You're still confusing your rights and someone elses rights. You have all the right in the world to distribute your code. You do not have any rights to distribute someone elses code.
Quite. so when I add someone elses code, I no longer have the right to distribute my code, since by doing so I will distribute the other code.
Maybe one more analagy will make it clear. Lets say you have a bag of apples. If I ask you for an apple, you can give me an apple or not, as you desire. Now lets say you license a caramel-apple-maker from someone and he says you have to give him a quarter for each caramel apple you give away. If I ask you for an apple, you can still give me an apple. Those are your apples. But you can't give me a caramel apple, because the guy who owns the caramel wants his quarter. Thats his caramel. You can't give me his caramel without agreeing to his terms. Sure, you own the apple thats under the caramel - but you can't give it to me with the caramel on it, because you don't own the whole candy apple. You only own the plain apple part.
Yes. by agreeing to his terms, and covering an apple in caramel I lose the right to give you my apple.
Do you feel that you lose rights because you can't distribute your application without having paid money to commercial library vendors?
Yes.
We have a piece of software. We add a line of GPL code. We no longer have the right to redistribute outside of the terms of the GPL. We have lost the right until we remove that code. We add a line of code that requires a per copy licence fee. We no longer have the right to use that code without paying the fee. We regain that right by removing that line of code. Most of it is still my code, but I no longer have full rights to it because I'm obliged to abide by the terms of another person.
Even if someone else takes away the line of GPL code I added, I still no longer have any right to control what they do with the code if they abide by the terms of the GPL.
If the license is more restrictive than GPL, and you cannot change it, I agree that you have a problem. But it's a problem with the other license, (at least) as much as it's a problem with GPL, no?
The issue is that the other licence makes no comment on how we deal with any other code. The GPL does make demands on how we release software based on proprietry libraries. The GPL code is not linked to the proprietry code, doesn't call it, is not called by it, uses none of the interface, yet the GPL would insist that we release the code for that as well as the modifications we make to the original code.
Yeah, and the people who write GPLed software dont work for free either. Too bad, but you simply get what you pay for, you are not prepared to pay the price? your problem, stop whining.
I'll stop whining as soon as GPL zealots stop insisting that using GPL code doesn't restrict your rights. It all depends on how you use it. If you use it as a component within existing code, you have to sacrifice the right to use proprietry third party code with it.
Patents have nothing to do with the GPL.
Except the preamble and clause 7. My point is that if we use a patented algorithm, then however hard we try, there is no way to release our software in a manner compliant with the GPL. If we don't use patented algorithms, then our equipment is no longer compatible with the standard and therefore useless.
You do comply that way, it is simply the alternative to using GPLed software.
Yes, but that's splitting hairs. It doesn't actually help does it?
If I use someone elses work, that someone else dictates the terms on which I can use it, simple.
Fine, but if you're dictating terms, stop claiming that you're providing me with freedom. I'm only "free" to do things your way.
Look, you can go GPL with your code and get back "free" debug and enhancement, making your code better for free.
No we can't. It's unlikely that people will bother given that we have a world market of a few hundred units.
Or, you can sell your code and get cash.
Nope. We don't do this. We sell hardware.
Now, we'd love to use open source code. We'd love to comply with the licences, and just shove all the source onto a partition, but then we lose a chunk of other code because we're not allowed to distribute the source. Since this has no open source equivalent, and the open source stuff has some proprietry equivalent, there's no choice in the matter.
I realise what you're saying. I just felt I sshould point out that "free" is a matter of opinion and position. In this case, the GPL is so agressive about enforcing freedoms that we're not free to distribute GPL code.
By the way, quite a few licenses restrict what you can and cannot do with the resulting work. I've seen several commercial licenses that prevent you from releasing your source code.
I'm pretty certain ours don't. We supply source for a lot of our stuff so presumably there's an exception.
I'm curious what kind of libraries you're using where theres no GPL/open source equivilent. Perhaps not as good, or as polished. But none? Certainly all the tools/libraries you'd want for normal off-the-shelf application development are there.
It's usually code for dealing with proprietry communications protocols and compression mechanisms. I suspect there's a chunk of fairly trivial stuff that does have open source equivalents.
Lastly, I find it amusing and somewhat sad, although not entirely suprising, that the idea that people will react badly to you violating the license is considered a problem with the license.
It's not a problem with the licence per se. It's still a potential issue associated with GPL code, which is pretty much the same thing.
Where are you going to get a GPL compatible licence for a proprietry CODEC?
Your inability to comply with the GPL is the consequence of choices you are making. Those choices may work better for you but they are choices. Make a different choice and you can comply.
Well, yes. We could write totally different software. Alternatively we could open a shoe shop.
The choice might be to write your own implementations of things that currently make it impossible for you to comply with the GPL,
Which is hardly practical, and still not always possible. What about patents?
or make the choice to not use GPLed software.
yerrrsss... Which is hardly what I'd call "complying" with the GPL. Certainly not what I meant by it anyway.
You want to eat your cake and have it.
Yes... We'd like to do a lot more too. We're a business. We want to make as much money for as little as possible.
We'd quite like to use some GPL code as well. We'd be quite happy to abide by the terms, however, we can't. The reason is that the GPL insists on inflicting its terms on everyone else's code.
However, it does *not* take away rights. Ever. If you're creating a derived work, you *never* had the right to distribute that work.
I disagree. Before I include the GPL code, I have the right to release my code with or without source, and prevent redistribution. After I include it, I no longer have the right. I've gained a right as well, but I've traded one right for another.
In the way I've described us as wanting to use it in countless other posts.
Use as in incorporate it into their own products or derive from it? That you cannot do that unless you (can) comply with the GPL is the entire point of the GPL, so I would somehow think they are aware of that....
But are they aware that some companies are incapable of complying with the GPL?
That's basically the same thing. You want the original authors to change their rules to suit you.
That would be nice. But actually, I think it's a little pigheaded of them to insist that their rules have to apply to everyone else as well. We can't force our other vendors to agree to these terms, and shouldn't have to. They don't try to make the GPL programmers agree to their terms. The GPL software and the third party libraries are totally separate. It makes their software extremely expensive. I'm always critical when software has a prohibitive licencing cost. Ultimately it's up to the copyright holder, but I have the right to criticise.
No, but why do you assume that OSS developers should change the way they license their software?
I don't. It would be helpful if they did, but it's up to them.
That's not really a problem just don't violate the license!
Are you suggesting that no company has ever inadvertantly violated terms of the GPL?
I'm sorry it's just the same old complaint over and over, with the same solution. If you don't agree with the license terms don't use the code!
We don't. But that's not my point. My main point is that the GPL is more restrictive than other licences, and hence we can't use GPL code. People are denying that these problems exist, so I mention the specific problems we encounter to illustrate how this is a problem.
Those who made the GPL and those who use it did that on purpose. You may disagree with that purpose,
I know they did. That's largely my point. I do wonder if they realise that it actually means that some organisations are therefore incapable of using their code.
Right, so if you use GPL'ed code you can't release yours ?!?!?!
No, ut we no longer have the choice. We can't release bits and pieces as we choose.
You got it all wrong. Naturally you can release your code. You can do whatever you want as long as there is no GPL code in it.
You can even release it if it contains GPL code, you just have to license it under GPL as well.
"Just" license it under the GPL? Just contact a dozen vendors, and negotiate individually for what amounts to them surrendering full rights to their code?
You have made it pretty clear that you don't like the GPL. However, you must understand that whoever releases his code under GPL does *NOT* want you to use it in any other way. Respect their wishes and go on with your programming.
We do. I just disagree with the suggestion that the GPL is the only license that grants rights. I argue that in some cases it takes away rights.
I suggest you take a look at the 2 clause BSD license, you may find that:
Ah yes. Okay,I'll grant you, there are a few free licences around that are compatible. Of course, the BSD licence had to be modified explicitely because of GPL compatibility problems.
Not to mention the fact that while you have to distribute source code for your modifications on a GPLed program, there is nothing whatsoever preventing you from building an application on top of Linux for example and distribute only the binaries for that application.
I never said there was.
You seem to be lacking a bit of information here.
Yes, but the basic point that GPL software is incompatible with a lot of other software, purely for legal reasons, still remains. It is the only licence that causes this problem.
Fine, you don't want to obey the rules, so we'll just pinch your work in return.
What gives you the right to do this? We can't follow the rules, so we don't use GPLed code.
Also, your complaint is even MORE true of, say Microsoft's license. It's compatible with itself and that's all.
Really? We don't use any Microsoft source (not sure who does), but what specific clauses do they have that prevent their code from being used with other people's? Most companies have a allow us to distribute for a flat fee, or a per copy fee, often with limitiations that prevent our customers from distributing copies. All of these work reasonably well together. We can't take advantage of all the rights of a licence that allows redistribution, but since we're not obliged to, we don't.
So you want to distribute other people's work without following their rules?
No. We want the rules to allow us to agree to other people's rules for their code as well. The GPL does not allow this, hence we don't use GPL code.
If you're going to harvest the power of Open Source, you'll have to accept that it comes with responsibilities.
We do, and we do. We just don't use GPL code, because it is incompatible with other licences.
It's no different than with any other license.
Yes it is. Other licences are compatible with each other.
If you prefer to pay someone money for code, that's your problem.
We prefer not to. At times we have to. You'd be surprised how much code does not have a GPL licenced equivalent. Since we don't want to rewrite this from scratch, we tendto buy a licence. This precludes us from using any GPL code in the entire application.
If you think that other licenses are more negotiable, why don't you negotiate with these authors to make their license compatible with the GPL?
So, you can be absolutely sure that all potential software companies whose software we might want to use could be persuaded to allow us unlimited licence to sell copies of their software at a lower cost than them? Given that these companies make 100% of their revenue from selling copies of their software, I consider this unlikely. If you think they will dop this then you are rather naive about the realities of the software industry.
Name one other licence that makes demands on how software it is linked with may and may not be distributed. All of our software could be distributed with or without source, for free or for a fee. The only exception is the specific code that we have licenced from another company.
Of course, then there's the other problem. If we violate the licence of a commercial company, we have a legal problem. If we violate the GPL, not only do we have a legal problem. We have a PR problem.
Also, the license is negotiable, if you can get all authors to the table.
There's the problem. If we want to use any other code, we talk to a single person. It's a lot easier.
There is nothing to the GPL that is more problematic than a proprietary license. If you think there is, name it and we'll be sure to prove you wrong.
I can not use GPL code with other code that is not licensed under the GPL. The GPL is incompatible with every other licence I've seen. Every other licence I've seen is incompatible with precisely one licence - The GPL.
You are clearly confused and are reading the situation backwards. A normal software license gives you no rights to use the code at all.
Not true at all. The software we release uses source code under about a dozen different licences. None of them make any requirements on derived works. Al of them are compatible with each other. Many of them are negotiable.
The GPL is inconvenient in that it appears to be deliberately designed to be incompatible with other licences. Many other vendors bar us from releasing their code. As such there's no way we could possibly use GPL code in our applications. As such, it removes the right to use GPL code with non-GPL code
Probably not. According to Lucas, there never was going to be an episode VII, but if there was, it wouldn't be the first time he's changed his mind.
I'm not sure I see the point though. Everything was tied up in Return Of The Jedi. Luke fulfilled his destiny by becoming a Jedi Knight, The romance between Han and Leia was resolved, Vader was redeemed, and the Emperor was defeated. It's a proper decent ending. Why ruin it by sticking stuff on the end?
They can provide the service for less though. The network has broadcast capability, so providing TV to 100 people costs the same as providing TV to a single person.
Me too, but here's the problem - I already have a phone that does all that (except waterproofing and that's never been an issue) and so does everyone I know.
I'm not inclined to buy a new one any time soon. The only way they can sell one to people is by making a better phone. "Better" in this case meaning able to show TV shows.
Slashdot Mirror
You're still confusing your rights and someone elses rights. You have all the right in the world to distribute your code. You do not have any rights to distribute someone elses code.
Quite. so when I add someone elses code, I no longer have the right to distribute my code, since by doing so I will distribute the other code.
Maybe one more analagy will make it clear. Lets say you have a bag of apples. If I ask you for an apple, you can give me an apple or not, as you desire. Now lets say you license a caramel-apple-maker from someone and he says you have to give him a quarter for each caramel apple you give away. If I ask you for an apple, you can still give me an apple. Those are your apples. But you can't give me a caramel apple, because the guy who owns the caramel wants his quarter. Thats his caramel. You can't give me his caramel without agreeing to his terms. Sure, you own the apple thats under the caramel - but you can't give it to me with the caramel on it, because you don't own the whole candy apple. You only own the plain apple part.
Yes. by agreeing to his terms, and covering an apple in caramel I lose the right to give you my apple.
Do you feel that you lose rights because you can't distribute your application without having paid money to commercial library vendors?
Yes.
We have a piece of software. We add a line of GPL code. We no longer have the right to redistribute outside of the terms of the GPL. We have lost the right until we remove that code. We add a line of code that requires a per copy licence fee. We no longer have the right to use that code without paying the fee. We regain that right by removing that line of code. Most of it is still my code, but I no longer have full rights to it because I'm obliged to abide by the terms of another person.
Even if someone else takes away the line of GPL code I added, I still no longer have any right to control what they do with the code if they abide by the terms of the GPL.
If the license is more restrictive than GPL, and you cannot change it, I agree that you have a problem. But it's a problem with the other license, (at least) as much as it's a problem with GPL, no?
The issue is that the other licence makes no comment on how we deal with any other code. The GPL does make demands on how we release software based on proprietry libraries. The GPL code is not linked to the proprietry code, doesn't call it, is not called by it, uses none of the interface, yet the GPL would insist that we release the code for that as well as the modifications we make to the original code.
Yeah, and the people who write GPLed software dont work for free either. Too bad, but you simply get what you pay for, you are not prepared to pay the price? your problem, stop whining.
I'll stop whining as soon as GPL zealots stop insisting that using GPL code doesn't restrict your rights. It all depends on how you use it. If you use it as a component within existing code, you have to sacrifice the right to use proprietry third party code with it.
Patents have nothing to do with the GPL.
Except the preamble and clause 7. My point is that if we use a patented algorithm, then however hard we try, there is no way to release our software in a manner compliant with the GPL. If we don't use patented algorithms, then our equipment is no longer compatible with the standard and therefore useless.
You do comply that way, it is simply the alternative to using GPLed software.
Yes, but that's splitting hairs. It doesn't actually help does it?
If I use someone elses work, that someone else dictates the terms on which I can use it, simple.
Fine, but if you're dictating terms, stop claiming that you're providing me with freedom. I'm only "free" to do things your way.
Look, you can go GPL with your code and get back "free" debug and enhancement, making your code better for free.
No we can't. It's unlikely that people will bother given that we have a world market of a few hundred units.
Or, you can sell your code and get cash.
Nope. We don't do this. We sell hardware.
Now, we'd love to use open source code. We'd love to comply with the licences, and just shove all the source onto a partition, but then we lose a chunk of other code because we're not allowed to distribute the source. Since this has no open source equivalent, and the open source stuff has some proprietry equivalent, there's no choice in the matter.
I realise what you're saying. I just felt I sshould point out that "free" is a matter of opinion and position. In this case, the GPL is so agressive about enforcing freedoms that we're not free to distribute GPL code.
By the way, quite a few licenses restrict what you can and cannot do with the resulting work. I've seen several commercial licenses that prevent you from releasing your source code.
I'm pretty certain ours don't. We supply source for a lot of our stuff so presumably there's an exception.
I'm curious what kind of libraries you're using where theres no GPL/open source equivilent. Perhaps not as good, or as polished. But none? Certainly all the tools/libraries you'd want for normal off-the-shelf application development are there.
It's usually code for dealing with proprietry communications protocols and compression mechanisms. I suspect there's a chunk of fairly trivial stuff that does have open source equivalents.
Lastly, I find it amusing and somewhat sad, although not entirely suprising, that the idea that people will react badly to you violating the license is considered a problem with the license.
It's not a problem with the licence per se. It's still a potential issue associated with GPL code, which is pretty much the same thing.
No, for the simple reason that this is not true.
Where are you going to get a GPL compatible licence for a proprietry CODEC?
Your inability to comply with the GPL is the consequence of choices you are making. Those choices may work better for you but they are choices. Make a different choice and you can comply.
Well, yes. We could write totally different software. Alternatively we could open a shoe shop.
The choice might be to write your own implementations of things that currently make it impossible for you to comply with the GPL,
Which is hardly practical, and still not always possible. What about patents?
or make the choice to not use GPLed software.
yerrrsss... Which is hardly what I'd call "complying" with the GPL. Certainly not what I meant by it anyway.
You want to eat your cake and have it.
Yes... We'd like to do a lot more too. We're a business. We want to make as much money for as little as possible.
We'd quite like to use some GPL code as well. We'd be quite happy to abide by the terms, however, we can't. The reason is that the GPL insists on inflicting its terms on everyone else's code.
However, it does *not* take away rights. Ever. If you're creating a derived work, you *never* had the right to distribute that work.
I disagree. Before I include the GPL code, I have the right to release my code with or without source, and prevent redistribution. After I include it, I no longer have the right. I've gained a right as well, but I've traded one right for another.
Depends on your definition of "use".
In the way I've described us as wanting to use it in countless other posts.
Use as in incorporate it into their own products or derive from it? That you cannot do that unless you (can) comply with the GPL is the entire point of the GPL, so I would somehow think they are aware of that....
But are they aware that some companies are incapable of complying with the GPL?
That's basically the same thing. You want the original authors to change their rules to suit you.
That would be nice. But actually, I think it's a little pigheaded of them to insist that their rules have to apply to everyone else as well. We can't force our other vendors to agree to these terms, and shouldn't have to. They don't try to make the GPL programmers agree to their terms. The GPL software and the third party libraries are totally separate. It makes their software extremely expensive. I'm always critical when software has a prohibitive licencing cost. Ultimately it's up to the copyright holder, but I have the right to criticise.
No, but why do you assume that OSS developers should change the way they license their software?
I don't. It would be helpful if they did, but it's up to them.
That's not really a problem just don't violate the license!
Are you suggesting that no company has ever inadvertantly violated terms of the GPL?
I'm sorry it's just the same old complaint over and over, with the same solution. If you don't agree with the license terms don't use the code!
We don't. But that's not my point. My main point is that the GPL is more restrictive than other licences, and hence we can't use GPL code. People are denying that these problems exist, so I mention the specific problems we encounter to illustrate how this is a problem.
Those who made the GPL and those who use it did that on purpose. You may disagree with that purpose,
I know they did. That's largely my point. I do wonder if they realise that it actually means that some organisations are therefore incapable of using their code.
Right, so if you use GPL'ed code you can't release yours ?!?!?!
No, ut we no longer have the choice. We can't release bits and pieces as we choose.
You got it all wrong. Naturally you can release your code. You can do whatever you want as long as there is no GPL code in it. You can even release it if it contains GPL code, you just have to license it under GPL as well.
"Just" license it under the GPL? Just contact a dozen vendors, and negotiate individually for what amounts to them surrendering full rights to their code?
You have made it pretty clear that you don't like the GPL. However, you must understand that whoever releases his code under GPL does *NOT* want you to use it in any other way. Respect their wishes and go on with your programming.
We do. I just disagree with the suggestion that the GPL is the only license that grants rights. I argue that in some cases it takes away rights.
I suggest you take a look at the 2 clause BSD license, you may find that:
Ah yes. Okay,I'll grant you, there are a few free licences around that are compatible. Of course, the BSD licence had to be modified explicitely because of GPL compatibility problems.
Not to mention the fact that while you have to distribute source code for your modifications on a GPLed program, there is nothing whatsoever preventing you from building an application on top of Linux for example and distribute only the binaries for that application.
I never said there was.
You seem to be lacking a bit of information here.
Yes, but the basic point that GPL software is incompatible with a lot of other software, purely for legal reasons, still remains. It is the only licence that causes this problem.
some vendors bar you from releasing *their* code, can you please explain what does "None of them make any requirements on derived works." mean?
We can still release our own code if we use their code.
Fine, you don't want to obey the rules, so we'll just pinch your work in return.
What gives you the right to do this? We can't follow the rules, so we don't use GPLed code.
Also, your complaint is even MORE true of, say Microsoft's license. It's compatible with itself and that's all.
Really? We don't use any Microsoft source (not sure who does), but what specific clauses do they have that prevent their code from being used with other people's? Most companies have a allow us to distribute for a flat fee, or a per copy fee, often with limitiations that prevent our customers from distributing copies. All of these work reasonably well together. We can't take advantage of all the rights of a licence that allows redistribution, but since we're not obliged to, we don't.
So you want to distribute other people's work without following their rules?
No. We want the rules to allow us to agree to other people's rules for their code as well. The GPL does not allow this, hence we don't use GPL code.
If you're going to harvest the power of Open Source, you'll have to accept that it comes with responsibilities.
We do, and we do. We just don't use GPL code, because it is incompatible with other licences.
It's no different than with any other license.
Yes it is. Other licences are compatible with each other.
If you prefer to pay someone money for code, that's your problem.
We prefer not to. At times we have to. You'd be surprised how much code does not have a GPL licenced equivalent. Since we don't want to rewrite this from scratch, we tendto buy a licence. This precludes us from using any GPL code in the entire application.
If you think that other licenses are more negotiable, why don't you negotiate with these authors to make their license compatible with the GPL?
So, you can be absolutely sure that all potential software companies whose software we might want to use could be persuaded to allow us unlimited licence to sell copies of their software at a lower cost than them? Given that these companies make 100% of their revenue from selling copies of their software, I consider this unlikely. If you think they will dop this then you are rather naive about the realities of the software industry.
Name one other licence that makes demands on how software it is linked with may and may not be distributed. All of our software could be distributed with or without source, for free or for a fee. The only exception is the specific code that we have licenced from another company.
Of course, then there's the other problem. If we violate the licence of a commercial company, we have a legal problem. If we violate the GPL, not only do we have a legal problem. We have a PR problem.
Uhmmm... It may have escaped your notice, but I am anonymous. My real name is not "91degrees".
If, and only if, you distribute the code.
Which is kinda what we do.
Also, the license is negotiable, if you can get all authors to the table.
There's the problem. If we want to use any other code, we talk to a single person. It's a lot easier.
There is nothing to the GPL that is more problematic than a proprietary license. If you think there is, name it and we'll be sure to prove you wrong.
I can not use GPL code with other code that is not licensed under the GPL. The GPL is incompatible with every other licence I've seen. Every other licence I've seen is incompatible with precisely one licence - The GPL.
You are clearly confused and are reading the situation backwards. A normal software license gives you no rights to use the code at all.
Not true at all. The software we release uses source code under about a dozen different licences. None of them make any requirements on derived works. Al of them are compatible with each other. Many of them are negotiable.
The GPL is inconvenient in that it appears to be deliberately designed to be incompatible with other licences. Many other vendors bar us from releasing their code. As such there's no way we could possibly use GPL code in our applications. As such, it removes the right to use GPL code with non-GPL code
Now, that's what we need. An audience participation version of Star Wars!
I mean, if components are assembled in the US from 100% imported subcomponents, does that make them foreign components or US made components.
For example, every chip on a motherboard could be made in Taiwan, but if the board itself is put together in the US then who made it?
Probably not. According to Lucas, there never was going to be an episode VII, but if there was, it wouldn't be the first time he's changed his mind.
I'm not sure I see the point though. Everything was tied up in Return Of The Jedi. Luke fulfilled his destiny by becoming a Jedi Knight, The romance between Han and Leia was resolved, Vader was redeemed, and the Emperor was defeated. It's a proper decent ending. Why ruin it by sticking stuff on the end?
Please report to the nearest MPAA reprogramming station!
They closed them all. The MPAA couldn't afford the upkeep because nobody is paying to see movies anymore.
They can provide the service for less though. The network has broadcast capability, so providing TV to 100 people costs the same as providing TV to a single person.
Me too, but here's the problem - I already have a phone that does all that (except waterproofing and that's never been an issue) and so does everyone I know.
I'm not inclined to buy a new one any time soon. The only way they can sell one to people is by making a better phone. "Better" in this case meaning able to show TV shows.