Picking a license
in [Python]
|
Prev: 2to3 issues with execfile on python 3.0 on files with encoding
Next: Extract a bordered, skewed rectangle from an image
From: Patrick Maupin on 14 May 2010 22:17 On May 14, 9:04 pm, Lawrence D'Oliveiro <l...(a)geek- central.gen.new_zealand> wrote: > In message <548024fc- > dd56-48b9-907d-3aa6a722b...(a)l31g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>, Patrick Maupin > wrote: > > > The confusion that some are showing in this thread about whether source > > must be distributed certainly helps to show that as well. > > What confusion? The GPL requires that source must always be offered in > some form. Simple as that. Right, but when I explained that that requirement also applies to Joe, who downloaded an ISO from Ubuntu and burned a CD and gave it away, no less than 3 people jumped in to "correct" me. Regards, Pat
From: Lawrence D'Oliveiro on 14 May 2010 22:17 In message <e5a031a3-d097-4a63-b87a-7ddfb9e90762(a)n15g2000yqf.googlegroups.com>, Patrick Maupin wrote: > After all, lots of software ideas proved their worth in proprietary > systems, and then were later cloned by FOSS developers. And vice versa. Everybody, whether working in closed or open environments, builds on the work of everybody else. Rsync pioneered the idea of doing transfers of incremental changes to a large file across a network without being able to have the two versions of the file on the same machine to do a direct side-by-side comparison; Microsoft copied the idea in more recent versions of its server software. Andrew Tridgell could easily have patented his idea, but he chose not to. Apple pioneered the idea of using 3D graphics hardware to do window compositing on the desktop; the Compiz folks went on to figure out how to do this efficiently. Microsoft also copied the idea, but forgot the “efficiently” part. Free Software also benefits from networking effects that are not available to proprietary developers. The resources available to proprietary developers are proportional to the size of the company they work for; typically they do not share software with competitors. Whereas the Free Software community is like one huge company in this regard, available to freely pass ideas and code back and forth. This has led to the creation of ideas that proprietary companies simply cannot match.
From: Lawrence D'Oliveiro on 14 May 2010 22:20 In message <a26e8cac-6561-40f6-ae3f-cfe176ecb49e(a)l31g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>, Paul Boddie wrote: > Although people can argue that usage of the GPL prevents people from > potentially contributing because they would not be able to sell > proprietary versions of the software ... It doesn't prevent them from selling proprietary versions of their own contributions, any more than any other licence does. The fact that their contribution may not be much use without the rest of that GPL'd code is entirely another matter. It was their choice to build on the work of others; they could have reinvented it from scratch themselves.
From: Lawrence D'Oliveiro on 14 May 2010 22:21 In message <mailman.180.1273860694.32709.python-list(a)python.org>, Ed Keith wrote: > I just refuse to use [the GPL] in any code for a client, because I > do not want to require someone who does not know source code from Morse > code code to figure out what they need to do to avoid violating the > license. Why don't you just put the source code on the same disc you send them, and tell them to pass copies of the entire disc to anyone they want?
From: Lawrence D'Oliveiro on 14 May 2010 22:30
In message <a4d8f55f-7845-4299- bfb8-5c2f15914443(a)f13g2000vbm.googlegroups.com>, Paul Boddie wrote: > If you think the mobile telephony vendors are a bunch of fluffy bunny > rabbits playing with each other in sugary meadows of niceness, I don't > want to be present when someone directly and finally disabuses you of > this belief. The rise to popularity of Free Software had nothing to do with meadows full of mobile bunny-meat, and everything to do with the hard realities of the marketplace. Vendors discovered that they could make hardware running a Linux kernel do more things than it could with proprietary alternatives. In the beginning they derided the GPL as “business-unfriendly”, until they grudgingly accepted that, just as it prevented them from freeloading off their competitors, it stopped those same competitors from freeloading off them. The network effects translated into real profits. > It's all about people selling stuff to "consumers" over > and over again, preferably with the "consumers" rarely if ever being > able to opt-out and do things their own way. Interesting you should mention that. That is exactly how mobile phone networks have been operated right up until now. And Apple's business model has fitted very well into that too, as witness the success of the iPhone. But Google's Android could represent a shift in that model. Yes, it does seem to be locked down in its way, but given that most of the source code is available, that hardly seems watertight. The phone networks may see it as just another phone platform that the plebs are happy to shell out their hard-earned for, but I think it could ultimately lead to a loss of their proprietary control. |