine and it worked. Manual pages looked right
> (tables and all), X11 GUI and timing delays work in despite of 200 times faster
> execution and all that.

FWIW, not that elaborate (no compiling and no X11 GUI), bit I still have
MS-DOS software around (binaries) that work on my WinXP machines. I don't
have to run them often, and I don't run them more often than I have to :)
but the only ones of these oldies that I found don't run anymore are system
tools. Which is ok... these are for system maintenance, and I don't need
maintenance tools for 286 MS-DOS machines with FAT file systems.

So far I also haven't had any problems reading older files with newer
software from that "censored" manufacturer. (Which shouldn't be constructed
to mean that I don't think that using open formats is a good thing.)

Gerhard

--

-- 
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist
Permalink | Reply |
headers
Peter | 14 May 00:15
Picon
Favicon

Re: [OT] : Open Source from the user perspective (was Re: [EE]: opinion on Willem programmer?)

Gerhard Fiedler <lists <at> connectionbrazil.com> writes:
> So far I also haven't had any problems reading older files with newer
> software from that "censored" manufacturer. (Which shouldn't be constructed
> to mean that I don't think that using open formats is a good thing.)

Try to run a game from that period on a new machine. Preferably a character mode
one that relies on display quirks of a certain kind (CGA 'secret modes',
Hercules, where are you?). Not to mention timing loops (there is shim software
that is supposed to fix that). Brr.

With formats, I have my own bad experiences and those of close relatives whose
irreplaceable autobiographies were written on ancient versions of something or
other and which they were no longer able to open 10 years later. I had to tinker
with scripts and filters for two weeks until I pried a reasonable, horribly
mangled in formatting, plain text version out of the binary clutches of whatever
it was that was used to scramble the data on the floppy disks I got by snail
mail (!). Diacritics and other important stuff like special guilemettes used in
certain languages for quotations got lost and there were 120+ pages to correct.
Rendering this with minimal markup in TeX took all of 30 seconds. The result is
now safely stored as a tiny TeX source file that includes the plain text
chapters and as PDF, PS and so on, and I am confident that there will be no
further problems of this nature. If there had been a graphic in the original it
would have been lost. Before choosing TeX I had a brief thought of just running
the plain text through nroff/groff and trust it as is. By the way, their (my
elderly relative's) email does not work *again*. I *wonder* how come my email
never seems to be broken. Lucky guess?

Peter

--

--
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply |
headers
Gerhard Fiedler | 14 May 14:52

Re: [OT] : Open Source from the user perspective (was Re: [EE]: opinion on Willem programmer?)

Peter wrote:

> Try to run a game from that period 

Maybe that's the difference... I don't run games :)

> With formats, I have my own bad experiences and those of close relatives
> whose irreplaceable autobiographies were written on ancient versions of
> something or other ...

"Something or other" is probably not a good thing to use to write an
autobiography :)  I just said that I had quite good experiences reading
older Word documents with newer Word versions. YMMV, especially of course
with other word processors.

> ... and which they were no longer able to open 10 years later. I had to
> tinker with scripts and filters for two weeks ...

Where was the original program? If it's a Windows program, I think there
are good chances that it still runs on more recent machines (and be it in a
virtual machine with only MS-DOS installed).

> By the way, their (my elderly relative's) email does not work *again*. I
> *wonder* how come my email never seems to be broken. Lucky guess? 

My lucky guess is that this is because you're an expert user and they are
not. FWIW, I'm using Windows, and am reasonably enough "expert" so that my
email never is broken either -- which seems to indicate that this is not a
system problem, but more of a user problem.
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply |
headers
Peter | 14 May 20:11
Picon
Favicon

Re: [OT] : Open Source from the user perspective (was Re: [EE]: opinion on Willem programmer?)


Gerhard Fiedler <lists <at> connectionbrazil.com> writes:
> My lucky guess is that this is because you're an expert user and they are

I'm on yahoo now as you can see. I was on other things before. The idea is to
choose something that works and to recognize when something does not,
repeatedly, and switch. One should not need to be an 'expert user' to use email
safely in 2008 for the same reason one should not need to be a licensed
locksmith to be able to enter and leave one's house. That's the point. And
learning from mistakes. What you use works for you, there are a lot of people
whose 'solution' does not work.

Peter

--

-- 
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist
Permalink | Reply |
headers
Gerhard Fiedler | 16 May 15:30

Re: [OT] : Open Source from the user perspective (was Re: [EE]: opinion on Willem programmer?)

Peter wrote:

> One should not need to be an 'expert user' to use email safely in 2008 ...

I don't live in the "should" world, so I can't really say whether this is
true or not :)  But in the world where I live, one doesn't have to be
(using Linux, Windows, web or other clients) as long as it works -- and
when it breaks, which ever so often happens to non-expert users, an expert
user is required for all of them. You can buy support from expert users if
you're not one.

> ... for the same reason one should not need to be a licensed locksmith to
> be able to enter and leave one's house. That's the point. 

There have been a number of "computer appliances" with fixed software that
work more reliably than a normal computer, at the cost of expandability and
flexibility. But it seems people prefer to buy the computer equivalent of a
"lock kit" instead -- which of course needs some degree of expertise, and
may eventually need a locksmith when you didn't put it together correctly.
I think that's also a point. If people bought cars (or locks :) using the
same approach they use when buying computers, they'd all have to be
mechanics (or locksmiths).

> What you use works for you, there are a lot of people whose 'solution'
> does not work.

My words :) This is universal and independent of any specific solution. 

Gerhard
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply |
headers
Byron Jeff | 12 May 09:41

Re: [EE]: opinion on Willem programmer?

On Sun, May 11, 2008 at 11:26:13PM -0400, Sean Breheny wrote:
> I can't help with the questions/debate but I do have a question of my own:
> 
> If you USE GPL'ed software libraries in your code, you do not need to
> release the whole code under GPL, do you?

Yes you do. That's why there are very few libraries that actually fall
under the GPL. Most are LGPL which does not have that requirement.

> Am I correct that the only time you must release your code is when it
> is actually a modified version of the GPL'ed code itself?

Nope. If your code uses a GPL library, then the combined work falls under
the GPL for distribution. This means the entire codebase, including your
source code must be distributed to anyone that you distribute the product
to.

With the LGPL, as long as your code only uses the library, and does not 
change it, then the requirement is that you release your code in a form so
that an end user can link a newer version of the library to your code. On
desktops this really isn't a problem because generally the library is
dynamically linked. However with embedded systems where the library and the
code that uses it are comingled, that means that it reverts to the GPL.

There is no widespread license that addresses the final issue outlined
above. So in general for embedded projects, neither license is used unless
the developer is willing to release their source along with their product.

BAJ
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply |
headers
Byron Jeff | 12 May 09:35

Using the GPL (was Re: [EE]: opinion on Willem programmer?)

On Sun, May 11, 2008 at 07:30:20PM -0400, Robert Ammerman wrote:
> > If you really wanted to do something "good" for the end users then I think
> > using the GPL is not the right approach.  The GPL does force source of any
> > software that is derived from it to be open.  However to many that
> > restriction is too costly, so they don't use GPL code.  In the end the
> > goal
> > of better and lower cost choices for the end users has not been served as
> > well as it could have been.
> 
> Amen, amen, and again I say amen!
> 
> GPL and similar licenses are, in the long run, inhibitory. They prevent the
> development and distribution of much useful software.
> 
> Example:
> 
> I am a company and I want to develop a really cool program that does "X". My
> business model/planning tells me that the only way I can make money off this
> program is to keep it closed (which, IMNSHO is _very_ often the case).

It certainly is.

> 
> Now there very conveniently already exists GPLed code that does 90% of X, so
> I can develop my product for Z dollars and sell each copy for (Z/100)
> dollars. Except of course, I can't use this route because an open source
> distribution model just won't work.

It won't work if you cannot use an open source distribution model.
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply |
headers
Apptech | 12 May 14:29
Picon
Favicon

Re: Using the GPL (was Re: [EE]: opinion on Willem programmer?)

>> On the other hand, I could develop the whole product from 
>> scratch for 10Z
>> dollars, but now I'd have to sell it for $Z/10 dollars, 
>> 10 times as much. Of
>> course, the market won't support that price because 
>> end-users can get a 90%
>> solution for 1/10 the price.

> Missed point. In addition the end-users get 90% of the 
> solution for free
> along with the right to modify and redistribute.

>> So, as a result I don't build the product, and the 
>> end-users' lose the
>> ability to get a better solution to their problem at a 
>> reasonable cost. And
>> of course, I lose out on the opportunity to make a 
>> reasonable profit
>> building and selling the product.

I don't know who wrote the original in >> so I don't know 
who I'm offending so this isn't personal :-).

"If Microsoft made all their products free and let me write 
applications and distribute them AND a copy of Windows with 
them AND charge what they charge now for Windows then the 
world could have the benefit of my genius at a price that 
would make me rich, BUT The Rotters at Redmond [tm] won't 
let me do this so the world misses out on my genius".
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply |
headers
Peter | 14 May 09:08
Picon
Favicon

Re: Using the GPL (was Re: [EE]: opinion on Willem programmer?)

Apptech <apptech <at> paradise.net.nz> writes:
> (understandably) unhappy. While this is understandable, in 
> either case you are trying to get 100% of the gain from 10% 
> of the work required for the solution. In selected cases the 

No, you are getting 100% of the gain for 0.01% of the work required when using
open source solutions, building on other people's work, and it's legal. And 
your solution will only 'cost' that 0.01% which is, admittedly, contributed
freely, and  might make someone else's day, where he will also add a 0.01% of
his own, and on and on. Or, to put it in some people's favorite units: money::
Let's assume a certain open source OS has a price, its cost shall be dictated 
by the market value of roughly equivalent products. Let's say that number shall
be 3000 USD a copy. Now per line of code that would be 0.001 USD (assuming 3E6
LOC). A 10,000 line contribution would have a market price of $10 and would be 
a one off. If the value of the OS would scale due to market forces to its
present level, of $1 to $10 per copy (of open source operating system media or
download time) then the 10,000 LOC contribution's value would scale too. To
about 3 to 30 cents. Just for scale, a 10,000 LOC application would be a fully
featured email or IRC client with state of the art GUI and more. And, in fact,
it IS legal to charge money for open source software, your own and other's,
including GPL software. 

> world may be a better place if you were allowed to do this 
> but in most such examples the world would simply be a more 
> lucrative place for those who were allowed to charge for the 
> freely contributed work of others after adding a small 
> component of their own. It's understandable why people would

You know what? I agree. But ... there is that pie chart of what a personal
'contribution' would make out in the context of the 'borrowed code'. The slice
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply |
headers
Harold Hallikainen | 14 May 17:19

Re: Using the GPL (was Re: [EE]: opinion on Willem programmer?)

Interesting discussion! If you produce an embedded system product that
has, say, a custom application running on a GPL operating system or making
calls to GPL libraries, how much source code must you release? Do you need
to release the source code of the custom application, or just the open
source stuff that you are including unmodified?

Harold

-- 
FCC Rules Updated Daily at http://www.hallikainen.com - Advertising
opportunities available!
--

-- 
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist
Permalink | Reply |
headers
Byron Jeff | 14 May 16:54

Re: Using the GPL (was Re: [EE]: opinion on Willem programmer?)

On Wed, May 14, 2008 at 11:19:36AM -0400, Harold Hallikainen wrote:
> Interesting discussion! If you produce an embedded system product that
> has, say, a custom application running on a GPL operating system or making
> calls to GPL libraries, how much source code must you release? Do you need
> to release the source code of the custom application, or just the open
> source stuff that you are including unmodified?

The former.

BTW AFAIK there are no GPL operating systems. Linux is GPL with a usual use
clause that states that usual usage of the OS by an application does not
consistute a derived work.

But the embedded system make the whole discussion a bit more murky.
Generally libraries will be LGPL. Under normal circumstances, the LGPL does
not require the source of an application that merely uses the library to be
released. However the code for the application must be released in such a
form so that the end user can upgrade the library if they so choose. On the
desktop, with shared libraries, this is simply the executable as the shared
libraries are dynamically linked in each time the application runs.

However, in an embedded system most of the time the application and
libraries share the same space and are statically linked, or compiled
together. So in order to meet the LGPL "relink requirement", this requires
the release of the source, so it reverts back to the GPL.

No neither license is real efficient in terms of balancing the rights of
the user and the rights of the developer in the embedded system case.

BAJ
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply |
headers
Peter | 14 May 22:56
Picon
Favicon

Re: Using the GPL (was Re: [EE]: opinion on Willem programmer?)

Harold Hallikainen <harold <at> hallikainen.org> writes:
> Interesting discussion! If you produce an embedded system product that
> has, say, a custom application running on a GPL operating system or making
> calls to GPL libraries, how much source code must you release? Do you need
> to release the source code of the custom application, or just the open
> source stuff that you are including unmodified?

In theory, if you aggregate only with LGPL libraries then you can release a just
a relinkable module. The Linux kernel itself is legal to use (i.e. you can run
your applications on it) as long as you do not modify it. If you link to GPL
libraries then you have to release the entire source. But, in a typical embedded
system with  control from a host the embedded code need not be released at all
(assuming it was not linked against anything GPL). The result is that many times
third party developers develop their own front ends to 'your' embedded system.
This is usually good, not bad imho. Several PIC development tools went that way
(e.g. the recent discussion here about pickit2 drivers on Linux and FreeBSD).
You don't *have* to use Linux at all. I personally prefer to use NetBSD for
controlling hosts (BSD license from A to Z - well, almost). So basically if the
smarts are in the embedded system, they stay protected until they are valuable
enough to be emulated 100% or read out of the chips by a cracker company. At
least, this is my take.

Peter

--

-- 
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply |
headers
Wouter van Ooijen | 12 May 21:14
Picon
Favicon

Re: [EE]: opinion on Willem programmer?

> So, as a result I don't build the product, and the end-users' lose the 
> ability to get a better solution to their problem at a reasonable cost. And 
> of course, I lose out on the opportunity to make a reasonable profit 
> building and selling the product.

IMO what you are missing in your reasoning is that if the difference 
between this new product and an existing GPLed product is not too large, 
it won't take long for someone to write the extra part anyway. So end 
users win both ways: the 90% product was already free, so it probably 
had a lot of users, and the 100% product will probably appear soon.

If fact they might win a third way too: you will spend your effort on an 
area that is not yet covered by GPLed products, so the range of 
available software will grow, more that when you had spent your effort 
on the 10% part.

Note that this works best for tools that are (often) used by 
programmers, because then the users are also potential writers of new parts.

So I see the various license as more or less complementing each other: 
newer areas are 'explored' by commercial licenses, well-trotten areas 
are secured by free software.

--

-- 

Wouter van Ooijen

-- -------------------------------------------
Van Ooijen Technische Informatica: www.voti.nl
consultancy, development, PICmicro products
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply |
headers
Wouter van Ooijen | 12 May 20:56
Picon
Favicon

Re: [EE]: opinion on Willem programmer?

> If someone really wanted to take the moral high ground and try to provide
> the best possible situation for end users of software, he'd let people use
> his code any way they want.  

That might be perfectly true for you, but not for everyone in the world.

Personally I am really glad GCC is GPLed. If it were let's say BSDed or 
under a license similar to yours I most probably would not have free GCC 
compilers for almost all CPU's I want to use, and the ability to make 
one for most others. (OK, PICs are an prime exception :( )

GPL (/LGPL) is not the perfect license for all software, but neither is 
any other license. But from my perspective it is definitely the perfect 
license for *some* software.

-- 

Wouter van Ooijen

-- -------------------------------------------
Van Ooijen Technische Informatica: www.voti.nl
consultancy, development, PICmicro products
docent Hogeschool van Utrecht: www.voti.nl/hvu

--

-- 
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply |

Gmane