1. GPL
Does anyone have any opinion about GPL (GNU Public License)? The key points
are:
- GPL code must be distributed with the source and the GPL text.
- Using GPL code causes the derived program to become GPL.
GPL is *way* too restrictive for Win32Lib - I don't plan on GPL'ing it.
But I am writing an application to which I plan on releasing the source, and
GPL seems a good way of preventing people from plundering an open source
work and claiming it as their own.
Opinions?
-- David Cuny
2. Re: GPL
- Posted by JJProg at CYBERBURY.NET
Feb 24, 2000
EU>Does anyone have any opinion about GPL (GNU Public License)? The key points
EU>are:
EU>- GPL code must be distributed with the source and the GPL text.
EU>- Using GPL code causes the derived program to become GPL.
EU>GPL is *way* too restrictive for Win32Lib - I don't plan on GPL'ing it.
EU>But I am writing an application to which I plan on releasing the source, and
EU>GPL seems a good way of preventing people from plundering an open source
EU>work and claiming it as their own.
EU>Opinions?
EU>-- David Cuny
I just finished reading Under the Radar by Robert Young, the CEO of Red
Hat.
It has a thorough discussion on various licenses including the GPL, the BSD
license etc. It also covers how likely projects are to fork when they are
released under different licenses. BSD licensed projects are slightly more
likely to fork than GPLed projects.
The BSD license allows unlimited use of the code and binaries. It also
requires that the developer's copyright notices etc. be retained, and the
developers must be mentioned in any advertising for a product based on it. The
BSD license also limits the liability of the developers.
When Netscape released their browser's source, they created two new
licenses
the Netscape Public License and the Mozilla Public License, which were
basically versions of the GPL without its controversial aspects.
Open source developers suggest not using the BSD license because it
allows
proprietary projects to be based on the original project. With proprietary
licenses at one end of the spectrum and the GPL on the opposite side, the BSD
license is in the middle. The GPL has been compared to a virus in that only
GPLed software can be created from GPLed software. If you want to spread the
GNU philosophy, this is obviously a desirable trait. If you want more control
over your software, you would have to pick or create a more proprietary
license.
I like the GNU philosophy, and so I prefer the GPL. The GPL, however, is
of
corse very restrictive, so it probably is not appropriate for all projects.
Jeff Fielding
JJProg at cyberbury.net
http://JJProg.tripod.com/
3. Re: GPL
How do you mean restrictive? The only way it's restrictive is in
that it will not permit restrictions =P. I personally like the idea, but
there's been a lot of confusion about whether the legalese will hold up. I
support and will release under the GPL anything I want opensource.
On Thu, 24 Feb 2000, Cuny, David@DSS wrote:
> Does anyone have any opinion about GPL (GNU Public License)? The key points
> are:
>
> - GPL code must be distributed with the source and the GPL text.
> - Using GPL code causes the derived program to become GPL.
>
> GPL is *way* too restrictive for Win32Lib - I don't plan on GPL'ing it.
>
> But I am writing an application to which I plan on releasing the source, and
> GPL seems a good way of preventing people from plundering an open source
> work and claiming it as their own.
>
> Opinions?
>
> -- David Cuny
>
4. Re: GPL
Steve Mosher wrote:
>> GPL is *way* too restrictive for Win32Lib
>> - I don't plan on GPL'ing it.
> How do you mean restrictive?
If Win32Lib were GPL'ed, anything written in Win32Lib would be GPL'ed as
well. So if you wrote something using Win32Lib and wanted to release it, you
would have to release your source code as well. That's pretty much the kiss
of death for any commercial developer.
On the other hand, it's great if you *want* your source code to be open, and
always remain that way, GPL looks great.
-- David Cuny
5. Re: GPL
On Thu, 24 Feb 2000, Cuny, David@DSS wrote:
> Steve Mosher wrote:
>
> >> GPL is *way* too restrictive for Win32Lib
> >> - I don't plan on GPL'ing it.
>
> > How do you mean restrictive?
>
> If Win32Lib were GPL'ed, anything written in Win32Lib would be GPL'ed as
> well. So if you wrote something using Win32Lib and wanted to release it, you
> would have to release your source code as well. That's pretty much the kiss
> of death for any commercial developer.
Not true. There was an 'LGPL' developed for libs. You can build
anything on top of a GPLd lib and keep the source to your self. It's when
you modify the library itself (and distribute it) that you must start
distributing sourcecode, but only to the library. And, as always, you can
take a GPLd program and modify it for your own use all you like, and if
you don't distribute it, you don't have to give anyone sourcecode.
6. Re: GPL
Steve Mosher wrote:
> There was an 'LGPL' developed for libs.
Thanks; I'll look for it.
-- David Cuny
7. Re: GPL
- Posted by Everett Williams <rett at GVTC.COM>
Feb 24, 2000
-
Last edited Feb 25, 2000
On Thu, 24 Feb 2000 12:52:55 -0800, Cuny, David at DSS <David.Cuny at
DSS.CA.GOV>
wrote:
>Steve Mosher wrote:
>
>> There was an 'LGPL' developed for libs.
>
>Thanks; I'll look for it.
>
>-- David Cuny
I strongly agree that LGPL or some of it's close kin would serve you
and the Euphoria community well. That, however, triggers a problem that
takes the real power out of the type of openness that I find in this
group. The base that you build on is absolutely closed, cuts across
the GPL and brings into question the validity of the use of the LGPL.
After you have had a chance to read it, you will see what I mean. It is
my personal opinion that RDS is smothering their own creation by the
amount of secrecy built up around Euphoria's base code. Bread upon the
waters...and all that. Not only would the language grow at a much greater
rate, but the integrity and continuity fostered by the Open Source
mode of doing business would bring more users, more confidence, and
more plain old dollars to the Euphoria fold. I'd a lot rather advertise
myself as a premiere practitioner of a widely available secure code
engine than as a dabbler with a code engine that is at the total mercy
of one or two people. Perl, Python, Tcl/Tk, etc. for all their myriad
failings have these things to point to and huge, fanatically devoted
groups of users along with strong commercial use. Linux is not Linus
Torvalds, though his renown is justly deserved. Linux is the combined
effort of literally thousands of developers. Had he fanatically
defended his "genius" work and kept total control of all aspects, how
many of us would know who he is today?
Everett L.(Rett) Williams
rett at gvtc.com
8. Re: GPL
- Posted by Bernie Ryan <LockCityData at CS.COM>
Feb 24, 2000
-
Last edited Feb 25, 2000
rett wrote:
>rate, but the integrity and continuity fostered by the Open Source
>mode of doing business would bring more users, more confidence, and
>more plain old dollars to the Euphoria fold. I'd a lot rather advertise
I don't see how open source mode would make RDS money ???
9. Re: GPL
Bernie Ryan writes:
> I don't see how open source mode would make RDS money ???
I'm "open" to the open source idea, but whenever
I add up the pros and cons, it comes out looking
like a risky and irreversible action. If things were
going poorly it would be easy to try something like
this, but at the moment registrations are coming in
at a record pace.
I've considered including the source as a registration
option for an additional fee. I don't know what I
would charge. It could be anywhere from $50 to $1000.
That would be different from "open source", and I would
impose restrictions on what you could do with the source.
Essentially, the RDS legal department 
would not
allow you to distribute the source, or compete directly
with RDS on the platforms that RDS already has. You
could make enhancements for your own use, but you
could not distribute an enhanced version of Euphoria,
unless it was for a non-RDS platform.
Provided people played by the rules, it might work out ok.
Enforcing the rules could be a problem.
Regards,
Rob Craig
Rapid Deployment Software
http://www.RapidEuphoria.com
10. Re: GPL
>From: Robert Craig <rds at ATTCANADA.NET>
>Reply-To: Euphoria Programming for MS-DOS <EUPHORIA at LISTSERV.MUOHIO.EDU>
>To: EUPHORIA at LISTSERV.MUOHIO.EDU
>Subject: Re: GPL
>Date: Fri, 25 Feb 2000 00:27:42 -0500
>
>Bernie Ryan writes:
>
> > I don't see how open source mode would make RDS money ???
>
>I'm "open" to the open source idea, but whenever
>I add up the pros and cons, it comes out looking
>like a risky and irreversible action. If things were
>going poorly it would be easy to try something like
>this, but at the moment registrations are coming in
>at a record pace.
>
>I've considered including the source as a registration
>option for an additional fee. I don't know what I
>would charge. It could be anywhere from $50 to $1000.
>That would be different from "open source", and I would
>impose restrictions on what you could do with the source.
>Essentially, the RDS legal department would not
>allow you to distribute the source, or compete directly
>with RDS on the platforms that RDS already has. You
>could make enhancements for your own use, but you
>could not distribute an enhanced version of Euphoria,
>unless it was for a non-RDS platform.
>
>Provided people played by the rules, it might work out ok.
>Enforcing the rules could be a problem.
>
>Regards,
> Rob Craig
> Rapid Deployment Software
> http://www.RapidEuphoria.com
What are the chances we could get our hands on an outdated release of the Eu
source code. (Like version 1.5 or less?) I think this would give a lot of
us some good ideas on how to develop our own scripted language.
Thanx for even considering it,
Adam Weeden
______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
11. Re: GPL
On Thu, 24 Feb 2000, Everett Williams wrote:
> On Thu, 24 Feb 2000 12:52:55 -0800, Cuny, David at DSS <David.Cuny at
> DSS.CA.GOV>
> wrote:
>
> >Steve Mosher wrote:
> >
> >> There was an 'LGPL' developed for libs.
> >
> >Thanks; I'll look for it.
> >
> >-- David Cuny
>
> I strongly agree that LGPL or some of it's close kin would serve you
> and the Euphoria community well. That, however, triggers a problem that
> takes the real power out of the type of openness that I find in this
> group. The base that you build on is absolutely closed, cuts across
> the GPL and brings into question the validity of the use of the LGPL.
> After you have had a chance to read it, you will see what I mean. It is
> my personal opinion that RDS is smothering their own creation by the
> amount of secrecy built up around Euphoria's base code. Bread upon the
> waters...and all that. Not only would the language grow at a much greater
> rate, but the integrity and continuity fostered by the Open Source
> mode of doing business would bring more users, more confidence, and
> more plain old dollars to the Euphoria fold. I'd a lot rather advertise
> myself as a premiere practitioner of a widely available secure code
> engine than as a dabbler with a code engine that is at the total mercy
> of one or two people. Perl, Python, Tcl/Tk, etc. for all their myriad
> failings have these things to point to and huge, fanatically devoted
> groups of users along with strong commercial use. Linux is not Linus
> Torvalds, though his renown is justly deserved. Linux is the combined
> effort of literally thousands of developers. Had he fanatically
> defended his "genius" work and kept total control of all aspects, how
> many of us would know who he is today?
I'll get one tiny criticism out of the way first. I can't speak
for Python or Tcl/Tk (since I don't use them), but Perl has failings? I
disagree. Perl does exactly what it was intended to do... whether it does
what you intend it to do or not is your own success or failure (granted
that failure could be in language choice). I'm saying this because Larry
Wall is just so crazy (read any perl documentation) I have great
admiration for him.
Anyhow, that's entirely beside the point. It could be that RDS
doesn't believe that great opensource software can really make more money
than closed source can. Whatever, they have their reasons. I think use
would spread if RDS were to stick a GPL on there and there would be more
people paying for CDs with a free copy of Euphoria on it, than there
would be people paying for a commercial version of Euphoria right now.
Imagine having an archive of all the contributed stuff. Imagine the
vastness of all that stuff if Euphoria became a popular language for DOS,
Windows, and every relevant flavour of Unix. Actually, that thought alone
would cause me to do it. I'd love to say, 'I wrote a language that has
permeated the software development world, on all major platforms', and
mean it.
But RDS has reasons, and I can live with it.
12. Re: GPL
On Thu, 24 Feb 2000, Bernie Ryan wrote:
> rett wrote:
>
> >rate, but the integrity and continuity fostered by the Open Source
> >mode of doing business would bring more users, more confidence, and
> >more plain old dollars to the Euphoria fold. I'd a lot rather advertise
>
> I don't see how open source mode would make RDS money ???
>
Opened Source -> wider development/support -> end user confidance -> wider
use
Once you've made something a standard, you can take lots of money from
people in several different ways.
You've never used Linux have you?
13. Re: GPL
----- Original Message -----
From: "Steve Mosher" <farq at KILN.ISN.NET>
To: <EUPHORIA at LISTSERV.MUOHIO.EDU>
Sent: Friday, February 25, 2000 7:34 AM
Subject: Re: GPL
> On Thu, 24 Feb 2000, Bernie Ryan wrote:
>
> > rett wrote:
> >
> > >rate, but the integrity and continuity fostered by the Open Source
> > >mode of doing business would bring more users, more confidence, and
> > >more plain old dollars to the Euphoria fold. I'd a lot rather advertise
> >
> > I don't see how open source mode would make RDS money ???
> >
>
> Opened Source -> wider development/support -> end user confidance -> wider
> use
>
> Once you've made something a standard, you can take lots of money from
> people in several different ways.
>
> You've never used Linux have you?
No, but it's crossed my mind. So how is anyone making money if i download a
free copy of linux? Unless i order a book, or a CD, to get assistance i can
also get for free online?
Kat
14. Re: GPL
On Fri, 25 Feb 2000, you wrote:
> > Opened Source -> wider development/support -> end user confidance -> wider
> > use
> >
> > Once you've made something a standard, you can take lots of money from
> > people in several different ways.
> >
> > You've never used Linux have you?
>
> No, but it's crossed my mind. So how is anyone making money if i download a
> free copy of linux? Unless i order a book, or a CD, to get assistance i can
> also get for free online?
>
> Kat
People, especially big nasty companies want support for the products
they buy -- and they want it instantly. You can go on IRC, or read a HOWTO,
but if you're a company you've got to pay someone to do it. It's much quicker
to call 1-900-4RedHat, and demand someone to fix your problems than it is to
have someone go over a text file, or try to find someone knowledgable on IRC.
This is just a simple example, and it isn't always true. I wouldn't
touch redhat linux personally because I like doing things myself. But plenty of
people buy CDs of Linux when they can download it for free. If Linux was closed
source, it probably wouldn't be all that great right now and I would probably
be using FreeBSD. Since it is OSS, development has been fast and releases
happen several times a year (compare that to MS products). I get Slackware Linux
shipped to me each time a new distribution version comes out. I pay for that, a
lot more than I've ever payed for the sum all of the micros~1 products I've ever
bought.
Making money from OSS isn't about selling products, so much as it is
about selling services. Support, distribution CDs, et al.
15. Re: GPL
- Posted by JJProg at CYBERBURY.NET
Feb 25, 2000
EU>No, but it's crossed my mind. So how is anyone making money if i download a
EU>free copy of linux? Unless i order a book, or a CD, to get assistance i can
EU>also get for free online?
EU>Kat
Well, some people do order the books, call tech support etc. Before I
got a cable modem and a CD-R, it would have taken forever to download a
650 MB disk image, not to mention the package includes a source CD and a
documentation CD, and you can get a power tools package with a few CDs
too.
Also, companies can make money from Linux by
* selling specially configured versions for enterprise computing (like
Red Hat is doing)
* selling hardware with linux (people want linux, and linux is free so
they don't have to pay Microsoft)
And the list goes on and on. Read Under The Radar by Robert Young for
more info.
Jeff Fielding
JJProg at cyberbury.net
16. Re: GPL
So basically, you don't want anyone taking profit from you with your
own product. This makes sense. But, there's a scenerio where it's actually more
profitable to allow that to happen. If the OSS process makes your product worth
more than what it currently is, then there's more money going around. Let's say
there's a 5-way split, and suddenly 5 companies (including RDS) are making money
from your product. If the added value takes it beyond 5x then you've profited
-- and you've done less work because netwide developers have been doing your
work for you.
I'm not saying that this is how it will work out, but this is where the
advantage lies, that truely great projects will grow far greater than the
sum that original developer and the added coders could each have done alone.
That's why Linux has made people millions of dollars despite that the source is
free.
> Essentially, the RDS legal department would not
> allow you to distribute the source, or compete directly
> with RDS on the platforms that RDS already has. You
> could make enhancements for your own use, but you
> could not distribute an enhanced version of Euphoria,
> unless it was for a non-RDS platform.
>
> Provided people played by the rules, it might work out ok.
> Enforcing the rules could be a problem.
>
> Regards,
> Rob Craig
> Rapid Deployment Software
> http://www.RapidEuphoria.com
17. Re: GPL
A lot of people use free software but do not contribute any of
their own free software to the archive.
18. Re: GPL
On Fri, 25 Feb 2000, you wrote:
> A lot of people use free software but do not contribute any of
>
> their own free software to the archive.
Yes, but a lot of people do contribute. For example, commercially, a
Win32 API wouldn't be all that cheap. Nor would a method of calling functions
across a network -- hint: if you use this properly, you can have a transparent
supercomputer on your LAN -- and you can still use all of your machines for
whatever they were doing before.
Anyhow, to the point, if Euphoria was as (say) Perl, RDS would have to
buy more harddrives to host all the contributions. Look at CPAN. That is my
point, the 5% that do contribute would be so great that the fact that there's
19 times that many people getting a free ride wouldn't matter. That's the way
OSS works.
19. Re: GPL
Everett Williams wrote:
> Had [Linus Torvalds] fanatically defended his "genius"
> work and kept total control of all aspects, how many of
> us would know who he is today?
From what I've read, Linus still has tight control over the core. But I
understand your point. You don't see Minix making waves on the OS scene
these days, because the author chose to retain complete control.
On the other hand, Linus isn't making money *directly* from the sale of
Linux - that's being done by Red Hat, Mandrake, SuSE, Caldera... But even
there, the sustainablity of their business model is in doubt.
In 'The Magic Cauldron', Eric Raymond makes the point that there are two
distinct valuations of software: use value, and sale value. He points out
the obvious - sale value is threatened by the shift from closed to open
source. Since RDS makes money on the sale value of Euphoria, I don't see any
incentive for RDS to make the code open source.
I think a good parallel to Euphoria is QBasic. Like Euphoria, the
'interpreted' version was free, while the 'compiled' version cost money.
There were a number of features that the interpreted version lacked, (such
as mouse support), but clever coders soon figured ways around that. Not
being open source didn't seem to hurt QBasic.
If I were RDS, I'd build a 'lite' version of Euphoria that included an IDE
(like EE, hint hint) and include files already built in. That way, the
entire development package would fit on a single .EXE file, just like
QBasic.
-- David Cuny
