| |
ZL3AI > APRDIG 18.12.03 09:43l 212 Lines 9566 Bytes #999 (0) @ WW
BID : 2503-ZL3AI
Read: GUEST
Subj: TAPR Digest, Dec 15, 3/4
Path: DB0FHN<DB0RGB<OE5XBL<OE3XSR<OK0PBX<OK0PHK<OK0NAG<OK0PPL<DB0RES<ON0AR<
ZL2TZE<ZL3VML
Sent: 031218/0721Z @:ZL3VML.#80.NZL.OC #:14874 [Chch-NZ] FBB7.00i $:2503-ZL3AI
From: ZL3AI@ZL3VML.#80.NZL.OC
To : APRDIG@WW
Subject: Re: Open source licensing
From: "Georgette Sampson" <georgette.sampson@cox.net>
Date: Mon, 15 Dec 2003 17:34:08 -0600
X-Message-Number: 18
1) No, 2) GPL.
The concept of "open source" means you want people to use your code
with attribution, rather than say "public domain" where you don't care if
they even acknowledge the author, and "closed source" where it is say a
trade secret or restricted from use without permission or fee.
Personally, I don't think someone who is designing an 2FSK non-FEC
"open source" gadget should waste time on trying to enforce legitimate
"closed" uses of the product. Maybe if it used a modern modem technology
that might interest commercial users. What you might say, is that no
software can be called OpenTracker unless it performs a minimum set of
features. That is, you want people to use your design and abandon the
other "closed" system you are trying to improve on. The non-profit
"closed" amendment to the "open" source project would stifle adoption.
If you remember, the Wright brothers spent all their time and money by
hiring lawyers, while others built better airplanes using their basic design.
People bought Curtis airplanes because they were higher performance.
You want people to flee the raw ASCII based APRS and come to your
binary protocol in droves. Who cares if someone makes a profit?
Maybe you should rename it Semi-OpenTracker, or ClosedOpenTracker
or some such??
Jo
----- Original Message -----
>First, does this sound reasonable to everyone? And second, can anyone
>suggest a good license? The Creative Commons Public License
>(Attribution-NonCommercial) sounds like basically what I want, but it
>doesn't seem really software-oriented. It *would* protect my source code
>against being performed in public for profit, though. =]
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: Open source licensing
From: "Gregg G. Wonderly" <gregg@skymaster.cytetech.com>
Date: Mon, 15 Dec 2003 17:43:47 -0600
X-Message-Number: 19
>1) No, 2) GPL.
The important issue with GPL is that it forces distribution of proprietary
extensions with the base software in source for to the users (or it has to
be available to them for download). I think this also provides a form of
restriction that will stifle the use. The LGPL, BSD and other variants
were created specifically because people wanted to be able to keep their
trade secrets about their implementation while providing a standards based
implementation.
If you don't want people to sell products and compete making opentrac
devices, the GPL would be a good choice. If you want vendors to adopt it
because they can make money, then you need to use an attribution license,
and let them have at it.
The basic point is that if you can't make money using what you've invented,
then probably noone else will want to either. So, if you think what you've
built for a tracker is valuable, then either sell it yourself, or give up
the rights (except for attribution and compliance). Having a working
example to run with will make it happen faster, and will make it more
likely that compatibility will happen sooner.
Gregg
-----
gregg@cytetech.com (Cyte Technologies Inc)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: Open source licensing
From: "Scott Miller" <scott@opentrac.org>
Date: Mon, 15 Dec 2003 16:23:50 -0800
X-Message-Number: 20
>Personally, I don't think someone who is designing an 2FSK non-FEC
>"open source" gadget should waste time on trying to enforce legitimate
>"closed" uses of the product. Maybe if it used a modern modem technology
>that might interest commercial users. What you might say, is that no
The fact is, quite a few people have shelled out $32 for a similar kit -
that's over twice the cost of parts in the kit, but not an unreasonable fee
for a commercially produced and supported device. I'm mostly just worried
about someone throwing together a bag of parts and selling them at a 100%
markup and possibly misleading customers on what they're getting. Go to any
computer show and you can usually find someone hawking collections of free
software or information packaged in a way that makes it look like their own
product, and customers often aren't happy about not getting support for
something when they paid money and think they're entitled to it.
Yeah, I know you like to bash the technology, and I'm the first to admit
it's nothing revolutionary. But why buy a PDA when a pencil and paper will
get the job done? It performs its intended function without unnecessary
complexity.
My desire to impose commercial restrictions on the distribution is not from
a desire to make money off it, it's to avoid subversion of my work. I'm
doing this for the amateur community, not to have someone repackage it and
make a profit without adding any value. If someone wants to sell kits or
spiffy pre-assembled units for a profit, that's fine, so long as they get my
OK first.
Now, it may well be that economic realities make this a non-issue. If
everyone knows where they can get one at cost, no one will buy one for more,
unless someone's improving that offer somehow. I'd just prefer to be
covered in the unlikely event that the issue does come up. What harm does a
non-commercial clause cause for the community?
As for the GPL, I see no need to force creators of derivative works to make
their changes available. Their work is their own, to distribute or not as
they see fit.
>software can be called OpenTracker unless it performs a minimum set of
>features. That is, you want people to use your design and abandon the
>other "closed" system you are trying to improve on. The non-profit
>"closed" amendment to the "open" source project would stifle adoption.
I don't care what they call it. And remember, the OpenTracker and the
OpenTRAC protocol are two entirely different things. The protocol has no
usage or distribution restriction. You can use it in commercial devices all
you want. The OpenTracker hardware device and its firmware, which happens
to implement the OpenTRAC protocol along with APRS, on the other hand, has
the sole restriction of being for non-commercial use.
The distinction is the same as that between the APRS specification document
and the Byonics TinyTrak.
>People bought Curtis airplanes because they were higher performance.
>You want people to flee the raw ASCII based APRS and come to your
>binary protocol in droves. Who cares if someone makes a profit?
If, for example, Kenwood wanted to do OpenTRAC in their radios, that's fine
by me. They can download the spec today and do whatever they want with it.
Might make a few Japanese people happy with the Unicode support, too. They
can sell all they want and owe me nothing. What they CAN'T do is stick a
MC68HC908KX8 chip in the radio and program it with the OpenTracker firmware
without my permission. Understand?
If someone can offer a convincing argument for removal of the non-commercial
clause, I'll release it under the Modified BSD license. But at this point,
I can't see that it harms the community.
Scott
N1VG
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: Open source licensing
From: "Scott Miller" <scott@opentrac.org>
Date: Mon, 15 Dec 2003 16:31:52 -0800
X-Message-Number: 21
>If you don't want people to sell products and compete making opentrac devices,
>the GPL would be a good choice. If you want vendors to adopt it because they
>can make money, then you need to use an attribution license, and let them have
>at it.
I think maybe I ought to pick a new name for the tracker. Sharing the first
8 letters of the name with the protocol might be too confusing...
Again, the protocol is not restricted...
>The basic point is that if you can't make money using what you've invented,
>then probably noone else will want to either. So, if you think what you've
>built for a tracker is valuable, then either sell it yourself, or give up the
>rights (except for attribution and compliance). Having a working example to
>run with will make it happen faster, and will make it more likely that
>compatibility will happen sooner.
Well, I probably *could* make money on it. I'm assuming Byon makes at least
a little profit. But he's got advertising, support, manufacturing,
distribution, and all that stuff to deal with. I don't want to get into
that. But as long as my name's on the design, I'd prefer to have some say
in how it's represented commercially.
Scott
N1VG
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: Open source licensing
From: "Stephen H. Smith" <WA8LMF2@aol.com>
Date: Mon, 15 Dec 2003 16:48:53 -0800
X-Message-Number: 22
Scott Miller wrote on 12/15/2003, 4:31 PM:
>I'm assuming Byon makes at least
>a little profit. But he's got advertising, support, manufacturing,
>distribution, and all that stuff to deal with. I don't want to get into
>that. But as long as my name's on the design, I'd prefer to have some
>say in how it's represented commercially.
Don't know if you are aware of this but Byon HAS had trouble with
commercial knockoffs of the TinyTrak. There is an individual or
enterprise in South America that has copied the TinyTrak code and PCB
layout, and hawks it on a web site and on Ebay. They've been trying to
sell it both to hams and as commercial AVL....
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Read previous mail | Read next mail
| |
