| |
ZL3AI > APRDIG 19.12.03 11:31l 272 Lines 11526 Bytes #999 (0) @ WW
BID : 2508-ZL3AI
Read: GUEST
Subj: TAPR Digest, Dec 16, 1/10
Path: DB0FHN<DB0FOR<DB0MRW<OK0PPL<DB0RES<ON0AR<ZL3VML
Sent: 031219/0843Z @:ZL3VML.#80.NZL.OC #:14914 [Chch-NZ] FBB7.00i $:2508-ZL3AI
From: ZL3AI@ZL3VML.#80.NZL.OC
To : APRDIG@WW
TAPR APRS Special Interest Group Digest for Tuesday, December 16, 2003.
1. Re: Open source licensing
2. Re: Open source licensing
3. Re: Open source licensing
4. RE: Some great DX on APRS right now IN->FL!!
5. Re: Open source licensing
6. Re: Open source licensing
7. Re: Open source licensing
8. TNC Digipeater.
9. WX Format...
10. Changes to Wxsvr
11. RE: great DX propagation
12. Garmin Connectors
13. Re: Garmin Connectors
14. Re: WX Format...
15. Re: Key Chain Jump drives
16. PCsat fully operational for Holidays
17. Re: Open source licensing
18. Re: Open source licensing
19. Southern Hemisphere Pass Times
20. Re: Dreaming of a PCsat Christmas...
21. Re: Holiday Traveling = 144.39 CTCSS 100
22. RE: Some great DX on APRS right now IN->FL!!
23. Re: [ "Sean \\The RIMBoy\\" ] Re: Open source licensing
24. Re: Holiday Traveling = 144.39 CTCSS 100
25. Catching that DX
26. Re: Open source licensing
27. RE: Open source licensing
28. Re: Open source licensing
29. Suggestions on Rotor Control
30. Re: Suggestions on Rotor Control
31. OT: Looking for a pager...
32. Power Poles Double Duty
33. TNC Cables Yaseu and Icom same ?
34. Re: Open source licensing
35. RE: Open source licensing
36. Re: Open source licensing
37. Re: Open source licensing
38. Re: Power Poles Double Duty
39. Re: Holiday Traveling = 144.39 CTCSS 100
40. Re: OT: Looking for a pager...
41. Re: Holiday Traveling = 144.39 CTCSS 100
42. Re: Power Poles Double Duty
43. Re: Open source licensing
44. Re: Power Poles Double Duty
45. Re: Open source licensing
46. Re: OT: Looking for a pager...
47. Re: Open source licensing
48. Re: OT: Looking for a pager...
49. Re: OT: Looking for a pager...
50. Re: Open source licensing
51. Re: OT: Looking for a pager...
52. Re: OT: Looking for a pager...
53. Re: Open source licensing
54. Re: Open source licensing
55. Re: Open source licensing
56. PCsat TXD
57. Re: Open source licensing
58. Re: Open source licensing
59. Re: OT: Looking for a pager...
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: Open source licensing
From: Jeff King <jeff@aerodata.net>
Date: Tue, 16 Dec 2003 00:37:01 -0500
X-Message-Number: 1
HI John:
A few comments
On Mon, 15 Dec 2003 22:28:27 -0500, John Hansen wrote:
>To me this is an incredibly interesting and worthwhile discussion.
>I know it is a bit off topic for an APRS group, but I'm hoping Stan
>will let it go a bit.
Dittos. No death threats yet so hopefully Stan will let it go on for a bit
;-)
> 1. I spent a lot of time (and frankly a lot of money) developing
>TNC-X. At a minimum I'd like to recoup the money I spent, and I
>think it would be nice if I got compensated to some extent for my
>time as well.
We spoke about this off sig, and this is just my opinion, but I think all of
these projects should make money, assuming you properly research the market.
You have to give people "value' or more to the point, what they perceive as
value. In ham radio, that is typically a piece of hardware you hold in your
hand. Thankfully, making a one off copy of a decent PCB or cloning parts is
not yet possible, so putting the kit together and making the PCB available is
the value you bring to the market. I am well aware, that in most cases, the
biggest investment is in the software, I'm just relaying the perception that
most hams have. They want a piece of hardware that does something useful for
them. Focus on that, with the software being a tool to enhance the hardware.
> 1. My worst nightmare is that someone would modify it and then
>somehow either suggest that I should support the modified design or
>that something I did caused it to fail. I will admit that my
>worries about this issue have diminished substantially as I thought
>about the specific circumstances under which this could occur and
>how I could specifically avoid them.
That is a easy one. Just say NO. Or alternately, start a mailing list devoted
to the project and direct all questions there. This is how many open source
projects got started.
> 2. I think moving into development from this angle, we all would
>do well to forget about broader commercial applications. We simply
>don't have enough legal clout that a larger company would have to
>pay any attention to us.
I don't know if I agree with this. I had a customer of mine, one of the big
three automotive companies, patent something that I helped develop without
listing me as a co-inventor. I had my attorney write them, they puffed their
chest up, made threats, but at the end of the day they had a choice of
listing me as a co-inventor or I would be sending the entire file to the
patent office for inclusion in the folder.
Point being, their are ways to protect yourself, copyrights, trademarks and
patents and keeping records. Also just be a little savvy. The right attorney
is not that expensive, in particular for the warning letter. Also, you can do
alot by yourself. Check this web site out:
http://www.nolo.com/
> 3. Make no mistake, there are some substantial sums of money
>involved in some of these products. Without naming names or naming
>products, there have been several of these types of designs that
>have produced tens of thousands of dollars in the last decade or so,
>either for individuals or organizations.
With all due respect, if a product doesn't make me $50K or more, it is a
failure. Would you quit your day job for the sum of several $10's of thousand
over a decade? It is just a hobby at that level, abet one that pays for
itself. Your fooling yourself if you think that is a real business, not
withstanding what the IRS thinks (it could be a great tax deduction at that
level though!).
>It is quite likely that at
>least in some cases, the prospect of profit has resulted in all of
>us having toys (at reasonable prices) that we might not otherwise
>have.
EXACTLY. It is a hobby, and your doing it to enhance your hobby. My mother
was a accomplished and well known China painter. She sold her work at art
shows and taught classes. Yet she didn't quit her day job as a kindergarten
teacher to do China painting. To her, China painting was a labor of love. The
fact that she made money off it, so much the better, but that is not why she
did it.
> Now Greg said the following: "If you don't want people to sell
>products and compete making opentrac devices, the GPL would be a
>good choice. "
>
> Forgive my ignorance, but why is that? Doesn't GPL let anyone
>produce this on the same footing as you produce it (that is,
>preserving no advantage for the developer)?
GPL is Marxism. It basically tries to be a poison pill for any commercial
development. Many prefer a BSD style license that lets you do what you want
with the code, with some restrictions you can add. But in almost all cases,
businesses avoid GPL licenses, or try to work around them.
But at the end of the day, YOU have to decide what you want to do. If you
doing this to make money, I'd be very selective about what ham radio products
I come out with. Market research needs to be done to see what hams are
buying, and what unfilled needs are on the market. Also, as you have found,
coat-tailing products can be profitable. That is, you identify some major
manufacturers, such as Kenwood/Icom/ect. that have some short-comings in
their popular products, and you come up with widgets to fix those
short-comings. If I wanted to turn a buck in ham radio, that is what I would
focus on.
Oh, one other point, you can use your "open source" or hobby activities to
get contract work. I know of a few hams who do just that. So while the "ham
stuff' may show a loss on paper, it is great free advertising for your main
business, if that business happens to be consulting.
Whatever you decide, I'm sure of one thing. You'll continue to put out
interesting and useful products.
73's
Jeff wb8wka
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: Open source licensing
From: "Sean \\The RIMBoy\\" <sean@rimboy.com>
Date: Wed, 17 Dec 2003 23:48:30 -0600 (CST)
X-Message-Number: 2
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. There are other companies
doing the same. I suggested to John in private email that he could even
consider a dual track ala MySQL where the code is GPL but is sold closed
source as necessary to those companies that think they can do something
with it.
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.
>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. For instance, it's been well
documented that from all appearances, Microsoft used the BSD TCP/IP stack
in their for profit monopolistic OS. The BSD license allows others to do
with your code as they see fit without returning those changes back to the
original author.
We can argue about the freedom of BSDL compared to the GPL till we're blue
in the face. 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.
Again, there are plenty of documented projects where the license is GPL
but there is seperate licensing available to those companies that want to
do so. Just because you GPL your software does not mean that you give up
your rights.
>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? What
about SGI? Dell seems to be avoiding it too. Linux and better yet the
tools that make it go, GNU, are all GPL. So in what cases are businesses
avoiding GPL licenses? I can understand businesses selling products not
having the GPL (however, IMO their time is short lived and not because of
the GPL). I think you'll be surprised at the number of companies that are
in fact using software that is GPL'd. 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).
Sean...
--
The punk rock will get you if the government don't get you first.
--Old 97's
_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_
KG4NRC http://www.rimboy.com Your source for the crap you know you need.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Read previous mail | Read next mail
| |
