Oh, you know, I would never borrow a bit of code without recognising the original author. I spent a while fixing the credits in our game to respect the people we borrowed from. I somewhat lament the FSF-initiated demise of the BSD licensing clause. It's not onerous to acknowledge the people whose work you leveraged (although, yeah, sometimes it needs to be consolidated into this or that group, or it would go on forever.)
And other than that issue, how can you claim that one is "taking" things for onesself? As has been made abudantly clear, code does not become unavailable to its author if it is used by others. This is a central tenet of Open Source. "Others", of course, includes everyone, proprietary coders included. A minority of self-confessed "open source" people actually contribute back to the author. Many "proprietary" coders would if they were not cursed.
A gift with conditions. Hmm.. The word "potlatch" comes to mind.
Stallman's goals is to eliminate idea monopolies
I have no problem with that. As soon as I understand someone else's idea, it's obvious to me...
I want to create good software, too. You don't have a monopoly on that.
It's the case, though, that in some fields, secrecy now means a living wage. I don't claim to be a guru, but I think my knowledge is worth something. I have no particular desire to go back to cutting curtain material, packing melons in boxes or any of that shit. I am valuable, and I provide my services to other people in exchange for money, which buys me food, clothing, housing, and the rest. Perhaps, just perhaps, I don't deserve any of that and my destiny is to starve while sleeping in a shop window. I understand that market forces may behave unpredictably, but while someone wants to pay me for something I am good at and enjoy, I will continue to milk it. I am not alone in this.
Freedom is a laudable goal. Most people, it has to be said, when given freedom, squander it. You have yet to realise that my freedom is as important as yours, and that Dr. Stallman's idea of freedom comes with strings attached.
I think that if all information secrecy were outlawed, well, only outlaws would have secrets... You fail to take account of human behaviour.
Oops I didn't mean to submit. In my defence I had a bottle of wine and 1/4 bottle of some marzipan type shit (disaronnio?) and I'm on the only shit left in my flat, the Tia Lusso Cream Liqueur. Hope you can forgive me. Anyway, to finish off...
We all get that you don't use it. Why don't you try to get that not everything of value is equated to U.S. Dollars.
Totally with you there, my friend.
So you are right, it is a restrictive licesence,
Aiiii...
if you follow the definitions exactly.
Hey but I'm a totally honest guy! I wouldn't dream of nicking some stuff I'm not entitled to. As I'm sure you wouldn't...
But please don't try to claim that by using GPL code in a proprietary project doesn't devalue the GPL code. Thats arrogant and anti-social.
Well. Hardcore. In a pure sense, no it does not devalue the GPD'd code. The GPL'd code still exists, and perhaps gains some extra kudos from being used. I would personally never claim such software as my own, and I would condemn anyone who did so. However, I maintain that the GPL'd code still exists, is still as free Free FREE as it always was, and it may have extended its reach to people who may not have otherwise encountered it. Thus it is explicitly social. Not anti-social. I have to stress, if you misrepresent the origins of it, that is bad. No question.
there is something you keep seeming to remain blind to.
Uh-oh;-)
The point everyone else is missing is you never said you wanted the GPL to be changed. You just said its [more] restrictive. More restrictive than say the BSD or LGPL library. In that your original post is TRUE, and should be modded up.
Yeah... I feel good... But I know there's bad shit coming up;-)
The point you continouly miss
Here it comes...
what you are paying with is your hard work, (sometimes quite a lot of it).
Yeah.. let's call my contribution X.
by not paying,
Hey! Not so fast!
you devalue my code
Which is worth, I dunno, Y,...
because now its not worth other GPL code, its only worth the actual work cycles it can do on my machine.
:-(:-(:-( Dude, you had the beginnings of an argument there. But what was that? Work cycles? I'm actually pretty good at optimising stuff. I eat cycles for breakfast.
Now AC (can I call you AC?) if you had read this thread you would have learned that I explicitly (i.e. about a fhuewfheuwillion times) said that I don't "steal" (whatever that means) GPL'd code. I respect the GPL, and diss it at the same time. That's how hoopy I am. Actually, hmm, looking at what you say, you maybe realise this. OK. So. You would realise that I understand that there are potential benefits from using GPL'd code. But that doesn't mean that it's fair that I should suddenly give away my millions of lines of code, in return for a small amount of GPL'd code. That's a hypothetical situation;. There is no GPL'd code I have my eye on. But if there were, do you see how I might find it a trifle unfair? To all those people going "you're sharing, and we're sharing too", consider that (a) most of the people you "share" with are leeches, and (b) there is a difference between one library, and a whole cubic buttload of code.
class MyStuff : public YourStuff { public:
void MyExtraFunctionality() const; };
Your starter for ten points: Does your code still compile?
Oh sure, OpenOffice isn't hampered by MS proprietary file formats
Well it seems to me that OpenOffice can use whatever file format it likes. If it wants to read Microsoft files, the developers need to write to Microsoft and say, "Dear Sir/Madam, We want to rip off your file format. Please will you give it to us for free?" I do not know what Microsoft's answer would read, but I would be intrigued to know. The many users of the Gimp are probably wondering what this "gif" thing is that you are wondering about.
You are talking about control. Control is one of the central issues. Full stop. ("Period" stateside.) I have said it before, I say it now, and I will continue to say it:-
People want control over other people, whilst at the same time seeking to limit the control others have over themselves.
You bring up three potential barriers to "freedom": patents, copyright, and "network effects". Let's deal with them one at a time.
1) Patents. I don't like patents. We ALL stand on the shoulders of giants; great minds think alike; being first is no big deal. Have a medal. But don't think you're the only person/group alive who could achieve that goal.
2) Copyright. This only affects a specific implementation of an idea. Reverse engineering is legitimate. DMCA is evil, US specific, and toothless in reality.
3) Network effects. AKA "virality" but also AKA "democracy", "de facto", "do something better".
It's sad, I mean I said to someone else I'm sort of holding out an olive branch here. I like the general idea of collaboration. I like the idea of bazaars and commons and freedom. But, at the same time, I'm dismayed by the hostility, zealotry, insensitivity and closed-mindedness of the GPL crowd.
Many projects use more prorietrary-acceptable licences than the GPL. For that, I am happy. Peace,
Sivaram, Thankyou for your most insightful remarks. I spent most of my afternoon trying to put across a certain position, not trolling, but almost holding out an olive branch, as it were. I am in a certain position, as are many people, and I must say most of my fellow game programmers. As can be seen from my fairly low/. userid I am not a newbie here. I have seen thousands of GPL related arguments come and go. As it happens I was working most of the night on the game so I was a bit wasted today, and I spent a lot of time arguing instead of working;-)
I sit on a massive code base. I happen to think our game is quite special, although it has been a long time in gestation. Thankyou for you kind remarks about our game, btw.
Now, as a programmer I guess I have been a bit isolated. I mean, we have a few programmers here. But I think it would be cool to be part of a wider community, to have people suggest improvements, to respect my code (it is awesome;-) and all that. (Note to the humour impaired: You are humour impaired.) A lot of my code (and a lot of the code of my collegues) is dirty and full of hacks and I'm sure people could have a lot of laughs at it. But other people might learn something.
I do yearn somewhat to be a part of a wider coding community. And yet, there are barriers. First, there is inertia - we have never opened our source, we don't see many benefits (I'm probably the only guy on our team that sees any potential benefits)... Then, there's competition. If I release my source, someone else can use it to steal my thunder. There are many parts of our engine that are not cutting edge. And those parts would likely benefit from outside ideas. But, there are parts that have never been done before in the known universe. Bits that we are particularly proud of. And we are not about to hand that advantage out to any leechers.
I have gone on record as saying that I do not agree with software patents. However, I'll be f##ked if I'm gonna respect the rights of parasites.
Free Software is all about moral issues. I can certainly see many of the points made. RMS's stance is a bit strong for me, although I respect him highly. No-one likes a parasite, and if we're talking about software licences, the golden rule is who holds the gold, i.e. who commands respect for their contributions to the community. Linux could be forked tomorrow, but for the fact that the community (overwhelmingly) respects Mr. Torvalds' leadership.
I first encountered Dr. Stallman's work when I was at university (UKC, UK). I was impressed. They used to force me to use vi. I downloaded and used emacs. They said it used too many system resources (they were probably right, in those days) so I used Jove (still one of my favourite editors ever).
But those were the days, in academia, and then I moved on. Now I make a living from programming. It may be a dying profession, but it is still possible to charge people for writing code. I'm not sure how anybody really makes a living from writing Open Source stuff. I guess a few lucky people can. But most of us programmers rely on scarcity of domain specific knowledge. I don't suppose it will last forever, but you can't blame a guy for trying to make a $(currency_unit) where there's one to be made.
I'd be a liar if I said that all of our stuff was innovative. Some of it is, but a lot of it is "standing on the shoulders of giants". Of course it is. I try to contribute to technical mailing lists (although I have been somewhat busy recently:( ). I'd like to contribute back to the community. But I think we should be allowed to have a little profit from our endeavours.
Everyone else isn't getting it for free either. The price is licensing whatever project which uses the GPL code under the GPL as well. Those other people you mention are also morally obligated to pay that price.
Thanks, I know how the GPL works.
Want to use GPL code? Pay the price (GPLizing your code).
Thanks, I know how the GPL works.
GPL code isn't without cost, you just don't seem to want to pay it.
Are you saying I'm tight? 'Cos it's not that. You realise that stuff is worth whatever people are willing to exchange for it, right? And if other people are getting it for the price of maybe (just maybe) contributing back fixes and improvements, then that sounds like a good deal. I'll take that deal. No? For me the deal is special? You want what? Hmm, I'll think about it.
It is using it without paying the price which is unfair. The fact that the price is not in money is irrelevent to what the morally right thing to do is.
To me, for it to be morally right, it needs to be fair, and not in the way you use that word.
And that would be fair? Or solve any problems? Or be the only way of trading? Or overcome the multiple contributor copyright problem? If it's worth so much, why are you giving it away? I don't doubt that in specific cases, I could buy a licence to some bits of code. Maybe even for a fair price. Maybe if I just promised to contribute back any fixes or improvements. But I'd be worried that I was just getting a snapshot. If any future development were done on the GPL side, would I get it? Or would people object to contributing to something that someone else had already sold on the side? I don't see the point of dual licensing.
it limits a small subset of modifiers who refuse to (or can't) give back their modifications
That also applies to the LGPL, which is an acceptable licence to me. I have no problem with giving back modifications.
Suppose I want to use a particular library. I link it with my stuff, ooh that's cool, nice one. Now I find a bug in the library. It's Open Source, lovely, so I fix it and bung a patch to the maintainer. Everyone's happy.
Scenario two. I want to use the library. I have to give large chunks of my source away. To my competitors. Well, at least they are happy.
If you had said "restrictive to a set of modifiers who refuse to share their modifications with their user base", then you would have been correct.
Yes, I would. But I didn't, and nor did I say that I refused to share my modifications. Unfortunately, the GPL thinks all of my existing source is a "modification" of whatever I link it with. Whereas I say that's unfair. I'm happy to contribute to the core library, just like many others. And no-one even has to contribute back their changes unless they distribute them.
Implying that the license is restrictive to everyone, as you seem to be doing, is bullshit.
You infer what you like, pal. I'm tired of defending straw men from flames.
You said I was claiming it was "somehow inferior". So you tell me what you meant by that.
Clearly it's inferior [to many other licences] to me because I can't use it. I also have some philosophical problems with it, which I've gone into elsewhere.
Ah well now you're nitpicking about what I mean by restrictive. Well the very first post I replied to said it wasn't restrictive. So I said "au contraire" to that. But as for how restrictive it is compared to other software licences, that's another argument (which I'm not too inclined to go for right now as I've already spent ages on this).
If we used a proprietary library (hmm, can't think of one we've used, except for console SDKs) we would shell out the money, use it as we want, and that's about it. Perhaps there would be some strange restrictions (can't think of any that would affect us). I don't have to give away my trade secrets, though. And if you accept a priori that I don't want to do that, then you accept that GPL'd stuff is not for me, right?
The "most restrictive" thing was from the grandparent post. I was responding to the "restrictive" bit.
Heh, I wasn't the one who started chucking "communist" around.
I was talking about "stealing" the code in a purely philosophical sense, as in "it's not stealing". I didn't say that I personally have a habit of "stealing" GPL'd code, although a number of people made the mistake of assuming that's what I meant.
I've lost the right to write the same code
Nope
especially if you've patented your enhancements.
Different matter. I hope you're not suggesting I support software patents.
But even if you're just copyrighting your code, you can probably draw a free software developer into a legal battle she can not afford even if she's right.
Nope. My code is copyrighted, but that has absolutely no effect on yours, current or future. Perhaps you were thinking of patents, which I don't support.
Furthermore, your proprietary innovation reduces the incentive to create free enhancements.
Funny, that doesn't seem to be affecting the authors of the Gimp, or Open Office, or Mono, or any number of, errm, tributes to closed source.
If authors do have the right to control their works (i.e., if idea monopolies are legitimate), then you should respect my terms.
Like with patents? Idea monopolies should be legitimate? No thanks. That doesn't mean I won't respect your terms, but they had better not be too onerous.
I personally do not want to see someone profit off of my free work without giving back equally.
Nor do I. It comes down to what you define as "equally", though.
Your analogy is lovely but it does rather require the supply of books to the free library to be restricted. If we translate that back to the GPL'd code, it would be some artificial scarcity, some strange inability to copy it. I can't see how that could happen. So I'm going to leave your analogy there.
You were doing well until your closing argument... Come on, that's not even a charicature of my position.
I'm having difficulty tuning into your argument there. I'm not trying to modify the GPL, if I did that then it would be the LGPL. It would be utterly pointless providing a patch that did what I think you're suggesting. I'm not sure, because your signal to gibberish ratio is a bit low. Why would anyone maintaining a GPL'd function accept a patch that basically stopped it from working?
Well, you're basically describing the LGPL. That's OK, although RMS (hey look! on-topic!) isn't as mad keen for it. He prefers the GPL, and I understand why, but you can see that it's not for everyone, right? I didn't say the GPL would be unfair in that situation, but it certainly could be. It would depend on the circumstances.
I'm staying away from all the GPL'd code so I'm not unfairly doing anything. I just think it's a shame we can't share. I also think it's no sin to profit off something, and if the original authors wanted to, they could have, and still can.
Open Source is another issue. There are plenty of Open Source licences that are not the GPL. There are lots of interesting Open Source projects that us game programmers can use and be involved with. Python, zlib, all sorts. Great stuff. I also understand that you want to look at my "secret code", and that's understandable, I mean I'm a curious guy as well. I spent many of my earlier years disassembling games on my Commodore Plus/4 to find out how they worked.
But at the end of the day, game development is a highly competitive business. It might be nice if we could all have open source, but it doesn't seem like an evolutionary stable strategy. There's always an advantage to keeping your stuff secret, as long as it delays your competitors. It's fine for J.Carmack to release his older stuff under GPL because it's no longer cutting edge (and, as a side effect, because his competitors still have to pay for it). But you won't see him opening his Doom 3 source any time soon. That would be crazy, and I seem to remember even ESR saying much the same thing - Open Source is not automatically the right thing.
If I were contributing patches to a library, for example, one would hope it was modular enough that context wasn't so important. The GPL already depends on my honour. I'm not sure about your lawsuit stuff, it seems a bit vague.
if you don't like the GPL license, *don't use it.*
Which I have already covered. Thanks anyway.
Newsflash, pal: There's nothing for me to get over, as I don't hold the position you think I do. And you think I'm in fairyland.
I have nothing against contributing back - on fair terms.
I'm not angry.
Oh look, you said it again "don't use GPL'd code". Twice in the same post. After you have been told multiple times that I don't use it anyway. If you want to continue arguing with me, I'm going to require you to read the rest of the thread first, OK?
Oh, I have no money or talent now. Hehehe! It gets better. "absolutely nothing back" - another misrepresentation of my position.
The only other thing I saw from you in this thread was a pissing contest about whose code was more valuable....
Sigh... It wasn't a "pissing contest". You are trying to make emotional arguments where there should be none. Did you see where I said "may not be as valuable"? That is because it would depend on the situation. I am talking about particular hypothetical situations. You are trying to extend that to all situations, and make it look like I'm saying "my code is, in general, better than yours". Well, I'm not saying anything like that. Please, if you want to argue with the straw man, go elsewhere.
I still get the impression from you you want substantial parts of code from others
Well, that's nice, but you didn't get it from me.
you might just share a bit back if they ask nicely and you are in a good mood.
I'm not getting pissy at all;-) I give as good as I get, if that's what you mean. I'm not whining about anything! Perhaps you need to read what I wrote more carefully. First, you need to realise that I'm not actually using any GPL'd code. Second, if I sold a product with GPL'd code in it, that part would be free. It would be available elsewhere for free, and of course I would fulfil my obligation to provide the source code yadda yadda. Hehe, the straw man agruments are out in full effect today. Nowhere, my friend, did I say that the GPL was inferior to any particular licence, and I said nothing about proprietary licences. I did say that the GPL is restrictive, because it clearly is, and that proprietary software can't easily mix with it, which makes it unfavourable to me and many others.
Slashdot Mirror
Thankyou for missing the point. That sound, whoosh, oh forget it. You're not worth it.
ARSE! I did it again, I didn't finish before I pressed submit...
and to let the market decide their value instead
But wait, isn't that a big skinny zero?
You just don't like him because he dresses like a hippy and exposes your hypocrisy.
Actually I would love to spend an evening with him. Really.
Good night.
Oh, you know, I would never borrow a bit of code without recognising the original author. I spent a while fixing the credits in our game to respect the people we borrowed from. I somewhat lament the FSF-initiated demise of the BSD licensing clause. It's not onerous to acknowledge the people whose work you leveraged (although, yeah, sometimes it needs to be consolidated into this or that group, or it would go on forever.)
And other than that issue, how can you claim that one is "taking" things for onesself? As has been made abudantly clear, code does not become unavailable to its author if it is used by others. This is a central tenet of Open Source. "Others", of course, includes everyone, proprietary coders included. A minority of self-confessed "open source" people actually contribute back to the author. Many "proprietary" coders would if they were not cursed.
A gift with conditions. Hmm.. The word "potlatch" comes to mind.
Stallman's goals is to eliminate idea monopolies
I have no problem with that. As soon as I understand someone else's idea, it's obvious to me...
I want to create good software, too. You don't have a monopoly on that.
It's the case, though, that in some fields, secrecy now means a living wage. I don't claim to be a guru, but I think my knowledge is worth something. I have no particular desire to go back to cutting curtain material, packing melons in boxes or any of that shit. I am valuable, and I provide my services to other people in exchange for money, which buys me food, clothing, housing, and the rest. Perhaps, just perhaps, I don't deserve any of that and my destiny is to starve while sleeping in a shop window. I understand that market forces may behave unpredictably, but while someone wants to pay me for something I am good at and enjoy, I will continue to milk it. I am not alone in this.
Freedom is a laudable goal. Most people, it has to be said, when given freedom, squander it. You have yet to realise that my freedom is as important as yours, and that Dr. Stallman's idea of freedom comes with strings attached.
I think that if all information secrecy were outlawed, well, only outlaws would have secrets... You fail to take account of human behaviour.
+1 Friend ;-)
Oops I didn't mean to submit. In my defence I had a bottle of wine and 1/4 bottle of some marzipan type shit (disaronnio?) and I'm on the only shit left in my flat, the Tia Lusso Cream Liqueur. Hope you can forgive me. Anyway, to finish off...
We all get that you don't use it. Why don't you try to get that not everything of value is equated to U.S. Dollars.
Totally with you there, my friend.
So you are right, it is a restrictive licesence,
Aiiii...
if you follow the definitions exactly.
Hey but I'm a totally honest guy! I wouldn't dream of nicking some stuff I'm not entitled to. As I'm sure you wouldn't...
But please don't try to claim that by using GPL code in a proprietary project doesn't devalue the GPL code. Thats arrogant and anti-social.
Well. Hardcore. In a pure sense, no it does not devalue the GPD'd code. The GPL'd code still exists, and perhaps gains some extra kudos from being used. I would personally never claim such software as my own, and I would condemn anyone who did so. However, I maintain that the GPL'd code still exists, is still as free Free FREE as it always was, and it may have extended its reach to people who may not have otherwise encountered it. Thus it is explicitly social. Not anti-social. I have to stress, if you misrepresent the origins of it, that is bad. No question.
Andrew.
I read all your posts,
;-)
;-)
:-( :-( :-( Dude, you had the beginnings of an argument there. But what was that? Work cycles? I'm actually pretty good at optimising stuff. I eat cycles for breakfast.
Respect.
there is something you keep seeming to remain blind to.
Uh-oh
The point everyone else is missing is you never said you wanted the GPL to be changed. You just said its [more] restrictive. More restrictive than say the BSD or LGPL library. In that your original post is TRUE, and should be modded up.
Yeah... I feel good... But I know there's bad shit coming up
The point you continouly miss
Here it comes...
what you are paying with is your hard work, (sometimes quite a lot of it).
Yeah.. let's call my contribution X.
by not paying,
Hey! Not so fast!
you devalue my code
Which is worth, I dunno, Y,...
because now its not worth other GPL code, its only worth the actual work cycles it can do on my machine.
Now AC (can I call you AC?) if you had read this thread you would have learned that I explicitly (i.e. about a fhuewfheuwillion times) said that I don't "steal" (whatever that means) GPL'd code. I respect the GPL, and diss it at the same time. That's how hoopy I am. Actually, hmm, looking at what you say, you maybe realise this. OK. So. You would realise that I understand that there are potential benefits from using GPL'd code. But that doesn't mean that it's fair that I should suddenly give away my millions of lines of code, in return for a small amount of GPL'd code. That's a hypothetical situation;. There is no GPL'd code I have my eye on. But if there were, do you see how I might find it a trifle unfair? To all those people going "you're sharing, and we're sharing too", consider that (a) most of the people you "share" with are leeches, and (b) there is a difference between one library, and a whole cubic buttload of code.
All right let's make it more clear.
...
class YourStuff
{
};
Fine.
class MyStuff : public YourStuff
{
public:
void MyExtraFunctionality() const;
};
Your starter for ten points: Does your code still compile?
Oh sure, OpenOffice isn't hampered by MS proprietary file formats
Well it seems to me that OpenOffice can use whatever file format it likes. If it wants to read Microsoft files, the developers need to write to Microsoft and say, "Dear Sir/Madam, We want to rip off your file format. Please will you give it to us for free?" I do not know what Microsoft's answer would read, but I would be intrigued to know. The many users of the Gimp are probably wondering what this "gif" thing is that you are wondering about.
You are talking about control. Control is one of the central issues. Full stop. ("Period" stateside.) I have said it before, I say it now, and I will continue to say it:-
People want control over other people, whilst at the same time seeking to limit the control others have over themselves.
You bring up three potential barriers to "freedom": patents, copyright, and "network effects". Let's deal with them one at a time.
1) Patents. I don't like patents. We ALL stand on the shoulders of giants; great minds think alike; being first is no big deal. Have a medal. But don't think you're the only person/group alive who could achieve that goal.
2) Copyright. This only affects a specific implementation of an idea. Reverse engineering is legitimate. DMCA is evil, US specific, and toothless in reality.
3) Network effects. AKA "virality" but also AKA "democracy", "de facto", "do something better".
It's sad, I mean I said to someone else I'm sort of holding out an olive branch here. I like the general idea of collaboration. I like the idea of bazaars and commons and freedom. But, at the same time, I'm dismayed by the hostility, zealotry, insensitivity and closed-mindedness of the GPL crowd.
Many projects use more prorietrary-acceptable licences than the GPL. For that, I am happy. Peace,
Andrew.
Hmm, OK, thanks for contributing.
Innit just.
Didn't say they did. End of argument.
if you are a capitalist you cannot claim something is overpriced
It seems to me that claiming such a thing is the very essence of capitalism!
Yes, proprietary libraries can be expensive, but they never require you to reveal your trade secrets.
Public domain is indeed free, Free, FREE. It doesn't work for everybody, though.
Thanks for your support in these difficult times ;-
Sivaram, Thankyou for your most insightful remarks. I spent most of my afternoon trying to put across a certain position, not trolling, but almost holding out an olive branch, as it were. I am in a certain position, as are many people, and I must say most of my fellow game programmers. As can be seen from my fairly low /. userid I am not a newbie here. I have seen thousands of GPL related arguments come and go. As it happens I was working most of the night on the game so I was a bit wasted today, and I spent a lot of time arguing instead of working ;-)
;-) and all that. (Note to the humour impaired: You are humour impaired.) A lot of my code (and a lot of the code of my collegues) is dirty and full of hacks and I'm sure people could have a lot of laughs at it. But other people might learn something.
:( ). I'd like to contribute back to the community. But I think we should be allowed to have a little profit from our endeavours.
I sit on a massive code base. I happen to think our game is quite special, although it has been a long time in gestation. Thankyou for you kind remarks about our game, btw.
Now, as a programmer I guess I have been a bit isolated. I mean, we have a few programmers here. But I think it would be cool to be part of a wider community, to have people suggest improvements, to respect my code (it is awesome
I do yearn somewhat to be a part of a wider coding community. And yet, there are barriers. First, there is inertia - we have never opened our source, we don't see many benefits (I'm probably the only guy on our team that sees any potential benefits)... Then, there's competition. If I release my source, someone else can use it to steal my thunder. There are many parts of our engine that are not cutting edge. And those parts would likely benefit from outside ideas. But, there are parts that have never been done before in the known universe. Bits that we are particularly proud of. And we are not about to hand that advantage out to any leechers.
I have gone on record as saying that I do not agree with software patents. However, I'll be f##ked if I'm gonna respect the rights of parasites.
Free Software is all about moral issues. I can certainly see many of the points made. RMS's stance is a bit strong for me, although I respect him highly. No-one likes a parasite, and if we're talking about software licences, the golden rule is who holds the gold, i.e. who commands respect for their contributions to the community. Linux could be forked tomorrow, but for the fact that the community (overwhelmingly) respects Mr. Torvalds' leadership.
I first encountered Dr. Stallman's work when I was at university (UKC, UK). I was impressed. They used to force me to use vi. I downloaded and used emacs. They said it used too many system resources (they were probably right, in those days) so I used Jove (still one of my favourite editors ever).
But those were the days, in academia, and then I moved on. Now I make a living from programming. It may be a dying profession, but it is still possible to charge people for writing code. I'm not sure how anybody really makes a living from writing Open Source stuff. I guess a few lucky people can. But most of us programmers rely on scarcity of domain specific knowledge. I don't suppose it will last forever, but you can't blame a guy for trying to make a $(currency_unit) where there's one to be made.
I'd be a liar if I said that all of our stuff was innovative. Some of it is, but a lot of it is "standing on the shoulders of giants". Of course it is. I try to contribute to technical mailing lists (although I have been somewhat busy recently
Anyway,
Peace,
Andrew.
Uh, yeah, that's what I said. I don't see the point of dual licensing, though.
It is fair.
I Disagree.
Everyone else isn't getting it for free either.
The price is licensing whatever project which uses the GPL code under the GPL as well. Those other people you mention are also morally obligated to pay that price.
Thanks, I know how the GPL works.
Want to use GPL code? Pay the price (GPLizing your code).
Thanks, I know how the GPL works.
GPL code isn't without cost, you just don't seem to want to pay it.
Are you saying I'm tight? 'Cos it's not that. You realise that stuff is worth whatever people are willing to exchange for it, right? And if other people are getting it for the price of maybe (just maybe) contributing back fixes and improvements, then that sounds like a good deal. I'll take that deal. No? For me the deal is special? You want what? Hmm, I'll think about it.
It is using it without paying the price which is unfair. The fact that the price is not in money is irrelevent to what the morally right thing to do is.
To me, for it to be morally right, it needs to be fair, and not in the way you use that word.
And that would be fair? Or solve any problems? Or be the only way of trading? Or overcome the multiple contributor copyright problem? If it's worth so much, why are you giving it away?
I don't doubt that in specific cases, I could buy a licence to some bits of code. Maybe even for a fair price. Maybe if I just promised to contribute back any fixes or improvements. But I'd be worried that I was just getting a snapshot. If any future development were done on the GPL side, would I get it? Or would people object to contributing to something that someone else had already sold on the side?
I don't see the point of dual licensing.
it limits a small subset of modifiers who refuse to (or can't) give back their modifications
That also applies to the LGPL, which is an acceptable licence to me. I have no problem with giving back modifications.
Suppose I want to use a particular library. I link it with my stuff, ooh that's cool, nice one. Now I find a bug in the library. It's Open Source, lovely, so I fix it and bung a patch to the maintainer. Everyone's happy.
Scenario two. I want to use the library. I have to give large chunks of my source away. To my competitors. Well, at least they are happy.
If you had said "restrictive to a set of modifiers who refuse to share their modifications with their user base", then you would have been correct.
Yes, I would. But I didn't, and nor did I say that I refused to share my modifications. Unfortunately, the GPL thinks all of my existing source is a "modification" of whatever I link it with. Whereas I say that's unfair. I'm happy to contribute to the core library, just like many others. And no-one even has to contribute back their changes unless they distribute them.
Implying that the license is restrictive to everyone, as you seem to be doing, is bullshit.
You infer what you like, pal. I'm tired of defending straw men from flames.
You said I was claiming it was "somehow inferior". So you tell me what you meant by that.
Clearly it's inferior [to many other licences] to me because I can't use it. I also have some philosophical problems with it, which I've gone into elsewhere.
Ah well now you're nitpicking about what I mean by restrictive. Well the very first post I replied to said it wasn't restrictive. So I said "au contraire" to that. But as for how restrictive it is compared to other software licences, that's another argument (which I'm not too inclined to go for right now as I've already spent ages on this).
If we used a proprietary library (hmm, can't think of one we've used, except for console SDKs) we would shell out the money, use it as we want, and that's about it. Perhaps there would be some strange restrictions (can't think of any that would affect us). I don't have to give away my trade secrets, though. And if you accept a priori that I don't want to do that, then you accept that GPL'd stuff is not for me, right?
The "most restrictive" thing was from the grandparent post. I was responding to the "restrictive" bit.
Heh, I wasn't the one who started chucking "communist" around.
I was talking about "stealing" the code in a purely philosophical sense, as in "it's not stealing". I didn't say that I personally have a habit of "stealing" GPL'd code, although a number of people made the mistake of assuming that's what I meant.
I've lost the right to write the same code
Nope
especially if you've patented your enhancements.
Different matter. I hope you're not suggesting I support software patents.
But even if you're just copyrighting your code, you can probably draw a free software developer into a legal battle she can not afford even if she's right.
Nope. My code is copyrighted, but that has absolutely no effect on yours, current or future. Perhaps you were thinking of patents, which I don't support.
Furthermore, your proprietary innovation reduces the incentive to create free enhancements.
Funny, that doesn't seem to be affecting the authors of the Gimp, or Open Office, or Mono, or any number of, errm, tributes to closed source.
If authors do have the right to control their works (i.e., if idea monopolies are legitimate), then you should respect my terms.
Like with patents? Idea monopolies should be legitimate? No thanks. That doesn't mean I won't respect your terms, but they had better not be too onerous.
I personally do not want to see someone profit off of my free work without giving back equally.
Nor do I. It comes down to what you define as "equally", though.
Your analogy is lovely but it does rather require the supply of books to the free library to be restricted. If we translate that back to the GPL'd code, it would be some artificial scarcity, some strange inability to copy it. I can't see how that could happen. So I'm going to leave your analogy there.
You were doing well until your closing argument... Come on, that's not even a charicature of my position.
I'm having difficulty tuning into your argument there. I'm not trying to modify the GPL, if I did that then it would be the LGPL. It would be utterly pointless providing a patch that did what I think you're suggesting. I'm not sure, because your signal to gibberish ratio is a bit low. Why would anyone maintaining a GPL'd function accept a patch that basically stopped it from working?
Well, you're basically describing the LGPL. That's OK, although RMS (hey look! on-topic!) isn't as mad keen for it. He prefers the GPL, and I understand why, but you can see that it's not for everyone, right? I didn't say the GPL would be unfair in that situation, but it certainly could be. It would depend on the circumstances.
I'm staying away from all the GPL'd code so I'm not unfairly doing anything. I just think it's a shame we can't share. I also think it's no sin to profit off something, and if the original authors wanted to, they could have, and still can.
Open Source is another issue. There are plenty of Open Source licences that are not the GPL. There are lots of interesting Open Source projects that us game programmers can use and be involved with. Python, zlib, all sorts. Great stuff. I also understand that you want to look at my "secret code", and that's understandable, I mean I'm a curious guy as well. I spent many of my earlier years disassembling games on my Commodore Plus/4 to find out how they worked.
But at the end of the day, game development is a highly competitive business. It might be nice if we could all have open source, but it doesn't seem like an evolutionary stable strategy. There's always an advantage to keeping your stuff secret, as long as it delays your competitors. It's fine for J.Carmack to release his older stuff under GPL because it's no longer cutting edge (and, as a side effect, because his competitors still have to pay for it). But you won't see him opening his Doom 3 source any time soon. That would be crazy, and I seem to remember even ESR saying much the same thing - Open Source is not automatically the right thing.
If I were contributing patches to a library, for example, one would hope it was modular enough that context wasn't so important. The GPL already depends on my honour. I'm not sure about your lawsuit stuff, it seems a bit vague.
I'm getting into this thread late
Clearly, as you then go on to say:-
if you don't like the GPL license, *don't use it.*
Which I have already covered. Thanks anyway.
Newsflash, pal: There's nothing for me to get over, as I don't hold the position you think I do. And you think I'm in fairyland.
I have nothing against contributing back - on fair terms.
I'm not angry.
Oh look, you said it again "don't use GPL'd code". Twice in the same post. After you have been told multiple times that I don't use it anyway. If you want to continue arguing with me, I'm going to require you to read the rest of the thread first, OK?
Oh, I have no money or talent now. Hehehe! It gets better. "absolutely nothing back" - another misrepresentation of my position.
The only other thing I saw from you in this thread was a pissing contest about whose code was more valuable....
Sigh... It wasn't a "pissing contest". You are trying to make emotional arguments where there should be none. Did you see where I said "may not be as valuable"? That is because it would depend on the situation. I am talking about particular hypothetical situations. You are trying to extend that to all situations, and make it look like I'm saying "my code is, in general, better than yours". Well, I'm not saying anything like that. Please, if you want to argue with the straw man, go elsewhere.
I still get the impression from you you want substantial parts of code from others
Well, that's nice, but you didn't get it from me.
you might just share a bit back if they ask nicely and you are in a good mood.
No, I want a fair deal.
I'm not getting pissy at all ;-) I give as good as I get, if that's what you mean.
I'm not whining about anything! Perhaps you need to read what I wrote more carefully.
First, you need to realise that I'm not actually using any GPL'd code. Second, if I sold a product with GPL'd code in it, that part would be free. It would be available elsewhere for free, and of course I would fulfil my obligation to provide the source code yadda yadda.
Hehe, the straw man agruments are out in full effect today. Nowhere, my friend, did I say that the GPL was inferior to any particular licence, and I said nothing about proprietary licences. I did say that the GPL is restrictive, because it clearly is, and that proprietary software can't easily mix with it, which makes it unfavourable to me and many others.
Compared to what happens when you use a function from other companies' proprietry code?
We could do a deal. A fair deal.
Just re-write the function.
Well, that's what we do, of course. If it's just a function... Not a big deal. But somewhere the GPL has to draw a line, doesn't it?