| |
ZL3AI > APRDIG 19.12.03 11:16l 257 Lines 11156 Bytes #999 (0) @ WW
BID : 2509-ZL3AI
Read: GUEST
Subj: TAPR Digest, Dec 16, 2/10
Path: DB0FHN<DB0RGB<OK0PPL<DB0RES<ON0AR<VK6HGR<ZL2BAU<ZL2BAU<ZL3VML
Sent: 031219/0843Z @:ZL3VML.#80.NZL.OC #:14915 [Chch-NZ] FBB7.00i $:2509-ZL3AI
From: ZL3AI@ZL3VML.#80.NZL.OC
To : APRDIG@WW
Subject: Re: Open source licensing
From: Jeff King <jeff@aerodata.net>
Date: Tue, 16 Dec 2003 01:57:04 -0500
X-Message-Number: 3
On Wed, 17 Dec 2003 23:48:30 -0600 (CST), Sean \\The RIMBoy\\ wrote:
>On Tue, 16 Dec 2003, Jeff King wrote:
>
>>GPL is Marxism. It basically tries to be a poison pill for any
>>commercial development.
>
>Please point to me in the GPL where it says you cannot profit from
>the code. As long as you meet the terms of the GPL you are free to
>profit from the code. Redhat, SuSE, and Mandrake are just but a few
>examples of companies that are commercial companies that are
>attempting or have made money with software licensed under the GPL.
Blind Ideology is what will get the thread shut down. All the companies you
cite are service companies. They compile a CD rom and sell tech support.
LinkSys/Cisco is a better example. They are a product company. And they are
being accused of being in violation of the GPL. The WRT54G wireless router is
based on Linux and they (LinkSys) are in violation of the GPL. Do a search on
google with WRT54G and GPL and you'll see what I mean.
http://groups.google.com/groups?num=50&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-=
8&safe=off&q=
wrt54g+gpl&sa=N&tab=wg
>It's by no means a poison pill. The only "poison" you have to
>swallow using GPL code is that anything you modify and redistribute
>must include the source with those changes. I would say that's a
>fair expectation for software that you're getting for F/free.
It is not "free" if you have to hand out your labor for free. Most businesses
don't want to do this as that is how they retain their competive advantage.
That is why it is a poison pill. See the hopla about the WRT54G and the
(empty) threats of law suites against LinkSys.
>>Many prefer a BSD style license that lets you do what you want with
>>the code, with some restrictions you can add.
>
>That for the most part is an incorrect statement. The BSD license
>allows others to incorporate *your* code into their projects, modify
>it at will, and not return those changes to you.
Right, it is called open source (lower case). Your giving out code with no
strings attached and nothing expected in return. Or you can modify the
license to suite your needs. It is a better place to start, with
modifications, then the GPL, for someone wanting to profit from their work.
GPL is just plain stupid for any software author who wants to make money. The
GPL only makes sense when you want to sabotage others in not using your code
in their products for profit, as it is hard to make a profit when you are
required to give away things for free.
I don't have a problem with this, as it is a matter of choice, but lets just
be clear about the motives involved. To me, profit is not a dirty word, even
when someone besides me is making it.
>For instance, it's
>been well documented that from all appearances, Microsoft used the
>BSD TCP/IP stack in their for profit monopolistic OS.
Now, what did I say about Marxism? I can say alot of bad things about
MicroSoft, but one of them would not be about how they runs their business.
I'm one of these funny amateur radio operators who thinks that capitalism is
a good word.
>The BSD
>license allows others to do with your code as they see fit without
>returning those changes back to the original author.
i.e. it is really open source!! No strings attached. So what your really
saying is the BSD license helped create the most wealth of the 20th century.
Not bad I would say.
>We can argue about the freedom of BSDL compared to the GPL till
>we're blue in the face.
I'm not arguing. I clearly said the GPL was Marxism.
>Let's not misrepresent these licenses
>though. The fact of the matter is, the copyright holder is free to
>set the terms, BSD or GPL as he sees fit. However, the user is
>bound to the terms of the license the author sets. The question we
>have at hand here is that John is an author and what would be the
>best terms for him. It's not a question of John incorporating
>existing code into his project.
Right. If John wants to make some money off his code, he should modify the
BSD license to suite his needs or create a new license. The GPL license is
not well suited to businesses nor to him making any money off the code.
http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/gpl.html
>>But in almost all cases, businesses avoid GPL licenses, or try to
>>work around them.
>
>So tell me, why does IBM seem to be avoiding Linux like the plague?
IBM is a HARDWARE and SERVICE company. They use Linux to sell their HARDWARE
and SERVICES.
>What about SGI? Dell seems to be avoiding it too.
Hardware and services again.
>Linux and better
>yet the tools that make it go, GNU, are all GPL. So in what cases
>are businesses avoiding GPL licenses?
Software companies that are interested in making money. Like MicroSoft and
even public universities, like the University of California:
http://www.opensource.org/licenses/bsd-license.php
BTW, compare the above "open source" license with the following GPL "open
source" license:
http://www.opensource.org/licenses/gpl-license.php
Look how much shorter the BSD one is. Amazing how many words the GPL uses to
say something is "free" when the BSD one can say it is free so much more
succiently. I understand the Soviet Constitution was quite wordly also when
they described how "free" their citizens where as well.
>Note, there's no reason to delve into SCO on this
>list, it's been hashed out any number of places elsewhere on the
>net. Let's keep this discussion based on John's situation (which
>I'm sure others are in).
I was. I don't think the GPL is well suited for a project of this type.
Decide what you want, either truly make the code open source (i.e. no strings
attached), or craft a license where you can actually make some money from the
code. I was just suggesting in both cases the BSD license would make the most
sense (either as-is or adding a section that requires payment for commercial
use).
One thing I know for sure, I don't hand out commercially viable sourcecode
for free. If I don't need it, I hand it out with the BSD license or a
modification there of. Or if it is a hobby, I have handed it out for free as
well. The word "free" has little to do with the GPL. Free is free. Period.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: RE: Some great DX on APRS right now IN->FL!!
From: "Dave Anderson" <dandersn@citicom.com>
Date: Tue, 16 Dec 2003 02:24:07 -0500
X-Message-Number: 4
Rich,
>OK so maybe I am seeing him over a digi but this is still way cool for
>what it is worth.
Earlier tonight I was hearing you -direct- via my Digi KG4YZY-10 in Port
Richey, Florida.
>While coming home at 19:00 today I heard some UHF activity on my
>repeater frequency which is normally VERY clear even during DX.
I also dialed up the 147.000 machine just for curiosity, and had a QSO full
quieting at 5 watts with KD4BBM at 1:30am. (238.7 miles as the crow flies)
;)
Gotta love band openings this time of the year in Florida.
Seeya,
Dave
KG4YZY
www.aprsfl.net
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: Open source licensing
From: "Scott kd5mhm" <kd5mhm@kd5mhm.org>
Date: Tue, 16 Dec 2003 02:38:37 -0600
X-Message-Number: 5
I'm reminded of (Ok, my memory is a little rusty, but I honestly believe
this is basically correct):
>One thing I know for sure, I don't hand out commercially viable sourcecode
>for free. If I don't need it, I hand it out with the BSD license or a
>modification there of. Or if it is a hobby, I have handed it out for free as
>well. The word "free" has little to do with the GPL. Free is free. Period.
When free isn't free (a fable based upon fact):
Back in the old days (pre DOS and Windows) we had CP/M and writing code was
often a "hobby". On that platform we had archive (.ARC) files. There was a
commercial program one could buy to do ARC and UNARC functions, written by
company "S". Someone came along and made another program, let's call them
company "K", much less expensive and much faster, to do this job and it
began to dominate the market for ARC/UNARC programs. Then the PC was born.
Both programmers and their fledgling software companies ported their
programs to this "hot new platform" and again there was a clear leader.
Although the compression method was created by someone else in the CP/M
days, there was no license used back then. As company "K" was clearly
dominating the new PC market, company "S" became desperate and COPYRIGHTED
the FILE EXTENSION!!! This then permitted them to sue company "K" for
copyright violations! They also wanted to get their paws on the source code
to the software that violated the copyright (because it was so much better
and kickin' them in the "market place", where it really hurts).
The final settlement forced company "K" to give the source code for the
superior product to the desperate company "S" and a whole bunch of other
restrictions on company "K" as well. Obviously, this was a serious blow to
company "K", as their code was added to company "S"s program to improve it
immediately.
Company "K" was forced to create a new (and superior) compression technique
and archive file extension. However, they copyrighted the new extension,
published the compression algorithm, etc. but placed them in the public
domain to protect every programmer that would incorporate this into their
products...
and thus .ZIP files were born, and Dr. Phil Katz (PKZip) kicked 'em in the
"market place" again. Is there any of us out there that don't use zip
files? When is the last time you had to uncompress a .arc file?
Moral:
If you're going to write software - for any reason - copyright/license your
work and clarify how you want it used. Any license is better than no
license. Place it freely in the public domain if it is to be free and
protect you and others from unscrupulous companies that would cash in on
your work (many years) later by abusing the law of the land. (You could
actually be sued later for software you wrote but didn't protect and some
company comes along and copyrights it!)
Opinion <spoken with a grin>:
As a software developer, I believe in capitalism to the max. However, I
also believe in a reasonable price for software, shareware should be paid
for and too many things cost way to much (for the packaging, I guess). I
fix my software bugs for free rather than calling it version 2 (and making
you upgrade for this small fee). I feel that big software companies don't
innovate so support the 'little programming shops' whenever possible. And
if you really want all software to be free, move yourself to Brasil where
all software is bootlegged and enjoy their economy (it is well past "in the
toilet")... You'll have plenty of time to use your computer because you
won't be working, and maybe you won't starve to death while you enjoy all
that software for free...
Best wishes and Happy Holidays to all!
Scott
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Read previous mail | Read next mail
| |
