| |
ZL3AI > APRDIG 19.12.03 11:30l 253 Lines 9528 Bytes #999 (0) @ WW
BID : 2514-ZL3AI
Read: GUEST
Subj: TAPR Digest, Dec 16, 7/10
Path: DB0FHN<DB0RGB<OK0PPL<DB0RES<ON0AR<ZL3VML
Sent: 031219/0843Z @:ZL3VML.#80.NZL.OC #:14920 [Chch-NZ] FBB7.00i $:2514-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 16:11:30 -0500
X-Message-Number: 35
On Tue, 16 Dec 2003 10:38:15 -0800, Scott Miller wrote:
>>Open Source forbids such restrictions:
I.E. Open Source (note upper case), is an Ideology. It has nothing to do with
open source, which can be defined many ways, but is best thought of as the
MIT/BSD license. I.E. no strings attached.
>So I don't get the OSI seal of approval. I think Modified BSD with
>a non-commercial clause is still a heck of a lot better than what's
>out there now.
You mean a reasonable commercial payment for commercial use, or no commercial
use at all? In the former, I agree, a modified BSD/MIT might work well, in
the latter, your better off with GPL. Not that I think it will stop people
from violating your license, but at least if you discover a violation, you
can enlist the leagues of GPL zealots to harass the offender and try and
crash their web site.
In the latter, you best off not releasing the source at all. The problem is,
hobbyists have day jobs, and if they see some cool code, they are going to
use it no matter what. If you give them a commercial out (the former), most
of them will let the boss know and you might see some money (which is exactly
what I have done with some of my customers).
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: Open source licensing
From: Jeff King <jeff@aerodata.net>
Date: Tue, 16 Dec 2003 16:15:07 -0500
X-Message-Number: 36
Scott:
On Tue, 16 Dec 2003 02:38:37 -0600, Scott kd5mhm wrote:
>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):
<lable deleted>
Yes, your memory is rusty. I NEVER suggested someone release software without
a license, I was suggesting the BSD license or a modification there of. I
also referred the party to the nolo law resource site.
I think we both agree the GPL is not "free' as in no strings attached, but
are you suggesting the BSD and MIT license are also not "free"? BTW, the
events you cite occurred before many of the licenses we are discussing even
existed.
Anyways, to make this useful, this is how I release my software
Stuff I make money on:
Trade Secret. I simply don't release the source
Limited: I release the source to a customer, under NDA (I have one example
of this)
Stuff I'm not using, but might want to make some money on:
Modified BSD with clause for commercial use
Stuff I don't care about:
BSD or anonymous.
Stuff I don't want anyone to use:
If I wanted to release sourcecode and make sure no-one could make any money
off it directly, I would release it GPL. But I have never done that as it
seems vindictive to me. I mean, just because I'm not smart enough to make
money off a piece of source code, doesn't mean someone else is. That is why a
BSD modified for commercial use, in this case, I think is the best thing.
Fact of the matter is, I think the GPL promotes software piracy, by tempting
businesses to use the source code, without giving them a means to pay the
authors for their work and retain a competitive advantage.
73
-Jeff
--
Jeff King, jeff@aerodata.net on 12/16/2003
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: Open source licensing
From: Henk de Groot <henk.de.groot@hetnet.nl>
Date: Tue, 16 Dec 2003 22:04:17 +0100
X-Message-Number: 37
At 11:19 18-12-2003 -0600, Sean \\The RIMBoy\\" <sean@rimboy.com> wrote:
>>The word "free" has little to do with the GPL. Free is free. Period.
>
>Free has everything to do with the GPL.
I fully agree with Sean.
In my view its very simple. Both BSD and GPL sources are free to use, only
with BSD you can terminate the freedom by adding you own additions and
convert the product to closed source and stimulates to hide extensions from
others; you can take without giving. GPL forces you that the free product
stays free and stimuates colaboration; you can't take without giving.
If with "free" is ment "no restrictions at all" then GPL is not "free"
since it doesn't allow you to terminate the "freedom" and BSD is not "free"
because it still has a copyright attached stating the terms of use. If you
want the ulitmate "free" form of software then make the product/code public
domain; you can take it without owing anybody anything since nobody owns
anymore. With public domain source everybody has an equal right to use,
change, abuse, exploid or do whatever anybody wants do with it (including
calling it their own!) since nobody can excersise any rights on
public-domain-code whatsoever.
I still consider BSD and GPL licensed code "free" but if you are puristic
than only public domain code is free.
I released DIGI_NED as GPL code since that way nobody is able to convert it
to closed source by adding propriatry extensions. An additional advantage,
which seems to be forgotten in this thread, is that it allowes to use other
GPL code to be integrated, like the SAT tracker code that originated from
Predict and I didn't have to write my own CRC routines but just could pick
one of the GPL published examples.
Anyway, I think there is enough information now about copyrights. If you
want to keep in full control that just copyright it for yourself and grant
licenses on a case-by-case basis...
I think its about time to close this topic, I will not comment anymore on
this.
Kind regards,
Henk.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: Power Poles Double Duty
From: David VanHorn <dvanhorn@cedar.net>
Date: Tue, 16 Dec 2003 16:21:17 -0500
X-Message-Number: 38
At 03:46 PM 12/16/2003 -0500, Bob Bruninga wrote:
>Preping for Holiday Travels, I put Power Pole DC connectors on a 6'
>pigtail CIG-Lighter plug and on another 6' cable set with Battery Clips.
>
>Not only can they run my toys either way, but, being sexless, can plug
>into each other and serve as a car-to-car battery charger (not jump
>starter). Just let the charging car run for 2 minutes and you'll get
>plenty of juice for one crank of the dead car's battery...(at nominal
>temps). Colder takes longer.
>
>DISCLAIMER: Dont do anything stupid, and carry some extra 10 amp CIG
>fuses.
BTDT, works fine.
I have a couple sets of heavy duty cig adaptors, and a relatively long
heavy duty extension cable, which doubles for running my spotlight.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: Holiday Traveling = 144.39 CTCSS 100
From: "KK4EMK" <kk4emk@worldnet.att.net>
Date: Tue, 16 Dec 2003 16:23:55 -0500
X-Message-Number: 39
Does the TH-D7 also work this way?
Allen
KK4EMK
----- Original Message -----
From: "Bob Bruninga" <bruninga@usna.edu>
To: "TAPR APRS Special Interest Group" <aprssig@lists.tapr.org>
Cc: <amsat-bb@amsat.org>
Sent: Tuesday, December 16, 2003 11:17 AM
Subject: [aprssig] Re: Holiday Traveling = 144.39 CTCSS 100
>On Tue, 16 Dec 2003, Keith Allen asked about VOICE ALERT:
>
>>Can I presume that when the ctcss 100 is engaged on both sides (xmit and
>>rx) of the D-700 or D7 , that the only APRS traffic that will make it
>>into my radio (TMD-700) are the ones from stations also using the 100
>>ctcss tone?
>
>No, ALL packet stations will still be heard by the TM-D700 APRS radio
>because the internal TNC is connected before the CTCSS squelch.
>
>>In other words local digipeaters and such that receive my signal will
>>not be able to send back due to the 100 hx tone on my receive side.
>
>No, APRS continues to work normally. That is the beauty of VOICE ALERT.
>It is like getting a 3rd free radio in the car. Since you are on APRS,
>everyone knows you are also monitoring 144.39 for VOICE ALERT with CTCSS
>100, so no matter what you are doing on any other freq, they can still
>always call you quickly with PL 100 on 144.39 and ask you what freq you
>are on or ask you to QSY to their working voice channel...
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: OT: Looking for a pager...
From: Bob Bruninga <bruninga@usna.edu>
Date: Tue, 16 Dec 2003 16:24:12 -0500 (EST)
X-Message-Number: 40
Kantronics TNC's have Pager encoders built in...
Thats the send side.
Then any compatible pager that you can XTAL on the HAM bands should
work...
Havent dont it myself tho...
Bob
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: Holiday Traveling = 144.39 CTCSS 100
From: Bob Bruninga <bruninga@usna.edu>
Date: Tue, 16 Dec 2003 16:45:47 -0500 (EST)
X-Message-Number: 41
On Tue, 16 Dec 2003, KK4EMK asked about VOICE ALERT:
>Does the TH-D7 also work this way?
Yes, and it is even better on the HT. Because you dont have to fuss
with the BALANCE control. The CTCSS 100 completely mutes the BAND-A
receiver when it is on the 144.39 APRS channel, but then when you use band
A for any other purpose without CTCSS, the speaker ausio is there for your
use without having to remember to turn the volume back up...
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Read previous mail | Read next mail
| |
