opinion on Willem programmer?

[Sean Breheny]

I can't help with the questions/debate but I do have a question of my own:

If you USE GPL'ed software libraries in your code, you do not need to
release the whole code under GPL, do you?

Am I correct that the only time you must release your code is when it
is actually a modified version of the GPL'ed code itself?

Sean


On Sun, May 11, 2008 at 7:30 PM, Robert Ammerman <rammerman@...> wrote:
>  I am a company and I want to develop a really cool program that does "X". My
>  business model/planning tells me that the only way I can make money off this
>  program is to keep it closed (which, IMNSHO is _very_ often the case).
>
>  Now there very conveniently already exists GPLed code that does 90% of X, so
>  I can develop my product for Z dollars and sell each copy for (Z/100)
>  dollars. Except of course, I can't use this route because an open source
>  distribution model just won't work.
>
--
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist

[Mark Rages]

On Sun, May 11, 2008 at 10:26 PM, Sean Breheny <shb7@...> wrote:
> I can't help with the questions/debate but I do have a question of my own:
>
>  If you USE GPL'ed software libraries in your code, you do not need to
>  release the whole code under GPL, do you?
>
>  Am I correct that the only time you must release your code is when it
>  is actually a modified version of the GPL'ed code itself?
>
>  Sean

You are incorrect.  Linking against GPL is considered making a
derivative work.  The full source of the derivative work must be made
available to recipients of the binary code.

You may distribute binaries linked against LGPL libraries without
offering source.  (But I don't know of any dynamic linker for PICs.)

Regards,
Mark
markrages@gmail
--
Mark Rages, Engineer
Midwest Telecine LLC
markrages@...
--
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist

[Byron Jeff]

On Sun, May 11, 2008 at 07:30:20PM -0400, Robert Ammerman wrote:

> > If you really wanted to do something "good" for the end users then I think
> > using the GPL is not the right approach.  The GPL does force source of any
> > software that is derived from it to be open.  However to many that
> > restriction is too costly, so they don't use GPL code.  In the end the
> > goal
> > of better and lower cost choices for the end users has not been served as
> > well as it could have been.
>
> Amen, amen, and again I say amen!
>
> GPL and similar licenses are, in the long run, inhibitory. They prevent the
> development and distribution of much useful software.
>
> Example:
>
> I am a company and I want to develop a really cool program that does "X". My
> business model/planning tells me that the only way I can make money off this
> program is to keep it closed (which, IMNSHO is _very_ often the case).

It certainly is.

>
> Now there very conveniently already exists GPLed code that does 90% of X, so
> I can develop my product for Z dollars and sell each copy for (Z/100)
> dollars. Except of course, I can't use this route because an open source
> distribution model just won't work.

It won't work if you cannot use an open source distribution model.

> On the other hand, I could develop the whole product from scratch for 10Z
> dollars, but now I'd have to sell it for $Z/10 dollars, 10 times as much. Of
> course, the market won't support that price because end-users can get a 90%
> solution for 1/10 the price.

Missed point. In addition the end-users get 90% of the solution for free
along with the right to modify and redistribute.

> So, as a result I don't build the product, and the end-users' lose the
> ability to get a better solution to their problem at a reasonable cost. And
> of course, I lose out on the opportunity to make a reasonable profit
> building and selling the product.

But since 90% of the solution is already out there, and there's a community
of users that have access to that code, they can either develop the new 10%
themselves, or (get this) pay you to develop the additional 10% of the code
from some price <Z and freely release your product.

The point that's missed is that if someone really wants that 10%, 90%
already exists, and it's under an open source license that facilitates
developement, that 10% will get developed.

Now let's flip the script and allow what you want, which licenses like the
BSD allow. You implement the extra, useful 10% and start selling it. The
community with 90% functionality that's open now faces challenges:

- Because your source is not open, any bug fixes in your 10% requires you,
  and only you to fix it. Since your time is valuable, it'll probably
  require a fee to do so.

- Because your source is not open, but 90% of the underlaying
  infrastructure is, any interaction issues will probably be directed to
  the original community, which cannot help because they don't have access.

- You disappear or stop answering E-mail. Now what?

- And the most insidious part to the original community: Your extra 10% now
  causes a fork in the codebase. If it's really useful, the community will
  simply take the time to reimplement it anyway as free source. Now the
  work, the codebases, and the support effort is now doubled.

The point missed is that the original 90% of the code is a public trust. So
additions to the code also need to be a public trust.

A couple of final points. One is that another model is to work with the
community, get it worked out for Z/5 with their help, package the product
and sell it along with the source. You get help in development, the
community get open source for the product, and you can still sell the
results. Not everyone is going to be so inclined to want to pull the source
and compile it up themselves. Plus you can share the support burden too
because now the entire community has access to the entire codebase.

Finally in a lot of ways, the whole thing is a straw man argument because
if the original 90% is infrastructure like an OS or a significant library,
then it's not going to be under the GPL anyway. It will be under the LGPL
where you as a developer can use that infrastructure without having to
release your code, but changes to the actual LGPL codebase must be released
for everyone to share. The C library isn't going to encumber your code.

But a developer thinking that it's OK to take 90% of something for free,
adding to it, and selling back the result without any contribution to the
community that created the original 90% is exactly the reason why Stallman,
the zealot that he is, wants all code under the GPL. I don't agree with his
stance, but I certainly do understand it.

BAJ
--
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist

[Byron Jeff]

On Sun, May 11, 2008 at 11:26:13PM -0400, Sean Breheny wrote:
> I can't help with the questions/debate but I do have a question of my own:
>
> If you USE GPL'ed software libraries in your code, you do not need to
> release the whole code under GPL, do you?

Yes you do. That's why there are very few libraries that actually fall
under the GPL. Most are LGPL which does not have that requirement.

> Am I correct that the only time you must release your code is when it
> is actually a modified version of the GPL'ed code itself?

Nope. If your code uses a GPL library, then the combined work falls under
the GPL for distribution. This means the entire codebase, including your
source code must be distributed to anyone that you distribute the product
to.

With the LGPL, as long as your code only uses the library, and does not
change it, then the requirement is that you release your code in a form so
that an end user can link a newer version of the library to your code. On
desktops this really isn't a problem because generally the library is
dynamically linked. However with embedded systems where the library and the
code that uses it are comingled, that means that it reverts to the GPL.

There is no widespread license that addresses the final issue outlined
above. So in general for embedded projects, neither license is used unless
the developer is willing to release their source along with their product.

BAJ

>
> Sean
>
>
> On Sun, May 11, 2008 at 7:30 PM, Robert Ammerman <rammerman@...> wrote:
> >  I am a company and I want to develop a really cool program that does "X". My
> >  business model/planning tells me that the only way I can make money off this
> >  program is to keep it closed (which, IMNSHO is _very_ often the case).
> >
> >  Now there very conveniently already exists GPLed code that does 90% of X, so
> >  I can develop my product for Z dollars and sell each copy for (Z/100)
> >  dollars. Except of course, I can't use this route because an open source
> >  distribution model just won't work.
> >
> --
> http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
> View/change your membership options at
> http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist

--
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist

[Byron Jeff]

On Mon, May 12, 2008 at 04:04:31AM -0400, Peter wrote:
> I have seen this debate here and elsewhere over and over again.

The keeps coming up because many commercial developers see software as a
product instead of software as a service.

> Closed source applications are one thing, and closed source drivers and
> toolchains are another. In the small company context one's livelihood depends on
> the functionality of the toolchains one uses. Closed source drivers and
> compilers from small companies or one man shops are often bad news for users,
> who are also small companies. One does not have the resources to sue, insure or
> otherwise protect against the toolchain or driver maker going out of business,
> selling out, or simply dropping dead.

And since they original developer thinks of software as a product, once the
transaction for the product is done, from their point of view that
transaction is over.

> How many of the developers and engineers
> on this list own thousands of dollars worth of development tools, programmer
> boxes and libraries that no-one can use anymore because they are closed source
> and the original small businesses that created them no longer exist or no longer
> support them?

Exactly.

> To me, the need to be able to 'put a screwdriver and a soldering
> iron' to my uninsured tools it vital, in case (and that happens rather often),
> they don't do something or they need to do something new. That means that I have
> a strong need for open source drivers and toolchains. This is not about
> politics, it's real life.

And even if you are an end user that cannot put a screwdriver or soldering
iron to anything, with open source you at least have the ability to bring
the product to another developer, or more likely to a community that is
interested in supporting that product, and ask for help.

> Politics is where one needs to choose which kind of open source model to adopt,
> not whether one needs it. BSD (free as in free beer and you keep the glass), GPL
> (free forever), LGPL or 'freeware', I only care about that when the time comes
> to 'release' a patch or an application. Not before. Because, even the GPL
> permits anything to be done to it as long as it is not distributed. And I am not
> into that. I need my patches for myself ... although I share them freely if they
> are needed.

Well put.

> So one can talk politics *after* the usability angle is covered properly. I am
> not saying that closed source drivers and toolchains from small developers are
> bad, I am saying that the open source version of the same is better, and that it
> has saved my day many times.

This is the user perspective I've been trying to address. Thanks for the
insight.

BAJ
--
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist

[Byron Jeff]

On Sun, May 11, 2008 at 07:04:53PM -0400, Robert Ammerman wrote:

> >> ******************************************************
> >> >From http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/quick-guide-gplv3.html:
> >>
> >> Nobody should be restricted by the software they use. There are four
> >> freedoms that every user should have:
> >> the freedom to use the software for any purpose,
> >> the freedom to share the software with your friends and neighbors,
> >> the freedom to change the software to suit your needs, and
> >> the freedom to share the changes you make.
> >> When a program offers users all of these freedoms, we call it free
> >> software.
> >> ******************************************************
> >>
> >> To me GPL itself does not meet the 3rd condtion. BSD and
> >> Modified BSD does. So personally I like Modified BSD license
> >> better than GPL.
> >>
> >
> >
> > Can you explain how the GPL does not allow you to change the software
> > to suit your needs?
> >
> > Regards,
> > Mark
>
> Simple: I need to make my changes 'closed'.

And you can, just as long as do not distribute them.

Why is it OK for you to accept a codebase that you can modify, change it,
then not offer the same rights to those that you distribute to?

I can't figure out why that's OK.

BAJ
--
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist

[Peter P.]

I have seen this debate here and elsewhere over and over again.

Closed source applications are one thing, and closed source drivers and
toolchains are another. In the small company context one's livelihood depends on
the functionality of the toolchains one uses. Closed source drivers and
compilers from small companies or one man shops are often bad news for users,
who are also small companies. One does not have the resources to sue, insure or
otherwise protect against the toolchain or driver maker going out of business,
selling out, or simply dropping dead. How many of the developers and engineers
on this list own thousands of dollars worth of development tools, programmer
boxes and libraries that no-one can use anymore because they are closed source
and the original small businesses that created them no longer exist or no longer
support them? To me, the need to be able to 'put a screwdriver and a soldering
iron' to my uninsured tools it vital, in case (and that happens rather often),
they don't do something or they need to do something new. That means that I have
a strong need for open source drivers and toolchains. This is not about
politics, it's real life.

Politics is where one needs to choose which kind of open source model to adopt,
not whether one needs it. BSD (free as in free beer and you keep the glass), GPL
(free forever), LGPL or 'freeware', I only care about that when the time comes
to 'release' a patch or an application. Not before. Because, even the GPL
permits anything to be done to it as long as it is not distributed. And I am not
into that. I need my patches for myself ... although I share them freely if they
are needed.

So one can talk politics *after* the usability angle is covered properly. I am
not saying that closed source drivers and toolchains from small developers are
bad, I am saying that the open source version of the same is better, and that it
has saved my day many times.

Peter


--
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist

[Byron Jeff]

On Sun, May 11, 2008 at 06:53:30PM -0400, Herbert Graf wrote:

> On Sat, 2008-05-10 at 15:01 -0500, Mark Rages wrote:
> > On Sat, May 10, 2008 at 1:54 PM, Herbert Graf <mailinglist4@...> wrote:
> > > On Sat, 2008-05-10 at 13:40 -0500, Mark Rages wrote:
> > >> Can you explain how the GPL does not allow you to change the software
> > >> to suit your needs?
> > >
> > > I suppose it depends what your needs are.
> > >
> > > GPL has often been considered very "virus" like, it's presence in your
> > > project effects much more then just the chunk of GPL code you're using.
> > >
> > > If your needs are keeping your projects' code closed (i.e. a very common
> > > situation is NDA agreements restricting how open you can be with your
> > > code), there are very few ways you can make use of any GPL code.
> > >
> > > TTYL
> >
> > You are talking about distribution.  You are still free to change the
> > GPL software to suit your needs.  You are required to provide source
> > code only if you distribute derived works.
>
> Umm, ya. Basically if you want to distribute/sell your product, and it
> has ANY GPL code in it, you have to release the source. For many this is
> a perfect example of not being able to change the source to suit your
> needs.

We're living on an embedded development list, yes? Presumably the objective
is to produce embedded products with firmware. So you sell a physical box
with software packed into it.

So what if you release the source? In order for it to be used effectively,
someone would need the box. And where would they get it from. Um... you.

So open source or closed source, you still sell the product. However with
open source, your prodcut becomes a platform that end users can use to suit
their needs.

A perfect example is the Linksys WRT54G wireless router with the OpenWRT
firmware. The firmware is open source, but without the router it isn't very
bloody userful.

I've purchased 3 Hauppauge Media MVP TV settops because there is open
downloadable firmware that facilitates connecting the boxes to a MythTV
server on a network. Do I plan to hack that firmware? No. But simply
knowing that the source is out there make me feel better about purchasing
the product.

Software isn't a product. All the anti Open Source developers are so
concerned about protecting their development investment. Guess what? If
your software is really useful, then many users are going to obtain it without
paying you anyway. It's wrong. It's awful. But that's the fact.

And GPL is a straw man anyway. No significant library or OS out there is
released under the GPL, but under the LGPL, BSD, ZPL, or some other less
restrictive Open Source license.

But even if your embedded product were GPL, it would protect you as the
original developer. You now have access to all the code that everyone else
generates and can leverage it in your product.

We all buy products every day. Rarely do we choose a product or vendor
because of exclusivity, because they are the only purveryor. Often products
are choosen because of customer service, or because we have a relationship
and trust with the vendor. Often it's because of price.

In an Open Source world, software is a service. You sell your product
literally by being more responsive and nicer to your customers than the
other guy, not because you're the only one who has the product I want.

Stop worring about if some other guy is going to undercut your price. Make
sure you present the best product with the best service, and being Open
Source will attract more business than it'll reject because as I and others
have pointed out in this thread, being open source engenders trust.

> FWIW, I'm a BIG fan of open source, but I've NEVER liked the GPL, that's
> just my personal opinion though.

Straw man. It really is.

BAJ
--
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist

[Byron Jeff]

On Sun, May 11, 2008 at 07:17:26PM -0400, Robert Ammerman wrote:

> >> "My needs include being able to keep my modifications to the open
> >> source material proprietary when I distribute the software."
> >
> > Yup. That's a tough one. It's real difficult to balance that against the
> > fact that a large base of incoming software was freely given you, yet you
> > want to restrict the outflow of changes to others.
> >
> > I don't think there's any viable resolution to this one. The right answer
> > is that if you need to keep your software proprietary, then you need to
> > write is all yourself.
>
> I strongly disagree with this. A truly 'altruistic' upstream provider of
> software can (should?) be willing to allow people the freedom (!) to use
> their software, expand on it, and not have to open up the result.
>
> For example: let's say I use an open-source implementation of a web-server,
> but then add in a lot of my own code to built the content that is served
> out. Why should my efforts be _required_ to be released to others?

Are you the only user? Then you don't have to release anything. But once
you start releasing those changes downstream, then not releasing your
changes denies those folks downstream the rights that you received in order
to make those changes.

The GPL and other are distributions licenses. If you don't distribute
anything, you don't have to release anything.

BAJ

> [But I don't say that an upstream provider _must_ allow this, only that they
> _can_ (and maybe should)].
>
> Bob Ammerman
> RAm Systems
>
>
> --
> http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
> View/change your membership options at
> http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist

--
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist

[Byron Jeff]

On Sun, May 11, 2008 at 06:57:49PM -0400, Herbert Graf wrote:

> On Sat, 2008-05-10 at 20:32 +0000, Byron Jeff wrote:
> > On Sat, May 10, 2008 at 04:58:33PM -0400, William Chops Westfield wrote:
> > >
> > > On May 10, 2008, at 11:40 AM, Mark Rages wrote:
> > > > Can you explain how the GPL does not allow you to change
> > > > the software to suit your needs?
> > >
> > > "My needs include being able to keep my modifications to the open
> > > source material proprietary when I distribute the software."
> >
> > Yup. That's a tough one. It's real difficult to balance that against the
> > fact that a large base of incoming software was freely given you, yet you
> > want to restrict the outflow of changes to others.
>
> More often then not the person DOESN'T want to restrict the outflow, but
> they are forced to by NDAs.

I understand. But there's actually a solution to that. Simply get anyone
you release the product to to sign an NDA.

There's a misconception with the GPL/LGPL that you have to release your
code to everyone. You only have to release the code to those you distrubute
the product to. And you can have them sign an NDA so that they cannot
further release that code to anyone else because of the NDA.

End user means end user, not all users.

BAJ

>
> Perfect example of this is many chips out there require an NDA to access
> the programming spec, and in many specific areas there are NO chips that
> don't require an NDA. As a result, ALL code that uses information from
> that spec MUST remain closed. So basically, if you want to create a
> product in a certain area, you CAN'T use GPL at all, and I find this to
> be a shame.
>
> FWIW I've had to pass on GPL code because of these sorts of issues.
>
> TTYL
> --
> http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
> View/change your membership options at
> http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist

--
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist

[Olin Lathrop]

Byron Jeff wrote:
>> If someone really wanted to take the moral high ground and try to
>> provide the best possible situation for end users of software, he'd
>> let people use his code any way they want.  This is basically what I
>> try to do with my source except in cases where I fear it will cost
>> me compared to not making it free.
>
> The problem with your high moral ground is that virtually
> instantaneously someone unscrupulous will take your code and embrace,
> extend, and suppress the modification for their own benefit.

There you go again.  If I specifically allow this kind of use, which I do
for the majority of my code, then there is nothing wrong, immoral, illegal,
or unscrupulous about it.  You certainly have the right not to like it, but
it's rather arrogant to call it unscrupulous just because it doesn't fit
into your narrow idea of how things should work.

I might even encourage such a endeavor.  Nobody is any worse off than
before.  If you think the modified software isn't worth the price, then you
don't have to buy it.  If you think you can do better, you are free to do
so.  But this new software exists only because the developer could make a
business case for it.  If he was forced to open the code and this was deemed
to make the project unprofitable, then the new software would never have
been created and nobody would be any better off.  At least this way, those
end users who think the price is worth what they get are better off and
nobody else is worse off.  Just the existance of this new software alone may
spur competitors into providing more value.

Note that this situtation regulates itself to ensure this second person adds
real value.  My original code will still be there.  Anyone else can start at
the same point the second person did.  This is no different than someone
having a idea for a app and starting from scratch.  Either way, they started
from the same point everyone else was at, and invested in some development
with the expectation of eventually getting a return.  This is basic
economics at work providing most of the goods and services available to you.

If this second party didn't do much to my code (or started from scratch, it
doesn't matter) and charges too high a price, someone else will either do
the same and charge less or possibly others will create a similar app for
free.  If the modifications are in fact substantial, then this won't be
easy, and the second party deserves to get some compenstation.


********************************************************************
Embed Inc, Littleton Massachusetts, http://www.embedinc.com/products
[phone].  Gold level PIC consultants since 2000.
--
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist

[Gerhard Fiedler]

Robert Ammerman wrote:

> I strongly disagree with this. A truly 'altruistic' upstream provider of
> software can (should?) be willing to allow people the freedom (!) to use
> their software, expand on it, and not have to open up the result.

Come on, we all know writing decent software is a /lot/ of work. Who would
do all that with nothing in return -- not even the hope for a better
(software) world? (For whatever values of "better" the writer hopes...)

Why is it that it's always the others that should be altruistic? It's
obvious that the GPL is for people who hope for a software world that's
based on open sources. To get there, they have to write a lot of code under
GPL, all free to use (in any form, even modified) and it must be good
enough to make an impact, so that people rather use these programs than
most others. I don't get it why someone can complain about this. It gives
us all a lot, but not everything. So now people complain that they can't
get everything?

> For example: let's say I use an open-source implementation of a web-server,
> but then add in a lot of my own code to built the content that is served
> out. Why should my efforts be _required_ to be released to others?

Maybe because your business model of selling the software only works if you
get the web server for free (without even the GPL attached)? This is then a
problem of your business model, not the GPL. "It would work just fine, if
the code of that web server wasn't GPLed" is not much different from "it
would work just fine if I could get access to the sources of proprietary
web server X" -- it doesn't work. That's not the fault of the GPL nor the
proprietary nature of the code base of web server X; it's just a business
model that doesn't work, not much different from me daydreaming how nice it
would be if I could waste a few millions on some of my ideas.

Gerhard

--
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist

[Apptech]

>> On the other hand, I could develop the whole product from
>> scratch for 10Z
>> dollars, but now I'd have to sell it for $Z/10 dollars,
>> 10 times as much. Of
>> course, the market won't support that price because
>> end-users can get a 90%
>> solution for 1/10 the price.

> Missed point. In addition the end-users get 90% of the
> solution for free
> along with the right to modify and redistribute.

>> So, as a result I don't build the product, and the
>> end-users' lose the
>> ability to get a better solution to their problem at a
>> reasonable cost. And
>> of course, I lose out on the opportunity to make a
>> reasonable profit
>> building and selling the product.

I don't know who wrote the original in >> so I don't know
who I'm offending so this isn't personal :-).

"If Microsoft made all their products free and let me write
applications and distribute them AND a copy of Windows with
them AND charge what they charge now for Windows then the
world could have the benefit of my genius at a price that
would make me rich, BUT The Rotters at Redmond [tm] won't
let me do this so the world misses out on my genius".

Whether people charge you for their services and so prevent
you saving the world OR insist that the world have free
access to anything involving the sweat of their brow(s) and
so prevent you saving the world you would be
(understandably) unhappy. While this is understandable, in
either case you are trying to get 100% of the gain from 10%
of the work required for the solution. In selected cases the
world may be a better place if you were allowed to do this
but in most such examples the world would simply be a more
lucrative place for those who were allowed to charge for the
freely contributed work of others after adding a small
component of their own. It's understandable why people would
want to be allowed to do this, and the "Public Domain"
category exists to allow this, and people do in fact
explicitly release work as PD. The obvious solution is to
base your 10% solution on a 90% PD foundation. That you will
generally have problems trying to do so is interesting in
this context (and I don't know what lessons can be drawn
from it.)


        Russell

--
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist

[Gerhard Fiedler]

Byron Jeff wrote:

>> These sites to real harm because they make it easy to mine for email
>> addresses, whereas James' site tries to be careful about that.  I don't
>> remember agreeing to give up my copyrights to anything I write here, so
>> who owns the rights to messages I post?
>
> You do.

I think there can be made a case that by posting on the piclist, one
implicitly agrees that the post is published on all mirrors that are
currently in existence. After all, if I didn't want this, I wouldn't post,
would I?

Gerhard

--
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist

[Apptech]

>> I don't think there's any viable resolution to this one.
>> The right answer
>> is that if you need to keep your software proprietary,
>> then you need to
>> write is all yourself.

OR combine only PD source into your creations.

> I strongly disagree with this. A truly 'altruistic'
> upstream provider of
> software can (should?) be willing to allow people the
> freedom (!) to use
> their software, expand on it, and not have to open up the
> result.

Debating "truly altruistic" could keep this thread going
'for a while'.
Each true altruist probably needs to decide for themselves
what constitutes true altruism. One may decide that this is
best served by making a gift of their product to the
invisible hand to do with it as it will. Which is your
desire. Others may decide that the invisible hand tarnishes
and resticts and that the ultimate altruism is to give their
bounties to all who will give the derivatives to all. Such
is their right, should they choose, unless you are able to
compell others to behave the way that you want them to.

> For example: let's say I use an open-source implementation
> of a web-server,
> but then add in a lot of my own code to built the content
> that is served
> out. Why should my efforts be _required_ to be released to
> others?

Just because!

ie Because it is widely albeit not universally held that the
owner of something of value has the right to decide how to
utilise it.
Many hold that there is no other reason needed.
The counter argument is that "you" have a right to decide
how others may use their property or how you may use their
property, regardless of their wishes. In the absence of
absolute moral or even enforceable legal rights you MAY be
able to do this - but only by going against the wishes of
the "owner" of said property.

You may as well ask eg "If I use a car which I found by the
roadside as the basis for my latest hotrod why should my
creation be_required_to be released to others?" (Local
Sheriff and original owner come to mind).

> [But I don't say that an upstream provider _must_ allow
> this, only that they
> _can_ (and maybe should)].

PD and similar is an available option, and some use it.



        Russell

--
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist