GPL Violatin - no I wont

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
15 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

GPL Violatin - no I wont

David Irvine
Hi

I am a developer and starting a project in python. I have been toying with this idea for years and now I am going ahead with it - yea boring blah blah.

The crux of the matter is I have been looking for a file distribution mechanism which

1: Everyone is a p2p client or server (attached direct or through a firewall), whatever that's called leaf node or whatever. Basically if your directly connected I want others behind firewall to connect through you or vice versa.
2: Clients have to put aside a certain amount of space for sharing (pre agreed based on algorithm)
3: Everything is anonymous - or at least mostly !!
4: all clients should maintain a hash of files and check this frequently and forget files that don't match (screwed files)
5: Clients should rate themselves based on their connection time 0 - 100% connected and running (bad to very good and also direct connect or behind firewall etc.)

My system is to be open source (not sure bsd or gpl - that's another mail and argument), but initially it will be distributed for a token amount £3 with £1 to open source £1 to me and £1 to charity. All 3rd world and charities will not pay. After I have paid my debts and made a small profit (to allow me to live for a bit longer) then the system will change license. This deal will be incorporated in the initial commercial license (please don't hate me for this) I am trying to challenge the completely open source or closed (I am writing in python so it wont really be closed source anyhow )

My questions therefor are

a: What parts above are there already
b: Is this a decent base to work from (it must be apple, windows and especially Linux capable), I was looking at wxWindows rather than GTK though - open to comment on this.
c: Can I use this as part of another system in the way I mentioned (initially commercial). I probably wont directly alter the base of this code in a non gpl way I think. My intention would be joint the group and probably get laughed at with some of my code but at least I would participate. (I am trying to get investment or some way of getting cash in just now). My system can run alongside this one and if I need major changes I could have a distribution system separate from mine and keep; the distribution system separate and gpl at a push,  even if I forked this and kept it that way (no threat to you there though).

So I am trying to understand just the feelings of the group on this. I am fairly direct so please don't hold back if you think there's an issue.

If this works it may make a good story (assuming my system is any use which I really think it will be) and of course it would make sense that if I sold some this project with other good python stuff get the £1 per sale (python, twisted etc. all seem good suggestion) who knows I may even be able to pay those guys in uganda as requested by the best editor in the worlds creator :->

Looking forward to your thoughts and comments

David Irvine
PS My emails are usually no more than 3 lines long


_______________________________________________
Circle-discuss mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/circle-discuss

signature.asc (196 bytes) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: GPL Violatin - no I wont

darkblood

David:  This project has not had much active development in a couple of
years.  The code mostly works, but it desperately needs refactoring.  The
level of cruft has driven off everyone who has ever attempted to do the
refactoring...

On the GPL part, as I understand it you can sell copies for whatever you
want, but you can't close the source or disallow other people from
redistributing it.  If you want to carry out your plan, you'd have
to write your own code instead of modifying an existing GPL'ed project.

Or you could do whatever the hell you want to do to a BSD licensed
project, of course.  That is the fundamental difference between the two
licenses.


-- Pierre



_______________________________________________
Circle-discuss mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/circle-discuss
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: GPL Violatin - no I wont

jiri (Bugzilla)
In reply to this post by David Irvine
Hello,

David Irvine:
> 1: Everyone is a p2p client or server (attached direct or through a
> firewall), whatever that's called leaf node or whatever. Basically if
> your directly connected I want others behind firewall to connect through
> you or vice versa.

You will have to deal with (a) NAT and (b) firewalls. Both of these are
difficult, and both of them are a problem for Circle.

> 3: Everything is anonymous - or at least mostly !!

Circle is not anonymous at all - everyone knows everybody else's IP address.

If you want Freenet, you know where to look for it.

Speaking of Freenet, what would your system do that others don't do already?
Why will anyone use yours, rather than Freenet, or eDonkey, or whatever?

> After I have paid my debts and made a small profit (to allow me to live for
> a bit longer) then the system will change license.

Not with my code you won't.


Jiri
--
Jiri Baum <[hidden email]>                   http://www.baum.com.au/~jiri
  MAT LinuxPLC project --- http://mat.sf.net --- Machine Automation Tools


_______________________________________________
Circle-discuss mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/circle-discuss
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: GPL Violatin - no I wont

Faried Nawaz
In reply to this post by darkblood
On 1/19/06, [hidden email] <[hidden email]> wrote:

> On the GPL part, as I understand it you can sell copies for whatever you
> want, but you can't close the source or disallow other people from
> redistributing it.  If you want to carry out your plan, you'd have
> to write your own code instead of modifying an existing GPL'ed project.

Actually, I think you can.  If you own the copyrights to all the code,
you can change the license at any time.  However, you can't stop
distributing the already publicly available GPL'd code, nor prevent
others from distributing it.

Since this person wants to develop it openly, and close its source
once it's developed, it's unlikely that he'd be able to get anyone to
pay for the closed version.  The GPL'd code will do everything the
closed code will do, or will be easy to modify to match the closed
version's featureset.


_______________________________________________
Circle-discuss mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/circle-discuss
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: GPL Violatin - no I wont

David Irvine
On Thu, 2006-01-19 at 13:24 +0500, Faried Nawaz wrote:
On 1/19/06, [hidden email] <[hidden email]> wrote:

> On the GPL part, as I understand it you can sell copies for whatever you
> want, but you can't close the source or disallow other people from
> redistributing it.  If you want to carry out your plan, you'd have
> to write your own code instead of modifying an existing GPL'ed project.

Actually, I think you can.  If you own the copyrights to all the code,
you can change the license at any time.  However, you can't stop
distributing the already publicly available GPL'd code, nor prevent
others from distributing it.

Since this person wants to develop it openly, and close its source
once it's developed, it's unlikely that he'd be able to get anyone to
pay for the closed version.  The GPL'd code will do everything the
closed code will do, or will be easy to modify to match the closed
version's featureset.


_______________________________________________
Circle-discuss mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/circle-discuss
Thanks guys. I understand the GPL / BSD issues. What I may do is recode some of this as GPL (as I would have no choice as that's what it is) and then keep it separate from the code base I will close (for a wee while) and run them as two independently running programs therefor not breaking GPL (linked code must be GPL). I would then output from one system to this and back again. It just makes it not so good for the usr but then when I do open source my bit they can be linked at the code level. The only issue is I would be stuck with a GPL thing and I am not sure about doing that.

Many thanks for your time.

David
_______________________________________________
Circle-discuss mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/circle-discuss

signature.asc (196 bytes) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: GPL Violatin - no I wont

jiri (Bugzilla)
Hello,

David Irvine:
...
> and run them as two independently running programs therefor not breaking
> GPL (linked code must be GPL).

This is a misunderstanding of the GPL; code which is *derivative* of the
program is covered by the GPL, regardless of the mode of coupling. Two
independently-running programs may well be considered derivative of each
other if the data they share is sufficiently intimate.

http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#MereAggregation
    ... if the semantics of the communication are intimate enough, exchanging
    complex internal data structures, that too could be a basis to consider
    the two parts as combined into a larger program.

Simply using RPCs instead of linking would almost certainly mean that the two
programs are still combined, and the whole is still subject to the GPL.

However, I'm not a lawyer - if you want advice, you should consult one..

> It just makes it not so good for the usr but then when I do open source my
> bit they can be linked at the code level.

It's difficult to comment on this part, since you've never said what you
actually intend to do with this - what problem will it solve for the users
that's not already solved by other software?

> The only issue is I would be stuck with a GPL thing and I am not sure about
> doing that.

Yeah, well, that much is obvious.

Jiri
--
Jiri Baum <[hidden email]>                   http://www.baum.com.au/~jiri
  MAT LinuxPLC project --- http://mat.sf.net --- Machine Automation Tools


_______________________________________________
Circle-discuss mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/circle-discuss
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: GPL Violatin - no I wont

jiri (Bugzilla)
In reply to this post by Faried Nawaz
Hello,

Faried Nawaz:
> Actually, I think you can.  If you own the copyrights to all the code,

Well, yeah, if you own the copyrights you can do what you like, but David
Irvine doesn't, and he's already received a refusal from at least one of the
copyright owners - me (admittedly the bulk of my code could be removed or
clean-roomed reasonably easily).

IIRC, the major copyright owner is currently not on this list. I can contact
him, but I doubt he'll be enthusiastic about donating his work to a random
stranger. Certainly nothing I've seen so far would persuade me in his place.

I'm also dubious about the competence of anyone who uses the phrase "p2p
client or server"; and doing networking well requires a lot of competence.
The pricing structure also seems rather naïve.

> Since this person wants to develop it openly, and close its source
> once it's developed, it's unlikely that he'd be able to get anyone to
> pay for the closed version.  

Actually, he's intending to do the ghostscript thing - make it closed first,
then open it later. That's a reasonable plan, if you have a good enough idea
(which he may, but he's not sharing it). However, at the pricing he's
suggesting, he'll have trouble breaking even just on transaction overheads,
let alone any programming work, or advertising, or anything else.


Jiri
--
Jiri Baum <[hidden email]>                   http://www.baum.com.au/~jiri
  MAT LinuxPLC project --- http://mat.sf.net --- Machine Automation Tools


_______________________________________________
Circle-discuss mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/circle-discuss
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: GPL Violation - no I wont

David Irvine
Hi
Many thanks for your comments and honesty. I wont discuss the ins and outs of the pricing model, I have been in business for many years and can easily do break even analysis, its really for me to work it out and if I went bust doing it, that's my issue.

I am not trying to confuse or certainly steal code, far from it. I consult on open source and have worked with it since the early 90's.

I am trying to find a method to fill the void between where open source is great

- code that works and if it's good enough managed and improved by the many

- People paid to develop code and release as open source is also great

- code that starts in uni etc. and goes OS is good

I do not want to write code that requires support - so that's not an option. I have spoken with Bruce Perens on these matters and have not come up with a solution yet - this is merely an attempt to do so and promote innovation.

Where I am coming form is - what if you have a great idea, one that will change computing forever (no I am not saying mine is - but it may be - who can tell). How to do you develop that idea and get an income source from doing such.

I want to develop something - get some payment from it, make it available to all (I will never charge charities or 3rd world countries) and then when you have an amount of recompense which you make clear at the beginning - the product becomes OS. In doing this also donating to projects in your IP sphere to make the system better must surely be good for all.

If you have another idea how I can live and develop this system in the shortest time then I am all ears. It looks like I will have to work and do it part time never the less as I am very broke. I am prepared to listen though.

On the p2p issues - I am not and never have proposed to be an expert here, I have been involved in networking since 1983 (I designed and implemented the worlds largest LAN/WAN using trad ethernet and t/ring in 1994) when CMSMA/CD was being ratified and never have I assumed lack of knowledge of somebody who does not fully understand all aspects of work I was involved in, instead I take the engineers route and teach and share knowledge / accept knowledge and brainstorm / argue etc. I hope you feel likewise.

I have used limewire a couple of times but have never looked into p2p and am very interested in an application of such as an add on to a project. I am keen to understand the peers connectivity through firewalls etc. and leaf nodes and all the wee bits I don't already know.  I am sure going through code will help but any suggestions / reading material you suggest will be welcome.


Anyhow again I thank you for your reply

David

On Thu, 2006-01-19 at 22:21 +1100, Jiri Baum wrote:
Hello,

Faried Nawaz:
> Actually, I think you can.  If you own the copyrights to all the code,

Well, yeah, if you own the copyrights you can do what you like, but David 
Irvine doesn't, and he's already received a refusal from at least one of the 
copyright owners - me (admittedly the bulk of my code could be removed or 
clean-roomed reasonably easily).

IIRC, the major copyright owner is currently not on this list. I can contact 
him, but I doubt he'll be enthusiastic about donating his work to a random 
stranger. Certainly nothing I've seen so far would persuade me in his place.

I'm also dubious about the competence of anyone who uses the phrase "p2p 
client or server"; and doing networking well requires a lot of competence. 
The pricing structure also seems rather naïve.

> Since this person wants to develop it openly, and close its source
> once it's developed, it's unlikely that he'd be able to get anyone to
> pay for the closed version.  

Actually, he's intending to do the ghostscript thing - make it closed first, 
then open it later. That's a reasonable plan, if you have a good enough idea 
(which he may, but he's not sharing it). However, at the pricing he's 
suggesting, he'll have trouble breaking even just on transaction overheads, 
let alone any programming work, or advertising, or anything else.


Jiri
-- 
________________________________________________________________________
David Irvine - Principle
Ayrshire Business Consulting Ltd.
http://www.open-source-consulting.org
________________________________________________________________________
Specialities include

*Dispute Resolution* - resolve client / supplier relationships where possible
- May suggest replacement of supplier (not us) where no resolution is possible (unusual)
*Project Management* - Manage works to ensure value for money from IT suppliers.
*Open Source Consulting* - The new way ! - free software, resilience reliability and no more license issues !
*Tender Management and creation* - Get what you need at the right cost
***************************************************************
This message (including any attachments) is confidential and may be legally
privileged.  If you are not the intended recipient, you should not disclose,
copy or use any part of it - please delete all copies immediately and notify
the our Helpdesk at [hidden email].

Any information, statements or opinions contained in this message (including
any attachments) are given by the author.  They are not given on behalf of
Ayrshire Business Consulting unless subsequently confirmed by an individual other than the author who
is duly authorised to represent Ayrshire Business Consulting Ltd.
********************************************************************
-----BEGIN PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux)
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=8Z1E
-----END PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK-----


_______________________________________________
Circle-discuss mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/circle-discuss

signature.asc (196 bytes) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: GPL Violation - no I wont

darkblood

I love discussions like this one.  They remind me of the reasons that I am
a Free Software advocate.  They re-affirm that there is a fundamental
difference between FS and OS.



_______________________________________________
Circle-discuss mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/circle-discuss
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: GPL Violation - no I wont

David Irvine
Does that mean like me (I am getting this way) you lean more towards the bsd licence as completely Open Source do what you want as opposed to closed proprietary  do nothing you want to gpl do anything you want as long as nobody commercialises it for any reason.

You see I feel theres got to be a middle ground between the GPL and closed licenses that works better.

Take my case in point - whether I am genius, know all about accounting practices swat analysis and business strategy management or just a lonely innovator looking to innovate. I find the GPL to effectively block this in my example.

I am in a quandary over it though as theres something very pure about gpl that I like and a lot of the proponents (as long as they can discuss without nasty mails and personal jabs) are exceptional coders.

Then you have the python license - would google, amazon et all use it if it were gpl, well perhaps but I am not so sure they would. I knly hope they give something back and especially to the Guido's of this world (maybe even give them jobs :-) , well done google).

It's a question that requires answers and my belief is GPL does not provide all the answers all the time. Real innovation will require commercialisation to an extent from time to time - but at the same time not closing stuff down to never be improved or open to public scrutiny !

Anyway I search for answers as always.

On the issue of using the code, I wont at all. As theres even one developer who would not like it (and it's their  right to do so without question in this instance) I will use the Khashmir code base as a working example or even include it and hopefully help that project.

So many thanks guys and I really hope you keep this project working, it looks very good and loads of work, getting twisted and refactored would be great and I hope you do,

All the very best from bonnie Scotland
David

On Thu, 2006-01-19 at 15:52 -0800, [hidden email] wrote:
I love discussions like this one.  They remind me of the reasons that I am
a Free Software advocate.  They re-affirm that there is a fundamental
difference between FS and OS.



_______________________________________________
Circle-discuss mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/circle-discuss

signature.asc (196 bytes) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: GPL Violation - no I wont

jiri (Bugzilla)
In reply to this post by David Irvine
Hello,

David Irvine:
> Many thanks for your comments and honesty. I wont discuss the ins and
> outs of the pricing model, I have been in business for many years and
> can easily do break even analysis, its really for me to work it out and
> if I went bust doing it, that's my issue.

No worries. If you have both business and computing/networking experience,
then that's good. You never claimed such in your first post, and in itself it
didn't inspire much confidence...

(in another post)
> Does that mean like me (I am getting this way) you lean more towards the
> bsd licence as completely Open Source do what you want as opposed to
> closed proprietary  do nothing you want to gpl do anything you want as
> long as nobody commercialises it for any reason.

No, that is not what darkblood said; in fact, he said the opposite.

I quote: "[...] I am a Free Software advocate.  [...]  there is a fundamental
difference between FS and OS."

> You see I feel theres got to be a middle ground between the GPL and
> closed licenses that works better.

Possibly, but nobody's found it yet. So far, all known methods for
distributing payment for programming entail such distortions of the
programming process that the result is worse than in the GPL model.

The option you suggested - initially closed, later open - has been tried,
notably by ghostscript, and is included in the above analysis.

> Real innovation will require commercialisation to an extent from time to
> time

Cite?

> On the issue of using the code, I wont at all.

Thank you.


Jiri
--
Jiri Baum <[hidden email]>                   http://www.baum.com.au/~jiri
  MAT LinuxPLC project --- http://mat.sf.net --- Machine Automation Tools


_______________________________________________
Circle-discuss mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/circle-discuss
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: GPL Violation - no I wont

David Irvine
On Fri, 2006-01-20 at 14:11 +1100, Jiri Baum wrote:
[snip]
> You see I feel theres got to be a middle ground between the GPL and
> closed licenses that works better.

Possibly, but nobody's found it yet. So far, all known methods for 
distributing payment for programming entail such distortions of the 
programming process that the result is worse than in the GPL model.

The option you suggested - initially closed, later open - has been tried, 
notably by ghostscript, and is included in the above analysis.

> Real innovation will require commercialisation to an extent from time to
> time 

Cite?
Well I am Scottish and many things have come from here
TV
Electromagnetic Theory
Telephone (well he was Scottish)
and many more very innovative ideas, but all commercially backed to a degree. Quite well to with the exception of the Bell phone and perhaps the James Watt Steam engine (who went very commercial and became a problem) many others did so with grants, commercial companies paying for such and got the ideas theories out there in the wild and used by many for the good of us all. This is true of another middle ground Scott and the development of Penicillin.

Whats this poorly represents is that these innovative ideas which were created by folk working full time and with no other distractions (i.e through the night as I do) and they were very worthwhile.

Then I put  it back to you to tell me of software innovation where people can be focused on it full time, create a new concept (has to be a good one though) and survive whilst doing it. I am not talking of University students (lots of good stuff comes from projects there).

I really feel there is a case for allowing this in a properly run society (which is what OSS is attempting to do) and allowing innovation from many sources.


e.g suppose I created a system where with a piece of software all operating systems and software all of a sudden interacted, spoke and listened to humans and synced data, became your phone etc. or something better

This would not be innovative but perhaps very useful. If doing so involved the creation of something very innovative as an enabler  to this technology. If creating such took 2 years of solid time and effort.  Remembering this module is very innovative - not technically demanding but totally mindblowing in it's simplicity.

So what happens - you get some pay somehow for creating it (probably loosing rights to it, to a commercial beast) or borrow money to survive whilst doing so. I suggest the latter

OR you could bang your idea on sourceforge/savannah  or similar and publish your idea (not code yet).

Guess what it is good - so good in fact that MS or somebody simply instruct a small team to create it (not technically demanding but innovative). They Alter a bit or two and (yes I know about prior publishing etc.) patent it in it's slightly changed way OR they don't bother they simply add it to windows machines as a free thing but don't allow it to work with other OS's (as if they would eh).

You then plod on and x years later complete in your spare time with others your version, MS changes a bit of theirs yours is innoperable and innovation stifiling goes on - you've got a system that will work in *nix and maybe MAC. Nobody wants it though cause your whole premise was that it would work across all platforms, barring nobody

This is the dilemma and if I am missing something very simple let me know. I think software should be free (totally free) but I think innovators should be able to use free code as a means to pay for innovation (as I talk about) for the good of us all.

My idea of doing this is very flawed. In my case I would set a cap on income that is very small and fair in terms of my input. Others may simply want a $100,000M or so, and thats what ruins it human greed.

So any ideas on solving this would be great.

David


 

> On the issue of using the code, I wont at all. 

Thank you.
No worries, again thanks for the honesty and no harm done.

_______________________________________________
Circle-discuss mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/circle-discuss

signature.asc (196 bytes) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: GPL Violation - no I wont

jiri (Bugzilla)
Hello,

David Irvine:
> > > Real innovation will require commercialisation to an extent from time
> > > to time

Jiri:
> > Cite?

David Irvine:
> Well I am Scottish and many things have come from here

[snip list of examples]

Ah, so nothing actually to do with software (or even similar fields). I'm not
saying software is unique, but it certainly does seem to have significant
differences from, say, the invention of television.

> Then I put  it back to you to tell me of software innovation where people
> can be focused on it full time, create a new concept (has to be a good one
> though) and survive whilst doing it.

If you can find such a mechanism, that'd be great. So far, you haven't even
proposed one, much less argued that it would, in fact, have these features.

Meanwhile, we'll continue to use the best of the known approaches, which would
be the one based on the GPL.

> I really feel there is a case for allowing this in a properly run society
> (which is what OSS is attempting to do)

Umm, no.

OSS has no interest in whether society is properly run or otherwise. OSS is a
pragmatic method of producing software.

A properly run society is the goal of the Free Software movement, which you
deride.


Jiri
--
Jiri Baum <[hidden email]>                   http://www.baum.com.au/~jiri
  MAT LinuxPLC project --- http://mat.sf.net --- Machine Automation Tools


_______________________________________________
Circle-discuss mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/circle-discuss
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: GPL Violation - no I wont

David Irvine
Hi
On Sun, 2006-01-22 at 19:40 +1100, Jiri Baum wrote:
Hello,

David Irvine:
> > > Real innovation will require commercialisation to an extent from time
> > > to time

Jiri:
> > Cite?

David Irvine:
> Well I am Scottish and many things have come from here

[snip list of examples]

Ah, so nothing actually to do with software (or even similar fields). I'm not 
saying software is unique, but it certainly does seem to have significant 
differences from, say, the invention of television.

Some actual software examples would be
Lisp , speech processing (Festival) - uni projects - created in an environment  that's paid
data compression on Internet connections (can't remember the name) - commercial - always will be - great shame   

I can see no difference with software innovation and any other kind in that it's all innovation.
> Then I put  it back to you to tell me of software innovation where people
> can be focused on it full time, create a new concept (has to be a good one
> though) and survive whilst doing it. 

If you can find such a mechanism, that'd be great. So far, you haven't even 
proposed one, much less argued that it would, in fact, have these features.

It's exactly what I am talking about - a mechanism where a system can be created and paid. Some way a license or whatever can not stifle innovation - I argue the GPL does as well as closed proprietary licenses.
Meanwhile, we'll continue to use the best of the known approaches, which would 
be the one based on the GPL.

Really how does the GPL help innovation more than say bsd which allows use of code in almost any situation. The GPL does this for apparent good reasons and that's to keep products free at the cost (in my opinion) of innovation.

A fix if I am forced into giving one would be a time limited one - create a system (using an allowed % of gpl code say 40% - could be 80%) commercially (maybe even closed). From release date for a period of 12 months (say) its legal to sell it and do as you wish with the proceeds, however after that period all your code is gpl and no secrets allowed.

That would work very well and it's the kind of thing I was hoping to hear.



> I really feel there is a case for allowing this in a properly run society
> (which is what OSS is attempting to do) 

Umm, no.

OSS has no interest in whether society is properly run or otherwise. OSS is a 
pragmatic method of producing software.

Open Source Initiative (OSI) is a non-profit corporation dedicated to managing and promoting the Open Source Definition for the good of the community
A properly run society is the goal of the Free Software movement, which you 
deride.

I don't that's the issue, I do critisise it when required to improve it. Given a choice it's my favorite model for improving and extending ideas between peers.

Jiri
David
_______________________________________________
Circle-discuss mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/circle-discuss

signature.asc (196 bytes) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: GPL Violation - no I wont

Thomas Mangin-2
Hi,

>Really how does the GPL help innovation more than say bsd which allows
use of code in almost any situation. The GPL does this for apparent good
reasons and that's to keep products free at the cost (in my opinion) of
innovation.

I disagree. You are free to read all the GPL code you want, learn from
it and write a totally closed software having saved lots of time.

The GPL is designed to protect the _initial_ innovators from people
taking without contributing to/helping the innovation the initial project.

No GPL code is not free. It took time (and often money) to write it and
it is logical that people who done it want to make sure that no one will
take advantage of their work creating a clone (with no initial cost) and
competiting with them without "giving back".

Sometime even the GPL is not enough to protect your investment (see the
Nessus decision to go closed source due to other firms just taking their
software and and competing with them without contributing).

BSD code often cames from Universities : the society paid for the work
and where it make sense to give it. The BSD licence allow to "close the
source". It fit well when you are Microsoft and want a good TCP Stack
(from BSD) but do not want to have to licence one. It allow wide
utilisation of an initial code base.

The GPL have a huge software library but it may simply not be the
licence for your project.

Thomas


_______________________________________________
Circle-discuss mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/circle-discuss