Hi all,
Maybe I'm asking another noob question. But, wanted to know, how the big companies gain profit who run Free and Open Source project like Mozilla, Apache, etc. Of course, even if you are working for Free and Open source projects, there has to be some income.
I'm hoping for the varieties of views on this.
PS: Apologize for the cross post. Do not include the other mailing list id if you are not subscribed to it.
2010/12/29 Sagar Belure sagar.belure@gmail.com:
Maybe I'm asking another noob question. But, wanted to know, how the big companies gain profit who run Free and Open Source project like Mozilla, Apache, etc.
They don't. They are run by non-profit organizations. Mozilla has a deal with Google to set the default search to Google, for which they get paid a hefty sum which pays for developers and infrastructure. Apache developers are paid by the companies that benefit from the project.
Redhat is an out-and-out commercial organization that offers support as a service; many big companies pay Redhat for support.
Of course, even if you are working for Free and Open source projects, there has to be some income.
Indeed. And the idea of Free Software is that you don't make money by selling software written by somebody else; you instead provide value-addition over the base software.
Binand
On Wed, Dec 29, 2010 at 9:33 PM, Binand Sethumadhavan binand@gmail.comwrote:
2010/12/29 Sagar Belure sagar.belure@gmail.com:
Maybe I'm asking another noob question. But, wanted to know, how the big companies gain profit who run Free and Open Source project like Mozilla, Apache, etc.
They don't. They are run by non-profit organizations. Mozilla has a deal with Google to set the default search to Google, for which they get paid a hefty sum which pays for developers and infrastructure. Apache developers are paid by the companies that benefit from the project.
Redhat is an out-and-out commercial organization that offers support as a service; many big companies pay Redhat for support.
Of course, even if you are working for Free and Open source projects, there has to be some income.
Indeed. And the idea of Free Software is that you don't make money by selling software written by somebody else; you instead provide value-addition over the base software.
Nope. Free Software aka Freedom Software or Example software licensed under GPLv3 or similar license never stop you to sell a software. For example If you purchase a custom GPLv3 software from me, I will charge you heavily. But now you have a license which allow you to sell or upload somewhere on web to sell it free of cost. Because it never restrict you or anybody to share, automatically software become free of cost.
2010/12/29 Narendra Sisodiya narendra@narendrasisodiya.com:
Indeed. And the idea of Free Software is that you don't make money by selling software written by somebody else; you instead provide value-addition over the base software.
Nope. Free Software aka Freedom Software or Example software licensed under GPLv3 or similar license never stop you to sell a software. For example If you purchase a custom GPLv3 software from me, I will charge you heavily. But now you have a license which allow you to sell or upload somewhere on web to sell it free of cost. Because it never restrict you or anybody to share, automatically software become free of cost.
So what's the "Nope" for? That's exactly what I said, right? Unless I provide some value-addition over the base software, nobody'd buy it off me paying $$$ when the same stuff is available elsewhere for free, right? I didn't say the license *prohibited* anyone from selling, only that it discourages it by making it not viable, right?
Binand
On Wed, 2010-12-29 at 22:58 +0530, Binand Sethumadhavan wrote:
Free Software aka Freedom Software or Example software licensed
under GPLv3
or similar license never stop you to sell a software. For example If
you
purchase a custom GPLv3 software from me, I will charge you heavily.
But now
you have a license which allow you to sell or upload somewhere on
web to
sell it free of cost. Because it never restrict you or anybody to
share,
automatically software become free of cost.
So what's the "Nope" for? That's exactly what I said, right? Unless I provide some value-addition over the base software, nobody'd buy it off me paying $$$ when the same stuff is available elsewhere for free, right? I didn't say the license *prohibited* anyone from selling, only that it discourages it by making it not viable, right?
reminds me of that shop in Marina beach where a guy is minting money selling buckets of sea water at 50 rupees a bucket.
On Wed, 2010-12-29 at 22:33 +0530, Narendra Sisodiya wrote:
Free Software aka Freedom Software or Example software licensed under GPLv3 or similar license never stop you to sell a software. For example If you purchase a custom GPLv3 software from me, I will charge you heavily.
remind me never to purchase from you ;-) Jokes aside, what you are trying to say is this: I write software for someone who pays me for it. Although I write it, since the developement is paid for by my client, he has the copyright over it. He can decide to release it under any license, or to keep it proprietary. I do not have any rights over the software. This is one way to make money (that is how I make a living - although I do not charge Narendra)
The second scenario is that I write the software on my own time. I own the copyright. I can sell it to the client for a fee. But here is the catch: If I have licensed it under the GPL, the moment I sell it to the client, I have distributed it - and hence am obliged to give a copy of the source code to anyone who asks. So only the client pays for it, the rest of the world gets it free. This is impossible - the client will demand his money back - why should he pay while his competitors are all getting it free? - this business model will not work.
On Thu, Dec 30, 2010 at 12:32 PM, Kenneth Gonsalves lawgon@thenilgiris.comwrote:
On Wed, 2010-12-29 at 22:33 +0530, Narendra Sisodiya wrote:
Free Software aka Freedom Software or Example software licensed under GPLv3 or similar license never stop you to sell a software. For example If you purchase a custom GPLv3 software from me, I will charge you heavily.
remind me never to purchase from you ;-) Jokes aside, what you are trying to say is this: I write software for someone who pays me for it. Although I write it, since the developement is paid for by my client, he has the copyright over it. He can decide to release it under any license, or to keep it proprietary. I do not have any rights over the software. This is one way to make money (that is how I make a living - although I do not charge Narendra)
It means, you are not getting money from selling FOSS. You are getting money from selling your software to some customer who completely own your software. I too do sometimes but what is the difference between a developer sitting in a proprietary firm who produce non-free software and you. Both are getting paid for writing code which other own. In your case, the customer, in other case, the company.
The second scenario is that I write the software on my own time. I own the copyright. I can sell it to the client for a fee. But here is the catch: If I have licensed it under the GPL, the moment I sell it to the client, I have distributed it - and hence am obliged to give a copy of the source code to anyone who asks. So only the client pays for it, the rest of the world gets it free. This is impossible - the client will demand his money back - why should he pay while his competitors are all getting it free? - this business model will not work.
-- regards KG http://lawgon.livejournal.com Coimbatore LUG rox http://ilugcbe.techstud.org/
On Thu, 2010-12-30 at 13:50 +0530, Narendra Sisodiya wrote:
remind me never to purchase from you ;-) Jokes aside, what you are trying to say is this: I write software for someone who pays me for
it.
Although I write it, since the developement is paid for by my
client, he
has the copyright over it. He can decide to release it under any license, or to keep it proprietary. I do not have any rights over
the
software. This is one way to make money (that is how I make a living
although I do not charge Narendra)
It means, you are not getting money from selling FOSS. You are getting money from selling your software to some customer who completely own your software. I too do sometimes but what is the difference between a developer sitting in a proprietary firm who produce non-free software and you. Both are getting paid for writing code which other own. In your case, the customer, in other case, the company.
my business model is to tell the customer that if he develops his software in a public repository as open source, he is likely to get outside developers also who will work for free (if the software is any good). Then I and other free lancers get paid to develop the software under an open source license (usually BSD). If outside developers are interested, we sometimes pay them also for their contributions. As long as software is not the core business of the client, this model works.
On Thu, Dec 30, 2010 at 2:07 PM, Kenneth Gonsalves lawgon@thenilgiris.comwrote:
On Thu, 2010-12-30 at 13:50 +0530, Narendra Sisodiya wrote:
remind me never to purchase from you ;-) Jokes aside, what you are trying to say is this: I write software for someone who pays me for
it.
Although I write it, since the developement is paid for by my
client, he
has the copyright over it. He can decide to release it under any license, or to keep it proprietary. I do not have any rights over
the
software. This is one way to make money (that is how I make a living
although I do not charge Narendra)
It means, you are not getting money from selling FOSS. You are getting money from selling your software to some customer who completely own your software. I too do sometimes but what is the difference between a developer sitting in a proprietary firm who produce non-free software and you. Both are getting paid for writing code which other own. In your case, the customer, in other case, the company.
my business model is to tell the customer that if he develops his software in a public repository as open source, he is likely to get outside developers also who will work for free (if the software is any good). Then I and other free lancers get paid to develop the software under an open source license (usually BSD). If outside developers are interested, we sometimes pay them also for their contributions. As long as software is not the core business of the client, this model works.
Thanks ! Indeed a good model. :) Also we got the reason of BSD affection :)
On Thu, 2010-12-30 at 21:15 +0530, Narendra Sisodiya wrote:
interested, we sometimes pay them also for their contributions. As
long
as software is not the core business of the client, this model
works.
Thanks ! Indeed a good model. :) Also we got the reason of BSD affection :)
I was doing this in a small way - now I have got an order which should come to about 50 Lakh. The software is being developed in the open. Developers are being invited to participate and can bill upto 40K a month.
On Thursday 30 Dec 2010, Kenneth Gonsalves wrote:
[snip] The second scenario is that I write the software on my own time. I own the copyright. I can sell it to the client for a fee. But here is the catch: If I have licensed it under the GPL, the moment I sell it to the client, I have distributed it - and hence am obliged to give a copy of the source code to anyone who asks. So only the client pays for it, the rest of the world gets it free. This is impossible - the client will demand his money back - why should he pay while his competitors are all getting it free? - this business model will not work.
That's because your business model is based on a flawed premise: that by giving a GPL software to one person you are obliged to share it with everyone in the world. You need never ever distribute your GPL software if you don't wish to, and if you ever do you are only obliged to give the source code of the software TO THE PERSON YOU GIVE THE SOFTWARE TO, no one else.
I have developed GPL software for clients, and given them the source code, and that works just fine. If they choose to further redistribute the software, they also have to follow the terms of the GPL; if they don't want to redistribute under the GPL, they have to get me to change the original licence of the software I developed, and I can then charge a fee or make a profit sharing agreement if I so choose.
So with the GPL everyone wins. The client wins because she has the source code of the software and is not dependent on the original author for maintenance. The original developer wins because if the client wants to make money from selling the software the developer can ask for a cut for changing the licence.
Regards,
-- Raj
2010/12/30 Raj Mathur (राज माथुर) raju@linux-delhi.org:
So with the GPL everyone wins. The client wins because she has the source code of the software and is not dependent on the original author for maintenance. The original developer wins because if the client wants to make money from selling the software the developer can ask for a cut for changing the licence.
True. The GPL was designed to ensure wins for both the developer and the end user. The party that loses in this system is the distributor - he now has to play by the rules, or drop out of the system altogether. GPL-violations.org tracks those distributors who are being difficult about it.
Binand
On Friday 31 December 2010 09:02:44 Binand Sethumadhavan wrote:
2010/12/30 Raj Mathur (राज माथुर) raju@linux-delhi.org:
So with the GPL everyone wins. The client wins because she has the source code of the software and is not dependent on the original author for maintenance. The original developer wins because if the client wants to make money from selling the software the developer can ask for a cut for changing the licence.
True. The GPL was designed to ensure wins for both the developer and the end user. The party that loses in this system is the distributor - he now has to play by the rules, or drop out of the system altogether. GPL-violations.org tracks those distributors who are being difficult about it.
Only violators are losers. Whoever abides by the rules and tailors his business to the rules wins, including distributors - in a way everyone is a minor contibutor to the overall system and everyone is a distributor, including distro vendors like canonical, slackware, whoever. Whiccever way you look at it, everyone is taking orders of magnitude more than they are putting in. The best part is this is intended by design.
Binand
On Fri, 2010-12-31 at 14:01 +0530, jtd wrote:
True. The GPL was designed to ensure wins for both the developer and the end user. The party that loses in this system is the distributor - he now has to play by the rules, or drop out of the system altogether. GPL-violations.org tracks those distributors who are being difficult about it.
Only violators are losers. Whoever abides by the rules and tailors his business to the rules wins, including distributors - in a way everyone is a minor contibutor to the overall system and everyone is a distributor, including distro vendors like canonical, slackware, whoever. Whiccever way you look at it, everyone is taking orders of magnitude more than they are putting in. The best part is this is intended by design.
right now we are discussing a perversion of the GPL - keeping so-called GPL code private. I do not agree with much that Stallman says - but I *do* believe that he has drafted the GPL for the purpose of protecting the rights of a publisher of source code in the open. At least I hope so. If one keeps the source code private (between two individuals), then of what use is GPLing it (apart from bragging rights - 'I am a foss programmer because my code is GPLed').
On Friday 31 December 2010 15:18:59 Kenneth Gonsalves wrote:
On Fri, 2010-12-31 at 14:01 +0530, jtd wrote:
True. The GPL was designed to ensure wins for both the developer and the end user. The party that loses in this system is the distributor - he now has to play by the rules, or drop out of the system altogether. GPL-violations.org tracks those distributors who are being difficult about it.
Only violators are losers. Whoever abides by the rules and tailors his business to the rules wins, including distributors - in a way everyone is a minor contibutor to the overall system and everyone is a distributor, including distro vendors like canonical, slackware, whoever. Whiccever way you look at it, everyone is taking orders of magnitude more than they are putting in. The best part is this is intended by design.
but I *do* believe that he has drafted the GPL for the purpose of protecting the rights of a publisher of source code in the open. At least I hope so. If one keeps the source code private (between two individuals), then of what use is GPLing it (apart from bragging rights - 'I am a foss programmer because my code is GPLed').
True. Besides the whole point of the gpl is to get others to contribute. After all there are far more creative guys outside than inside.
On Thu, 2010-12-30 at 20:42 +0530, Raj Mathur (राज माथुर) wrote:
That's because your business model is based on a flawed premise: that by giving a GPL software to one person you are obliged to share it with everyone in the world.
my dear chap, I am talking about open source software - where the code is up in a public repository - as the key part of my business model is to get outside developers involved. It is not only the best model to develop good software at lower costs and sustain the app - it is also an affirmation of the stand that it is immoral to keep source code closed.
I am no expert on the GPL and it is quite possible that what you say is true - I have seen any number people/companies using the GPL to develop software in a closet - and keep it there. Which is why I avoid the GPL as restrictive of freedom.
On Friday 31 Dec 2010, Kenneth Gonsalves wrote:
On Thu, 2010-12-30 at 20:42 +0530, Raj Mathur (राज माथुर) wrote:
That's because your business model is based on a flawed premise: that by giving a GPL software to one person you are obliged to share it with everyone in the world.
my dear chap, I am talking about open source software - where the code is up in a public repository - as the key part of my business model is to get outside developers involved. It is not only the best model to develop good software at lower costs and sustain the app - it is also an affirmation of the stand that it is immoral to keep source code closed.
That's totally at variance with what you said earlier. I was responding to your original statement, which, to quote you, is:
The second scenario is that I write the software on my own time. I own the copyright. I can sell it to the client for a fee. But here is the catch: If I have licensed it under the GPL, the moment I sell it to the client, I have distributed it - and hence am obliged to give a copy of the source code to anyone who asks. So only the client pays for it, the rest of the world gets it free. This is impossible - the client will demand his money back - why should he pay while his competitors are all getting it free? - this business model will not work.
No mention of public repositories of open source there. I have no issue if you wish to make another point, but your original point has nothing to do with your follow-up.
I am no expert on the GPL and it is quite possible that what you say is true - I have seen any number people/companies using the GPL to develop software in a closet - and keep it there. Which is why I avoid the GPL as restrictive of freedom.
It appears that you're badly confused between development methodology and licence. To clarify, let me give you a couple of scenarios:
1. You develop your software on a public repository, asking for contributions from the public. As long as you have it under a FOSS licence (GPL, BSD, or any other), you cannot stop people from downloading the source and using it.
Again regardless of the licence, each person who downloads the source code from the repository can choose to keep it herself or redistribute it. She can also choose to keep modified versions of the code for herself or redistribute it.
2. You develop your software in private manner for a single client. Depending on which FOSS licence you choose -- copyleft (GPL) or open (BSD, etc.) -- your obligations to provide source code to your client will be different. If you have developed under the GPL, you are obliged to provide the source code of the package to the client once you give her the binaries. If under a non-copyleft licence, you don't have that obligation.
The GPL is obviously better in the second scenario, since your client will have the source and can make improvements or changes herself if she so desires. If the software is under a non-copyleft licence, the client may or may not get the source, depending on your contract and/or your whim.
In both scenarios, if the person who gets the source modifies it and redistributes modified binaries to other people, she is obliged to provide the modified source code too if the original software is under the GPL. If the original software is under a non-copyleft licence, she is NOT obliged to provide the source, and your software can be made or embedded into proprietary products.
I agree that software licensing is a complex issue, but there are enough resources available on the Internet to help anyone understand the difference between GPL vs non-GPL obligations, pros and cons of each type of licence, development methodologies, trademarks and copyrights and patents. I'd be glad to point you in the direction of a few introductory texts if you're still confused. As for the GPL being restrictive of freedom -- well, I have no comment since the belief obviously springs from a lack of understanding of licensing.
Regards,
-- Raj
On Friday 31 December 2010 21:54:01 Raj Mathur (राज माथुर) wrote:
On Friday 31 Dec 2010, Kenneth Gonsalves wrote:
On Thu, 2010-12-30 at 20:42 +0530, Raj Mathur (राज माथुर) wrote:
That's because your business model is based on a flawed premise: that by giving a GPL software to one person you are obliged to share it with everyone in the world.
my dear chap, I am talking about open source software - where the code is up in a public repository - as the key part of my business model is to get outside developers involved. It is not only the best model to develop good software at lower costs and sustain the app - it is also an affirmation of the stand that it is immoral to keep source code closed.
That's totally at variance with what you said earlier. I was responding
to your original statement, which, to quote you, is:
The second scenario is that I write the software on my own time.
I'd be glad to point you in the direction of a few introductory texts if you're still confused. As for the GPL being restrictive of freedom -- well, I have no comment since the belief obviously springs from a lack of understanding of licensing.
He is a lawyer by training.
On Fri, Dec 31, 2010 at 11:12 AM, Kenneth Gonsalves lawgon@thenilgiris.comwrote:
On Thu, 2010-12-30 at 20:42 +0530, Raj Mathur (राज माथुर) wrote:
That's because your business model is based on a flawed premise: that by giving a GPL software to one person you are obliged to share it with everyone in the world.
my dear chap, I am talking about open source software - where the code is up in a public repository - as the key part of my business model is to get outside developers involved. It is not only the best model to develop good software at lower costs and sustain the app - it is also an affirmation of the stand that it is immoral to keep source code closed.
I am no expert on the GPL and it is quite possible that what you say is true - I have seen any number people/companies using the GPL to develop software in a closet - and keep it there. Which is why I avoid the GPL as restrictive of freedom. -- regards KG
<fiction> Going to Book Library is a "restriction of freedom", I cannot create noise or speak loudly. Too bad, it prevent me to use my basic right to speak. That is my I call library is a place for restriction of freedom and I do not go to Libraries. </fiction>
2010/12/31 Narendra Sisodiya narendra@narendrasisodiya.com:
Going to Book Library is a "restriction of freedom", I cannot create noise or speak loudly. Too bad, it prevent me to use my basic right to speak. That is my I call library is a place for restriction of freedom and I do not go to Libraries.
Where did you get this "basic right to speak in a library" from?
Binand
On Fri, Dec 31, 2010 at 10:57 PM, Binand Sethumadhavan binand@gmail.comwrote:
2010/12/31 Narendra Sisodiya narendra@narendrasisodiya.com:
Going to Book Library is a "restriction of freedom", I cannot create
noise
or speak loudly. Too bad, it prevent me to use my basic right to speak.
That
is my I call library is a place for restriction of freedom and I do not
go
to Libraries.
Where did you get this "basic right to speak in a library" from?
It was a satire.. with an analogy that people make wrong perception on freedom
I don't have problem with BSD and nor with GPL. but I love GPL. but If somebody says that GPL is restriction to freedom then I must oppose because it is not true. GPL and viral license are designed so that evil company guys do not get extra-benefits over it. which is acceptable. BSD and Apache license is more attractive to company guy because he can find it good for faster development. for example - 4-5 mobile company and one big search engine company work together to create a mobile operating system which is not GPL, now, Other companies can take that code and add their proprietary addons on it to look it more attractive and extra feature.
On Saturday 01 January 2011 03:20:55 Narendra Sisodiya wrote:
On Fri, Dec 31, 2010 at 10:57 PM, Binand Sethumadhavan
binand@gmail.comwrote:
2010/12/31 Narendra Sisodiya narendra@narendrasisodiya.com:
Going to Book Library is a "restriction of freedom", I cannot create
noise
or speak loudly. Too bad, it prevent me to use my basic right to speak.
That
is my I call library is a place for restriction of freedom and I do not
go
to Libraries.
Where did you get this "basic right to speak in a library" from?
It was a satire.. with an analogy that people make wrong perception on freedom
I don't have problem with BSD and nor with GPL. but I love GPL. but If somebody says that GPL is restriction to freedom then I must oppose because it is not true. GPL and viral license are designed so that evil company guys do not get extra-benefits over it. which is acceptable. BSD and Apache license is more attractive to company guy because he can find it good for faster development. for example - 4-5 mobile company and one big search engine company work together to create a mobile operating system which is not GPL, now, Other companies can take that code and add their proprietary addons on it to look it more attractive and extra feature.
Except that it gets rooted and shredded and mangled, and the companies look like dumb and dumber. After a year or so of bitrot it really goes to the dogs.
On Sat, 2011-01-01 at 18:06 +0530, jtd wrote:
BSD and Apache license is more attractive to company guy because he can find it good for faster development. for example - 4-5 mobile company and one big search engine company work together to create a mobile operating system which is not GPL, now, Other companies can take that code and add their proprietary addons on it to look it more attractive and extra feature.
Except that it gets rooted and shredded and mangled, and the companies look like dumb and dumber. After a year or so of bitrot it really goes to the dogs.
like what has happened to Apache, python, postgresql, perl, php ...
On Monday 03 January 2011 12:26:42 Kenneth Gonsalves wrote:
On Sat, 2011-01-01 at 18:06 +0530, jtd wrote:
BSD and Apache license is more attractive to company guy because he can find it good for faster development. for example - 4-5 mobile company and one big search engine company work together to create a mobile operating system which is not GPL, now, Other companies can take that code and add their proprietary addons on it to look it more attractive and extra feature.
Except that it gets rooted and shredded and mangled, and the companies look like dumb and dumber. After a year or so of bitrot it really goes to the dogs.
like what has happened to Apache, python, postgresql, perl, php ...
I am talking of cell phones and taking source closed becuse the licence permits it. The "advantage " Narendra is referring to is illusory.
-- regards KG http://lawgon.livejournal.com Coimbatore LUG rox http://ilugcbe.techstud.org/
On Tue, 2011-01-04 at 11:31 +0530, jtd wrote:
like what has happened to Apache, python, postgresql, perl, php ...
I am talking of cell phones and taking source closed becuse the licence permits it. The "advantage " Narendra is referring to is illusory.
I have been asking you to comment on postgresql since 2003 - you are always dodging the issue.
please read the last paragraph:
http://www.postgresql.org/about/licence.html
On Tuesday 04 January 2011 13:06:51 Kenneth Gonsalves wrote:
On Tue, 2011-01-04 at 11:31 +0530, jtd wrote:
like what has happened to Apache, python, postgresql, perl, php ...
I am talking of cell phones and taking source closed becuse the licence permits it. The "advantage " Narendra is referring to is illusory.
I have been asking you to comment on postgresql since 2003 - you are always dodging the issue.
When did I dodge? Afair you never specifically asked me.
please read the last paragraph:
This is as liberal as it gets. Where is the problem. Except the "without fees" wording. Which is not much of a restriction. You can charge for the contents of the database that you will be creating. You can even make a binary only distro, which is not to my liking, but then if someone does not want to share his code, who cares. In line with most other open licences, you may be open to patent attacks.
On Tue, 2011-01-04 at 14:51 +0530, jtd wrote:
When did I dodge? Afair you never specifically asked me.
for the past 7 years every time this debate (GPL vs BSD) comes up I raise the question of postgresql, python and apache when you predict doom for all non-GPL projects
please read the last paragraph:
This is as liberal as it gets. Where is the problem. Except the "without fees" wording. Which is not much of a restriction. You can charge for the contents of the database that you will be creating. You can even make a binary only distro, which is not to my liking, but then if someone does not want to share his code, who cares. In line with most other open licences, you may be open to patent attacks.
are there any licenses that make one not open to patent attacks?
On Tuesday 04 January 2011 15:17:51 Kenneth Gonsalves wrote:
On Tue, 2011-01-04 at 14:51 +0530, jtd wrote:
When did I dodge? Afair you never specifically asked me.
for the past 7 years every time this debate (GPL vs BSD) comes up I raise the question of postgresql, python and apache when you predict doom for all non-GPL projects
That is not exactly inline with my view, which is most (not all) non gpl projects which allow binary only distribution, will fail. Only time will tell the extent to which my view is right or wrong.
are there any licenses that make one not open to patent attacks?
GPL V3.
On Tue, 2011-01-04 at 20:32 +0530, jtd wrote:
for the past 7 years every time this debate (GPL vs BSD) comes up I raise the question of postgresql, python and apache when you predict doom for all non-GPL projects
That is not exactly inline with my view, which is most (not all) non gpl projects which allow binary only distribution, will fail. Only time will tell the extent to which my view is right or wrong.
how much time do you need? python, perl have been there for 20 years, postgresql for about 15 years.
2011/1/4 jtd jtd@mtnl.net.in:
please read the last paragraph:
This is as liberal as it gets. Where is the problem. Except the "without fees" wording. Which is not much of a restriction.
Which last paragraph is that? I can see "without fees" only in this:
Permission to use, copy, modify, and distribute this software and its documentation for any purpose, without fee, and without a written agreement is hereby granted, provided that the above copyright notice and this paragraph and the following two paragraphs appear in all copies.
Can't see why you take exception to "without fees" here, or why you consider it a restriction.
Binand
PS: I thought the issue was the real last para - with the heading "Why not the GNU General Public License?".
On Tue, 2011-01-04 at 15:41 +0530, Binand Sethumadhavan wrote:
PS: I thought the issue was the real last para - with the heading "Why not the GNU General Public License?".
that is the last para I am referring to
On Sat, 2011-01-01 at 03:20 +0530, Narendra Sisodiya wrote:
I don't have problem with BSD and nor with GPL. but I love GPL. but If somebody says that GPL is restriction to freedom then I must oppose because it is not true. GPL and viral license are designed so that evil company guys do not get extra-benefits over it. which is acceptable.
like what happened to mysql
On Monday 03 Jan 2011, Kenneth Gonsalves wrote:
On Sat, 2011-01-01 at 03:20 +0530, Narendra Sisodiya wrote:
I don't have problem with BSD and nor with GPL. but I love GPL. but If somebody says that GPL is restriction to freedom then I must oppose because it is not true. GPL and viral license are designed so that evil company guys do not get extra-benefits over it. which is acceptable.
like what happened to mysql
Again, you are confused between licensing and copyright assignment. The MySQL problem happened because MySQL AB (and then Sun and then Oracle) insisted that all patch submitters hand over copyright to MySQL/Sun/Oracle. In other words, they refused to accept patches and features from developers unless the those developers made them (MySQL/Sun/Oracle) owners of the code. This is NOT the normal mode of working of a FOSS project; for instance, the Linux kernel is also licensed under the GPL but copyright/ownership of each portion of code remains with the original author.
MySQL's problem has nothing to do with the licence of the code. Ownership is ownership, regardless of the licence of the object owned.
Once again, I'll reiterate my offer of simple readings on the 'net that would help anyone to understand the critical differences between licensing, copyright, trademarks, patents and ownership of code/content. On the other hand, I cannot do anything for those who wish to remain ignorant so that they can continue to misinterpret things to strengthen their fallacious arguments.
Regards,
-- Raj
On Mon, 2011-01-03 at 12:42 +0530, Raj Mathur (राज माथुर) wrote:
like what happened to mysql
Again, you are confused between licensing and copyright assignment. The MySQL problem happened because MySQL AB (and then Sun and then Oracle) insisted that all patch submitters hand over copyright to MySQL/Sun/Oracle. In other words, they refused to accept patches and features from developers unless the those developers made them (MySQL/Sun/Oracle) owners of the code. This is NOT the normal mode of working of a FOSS project; for instance, the Linux kernel is also licensed under the GPL but copyright/ownership of each portion of code remains with the original author.
precisely - what sustains an open source project is nothing to do with the license. It is all about the methodology of development. Develop in the open - accept contributions and build a base of developers. The larger the base, the more secure the app is from hostile take over. Developing in a closet will result in the app being in danger of take over. Sqllite is developed with no license - it is in the public domain. Apache, postgresql and many many others are developed in BSD style licenses - but since they are developed in the open with a large base of contributors, they are also immune to take over - too many copyright owners.
An interesting thing is the so-called dual-licensed projects. Having a 'community' edition with limited functionality to serve a bait to buy the 'full version' which is proprietary. This is usually a massive con job. And strangely enough 99% of dual licensed projects use the GPL. I wonder why.
MySQL's problem has nothing to do with the licence of the code. Ownership is ownership, regardless of the licence of the object owned.
Once again, I'll reiterate my offer of simple readings on the 'net that would help anyone to understand the critical differences between licensing, copyright, trademarks, patents and ownership of code/content. On the other hand, I cannot do anything for those who wish to remain ignorant so that they can continue to misinterpret things to strengthen their fallacious arguments.
yes it is tragic how people refuse to read simple texts which would help them to understand - I feel your pain.
On Monday 03 Jan 2011, Kenneth Gonsalves wrote:
precisely - what sustains an open source project is nothing to do with the license. It is all about the methodology of development. Develop in the open - accept contributions and build a base of developers. The larger the base, the more secure the app is from hostile take over. Developing in a closet will result in the app being in danger of take over. Sqllite is developed with no license - it is in the public domain. Apache, postgresql and many many others are developed in BSD style licenses - but since they are developed in the open with a large base of contributors, they are also immune to take over - too many copyright owners.
So what exactly does this have to do with your original point vis-a-vis MySQL and GPL? As far as I can see, now you're talking about something else altogether. Please do enlighten me on how this has any relationship at all to your earlier statement (which I had responded to):
On Sat, 2011-01-01 at 03:20 +0530, Narendra Sisodiya wrote:
I don't have problem with BSD and nor with GPL. but I love GPL. but If somebody says that GPL is restriction to freedom then I must oppose because it is not true. GPL and viral license are designed so that evil company guys do not get extra-benefits over it. which is acceptable.
like what happened to mysql
Can you please be more clear: are we discussing the merits/demerits of licences, are we discussing copyright assignments, or are we discussing development methodologies? They are distinct (if related) fields, and I'd be glad to discuss any of them, if you could from e-mail to e-mail be consistent on which one is under discussion.
An interesting thing is the so-called dual-licensed projects. Having a 'community' edition with limited functionality to serve a bait to buy the 'full version' which is proprietary. This is usually a massive con job. And strangely enough 99% of dual licensed projects use the GPL. I wonder why.
Anyone with half a clue about licensing would understand why dual- licence entities prefer the GPL. Again, I'd be glad to discuss it, but I'm sure the next mail would be about some unrelated topic and nothing to do with anything discussed earlier in this thread, so I'll just save myself the effort.
Regards,
-- Raj
On Mon, 2011-01-03 at 15:58 +0530, Raj Mathur (राज माथुर) wrote:
On Monday 03 Jan 2011, Kenneth Gonsalves wrote:
precisely - what sustains an open source project is nothing to do with the license. It is all about the methodology of development. Develop in the open - accept contributions and build a base of developers. The larger the base, the more secure the app is from hostile take over. Developing in a closet will result in the app being in danger of take over. Sqllite is developed with no license - it is in the public domain. Apache, postgresql and many many others are developed in BSD style licenses - but since they are developed in the open with a large base of contributors, they are also immune to take over - too many copyright owners.
So what exactly does this have to do with your original point vis-a-vis MySQL and GPL? As far as I can see, now you're talking about something else altogether. Please do enlighten me on how this has any relationship at all to your earlier statement (which I had responded to):
anyone with half a brain can understand it - very simple. If you have a large pool of developers and you develop your software out in the open, it is immune to take over regardless of the license under which it is released. If you hog the copyright - then the app is ripe for take over at any time.
On Sat, 2011-01-01 at 03:20 +0530, Narendra Sisodiya wrote:
I don't have problem with BSD and nor with GPL. but I love GPL.
but
If somebody says that GPL is restriction to freedom then I must oppose because it is not true. GPL and viral license are designed so that evil company guys do not get extra-benefits over it. which is acceptable.
like what happened to mysql
Can you please be more clear: are we discussing the merits/demerits of licences, are we discussing copyright assignments, or are we discussing development methodologies? They are distinct (if related) fields, and I'd be glad to discuss any of them, if you could from e-mail to e-mail be consistent on which one is under discussion.
An interesting thing is the so-called dual-licensed projects. Having a 'community' edition with limited functionality to serve a bait to buy the 'full version' which is proprietary. This is usually a massive con job. And strangely enough 99% of dual licensed projects use the GPL. I wonder why.
Anyone with half a clue about licensing would understand why dual- licence entities prefer the GPL. Again, I'd be glad to discuss it,
please do - very curious to know why people who develop code in closets choose the GPL for their so-called 'community versions'.
but I'm sure the next mail would be about some unrelated topic and nothing to do with anything discussed earlier in this thread, so I'll just save myself the effort.
possibly I would not benefit from your wisdom - but I am sure there are a lot of people on this list who would.
On Monday 03 Jan 2011, Kenneth Gonsalves wrote:
please do - very curious to know why people who develop code in closets choose the GPL for their so-called 'community versions'.
It has nothing to do with developing code in closets or in the open. The reason why people who have dual-licensing models choose the GPL is:
People who make packages with libraries (or just libraries), like Qt used to be and MySQL is today, prefer the GPL for their libraries because then their product cannot be incorporated into a proprietary product. So if you are using, say, MySQL to develop your proprietary application you need to use the MySQL libraries for your app to interact with the database. Since the MySQL library is under the GPL, any code linked to it also must be under the GPL.
As a developer using any GPL platform as the base, you are left with only two choices:
1. Make your application also open under the GPL.
2. Make your application proprietary and try to get a proprietary licence from the platform owner. If there is a single owner (as in the case of MySQL), they can dual-license the the base product and sell you the same product under a proprietary licence that allows you to make proprietary products with the product. If there is no single owner (as in the case of the Linux kernel), you cannot make proprietary applications at all that use or link to the GPL code.
Of course, this only works because of the way the GPL works. If the original product (or its libraries) are under a non-copyleft licence, you can embed them in proprietary products in any case.
So finally, the situation boils down to this:
- If you don't care about people making proprietary products using your platform, don't use a copyleft licence.
- If you don't want people making proprietary products using your platform, use the GPL or another copyleft licence. That will ensure that all derivatives remain open, since the GPL (and its copyleft brethren) is the only licence that guarantees openness.
- If you want to charge people for making proprietary products using your platform and still want to retain the "FOSS" tag, use the GPL, take unilateral control of the code base, and dual license the platform for open and proprietary use. This is what MySQL did and what Canonical is trying to do now -- get all contributor copyrights assigned to itself.
Regards,
-- Raj
2011/1/3 Raj Mathur (राज माथुर) raju@linux-delhi.org:
People who make packages with libraries (or just libraries), like Qt used to be and MySQL is today, prefer the GPL for their libraries because then their product cannot be incorporated into a proprietary product. So if you are using, say, MySQL to develop your proprietary application you need to use the MySQL libraries for your app to interact with the database. Since the MySQL library is under the GPL, any code linked to it also must be under the GPL.
one small doubt... Let assume ls, cat and other command are under GPLv2 If somebody write bash script and use these command for coding, Do he/she has to release it under GPL.
2011/1/3 Narendra Sisodiya narendra@narendrasisodiya.com:
Let assume ls, cat and other command are under GPLv2 If somebody write bash script and use these command for coding, Do he/she has to release it under GPL.
No. Not even if he writes a C program that execve()'s ls or cat. But if he uses the source code of ls to implement a function in his code, then yes - he has to release it under GPL.
Binand
On Mon, Jan 3, 2011 at 8:12 PM, Binand Sethumadhavan binand@gmail.com wrote:
2011/1/3 Narendra Sisodiya narendra@narendrasisodiya.com:
Let assume ls, cat and other command are under GPLv2 If somebody write bash script and use these command for coding, Do he/she has to release it under GPL.
No. Not even if he writes a C program that execve()'s ls or cat.
Thanks, but I was confused by linking part. So this is not linking.. this is direct "use" or just a "call".
But if he uses the source code of ls to implement a function in his code, then yes - he has to release it under GPL.
That's obvious fact..
On Mon, 2011-01-03 at 18:34 +0530, Raj Mathur (राज माथुर) wrote:
- If you don't care about people making proprietary products using
your platform, don't use a copyleft licence.
thats me
2011/1/3 Raj Mathur (राज माथुर) raju@linux-delhi.org
People who make packages with libraries (or just libraries), like Qt used to be and MySQL is today, prefer the GPL for their libraries because then their product cannot be incorporated into a proprietary product. So if you are using, say, MySQL to develop your proprietary application you need to use the MySQL libraries for your app to interact with the database. Since the MySQL library is under the GPL, any code linked to it also must be under the GPL.
Agree with overall message of this email, just correcting a minor fact.
MySQL code is GPL, but MySQL Library code is LGPL.
That is specifically to address this situation. If you are creating a product:
1. If product uses MySQL engine in embedded mode, product MUST be GPL (or have license from Oracle for redistribution) 2. If product only uses client libraries, it need not be GPL. It can even be BSD licensed
Details : http://www.mysql.com/about/legal/licensing/foss-exception/
-Shamit
On Tuesday 04 Jan 2011, Shamit Verma wrote:
MySQL code is GPL, but MySQL Library code is LGPL.
That is specifically to address this situation. If you are creating a product:
- If product uses MySQL engine in embedded mode, product MUST be GPL
(or have license from Oracle for redistribution) 2. If product only uses client libraries, it need not be GPL. It can even be BSD licensed
Details : http://www.mysql.com/about/legal/licensing/foss-exception/
The exception is like the LGPL but is not actually exactly the LGPL. According to the LGPL, you can link an LGPL library into a proprietary product provided you either (a) do not change the library or (b) ship the source of the modified library along with the rest of your product. Note that the LGPL does not force you to expose the rest of the code of your product.
The MySQL library code is GPL, but the exception permits you to link another non-GPL FOSS (Note: NOT proprietary) application with the library. If the exception weren't present, only GPL applications could link with the MySQL library.
In other words, the LGPL lets you link proprietary code with the library, while the MySQL exception only lets you link other FOSS code with the library. The MySQL library remains under the GPL and you cannot link that with proprietary code.
That's my reading of the exception, I'm open to correction if I've got it grossly wrong.
Regards,
-- Raj
2011/1/4 Raj Mathur (राज माथुर) raju@linux-delhi.org
In other words, the LGPL lets you link proprietary code with the library, while the MySQL exception only lets you link other FOSS code with the library. The MySQL library remains under the GPL and you cannot link that with proprietary code.
That's my reading of the exception, I'm open to correction if I've got it grossly wrong.
Its bit more complicated then that. This exception opens up the possibility to use BSD license. Which enables software to be shipped without having to distribute code.
Way to go about doing this is to have a wrapper around client library which is BSD. This wrapper can be distributed without having to open up rest of package.
-Shamit
On Mon, Jan 3, 2011 at 4:58 PM, Kenneth Gonsalves lawgon@thenilgiris.comwrote:
please do - very curious to know why people who develop code in closets choose the GPL for their so-called 'community versions'.
So that someone can not take community version of their code and create another commercial clone. If somebody does that, that clone would have to open the source under GPL.
-Shamit
On Tue, 2011-01-04 at 22:30 +0530, Shamit Verma wrote:
please do - very curious to know why people who develop code in
closets
choose the GPL for their so-called 'community versions'.
So that someone can not take community version of their code and create another commercial clone. If somebody does that, that clone would have to open the source under GPL.
so the purpose of GPL is to prevent people from making proprietary clones? I totally fail to understand the rationale behind this. If I have a plot of land, and someone encroaches on it - then I no longer have the land, unless I evict him. But software? Even if someone takes a copy and makes it closed - I still have my copy. So what do I lose? Software is not a commodity that can be bought and sold. Whether I give my software to someone, or sell it - I still have it on my repo, on my hard disk, on forks and on my backup. Why should I worry about it?
On Wed, Jan 5, 2011 at 1:21 PM, Kenneth Gonsalves lawgon@thenilgiris.comwrote:
so the purpose of GPL is to prevent people from making proprietary clones? I totally fail to understand the rationale behind this. If I have a plot of land, and someone encroaches on it - then I no longer have the land, unless I evict him. But software? Even if someone takes a copy and makes it closed - I still have my copy. So what do I lose? Software is not a commodity that can be bought and sold. Whether I give my software to someone, or sell it - I still have it on my repo, on my hard disk, on forks and on my backup. Why should I worry about it? --
So that people who benefit from your efforts "have to" contribute back by giving access to source code for the enhancements.
Case in point, OSX. Linux/BSD do not have a desktop environment comparable to OSX. OSX is developed on top of BSD. If BSD license had terms similar to Linux, Apple would have had to provide source code for enhancements. With that, Linux would have benefited from a better user experience.
-Shamit
On Wed, 2011-01-05 at 13:44 +0530, Shamit Verma wrote:
So that people who benefit from your efforts "have to" contribute back by giving access to source code for the enhancements.
the idea of *forcing* people to contribute is repugnant to me. They should have the freedom to choose whether to contribute back or not. BSD gives them the choice.
Case in point, OSX. Linux/BSD do not have a desktop environment comparable to OSX. OSX is developed on top of BSD. If BSD license had terms similar to Linux, Apple would have had to provide source code for enhancements. With that, Linux would have benefited from a better user experience.
I have used OSX for nearly three years and can testify that their desktop environment sucks big time compared to linux - no great loss.
On 01/05/2011 02:05 PM, Kenneth Gonsalves wrote:
On Wed, 2011-01-05 at 13:44 +0530, Shamit Verma wrote:
So that people who benefit from your efforts "have to" contribute back by giving access to source code for the enhancements.
the idea of *forcing* people to contribute is repugnant to me. They should have the freedom to choose whether to contribute back or not. BSD gives them the choice.
The subtle thing about the GPL requirement is you are not *forced* to contribute back if decide not to redistribute. The core principle here is extend to your users the same courtesy that you received -- which IMHO is not a repugnant idea.
Philosophy aside tho', even engineering wise, it is more efficient when people contribute back since one does not spend time reinventing (reimplementing?) the (improved) wheel.
Case in point, OSX. Linux/BSD do not have a desktop environment comparable to OSX. OSX is developed on top of BSD. If BSD license had terms similar to Linux, Apple would have had to provide source code for enhancements. With that, Linux would have benefited from a better user experience.
I have used OSX for nearly three years and can testify that their desktop environment sucks big time compared to linux - no great loss.
I could twist this into a variety of other flames (like KDE Vs Gnome) ...but am too old for it now :)
cheers, - steve
On Wed, Jan 5, 2011 at 2:05 PM, Kenneth Gonsalves lawgon@thenilgiris.comwrote:
I have used OSX for nearly three years and can testify that their desktop environment sucks big time compared to linux - no great loss.
That might be your experience and opinion, but majority of users feel otherwise. OSX on desktop and mobile (iOS) is highly regarded for user experience.
For statistical proof, look at demand of iOS devices.
-Shamit
On Wed, 2011-01-05 at 14:42 +0530, Shamit Verma wrote:
On Wed, Jan 5, 2011 at 2:05 PM, Kenneth Gonsalves lawgon@thenilgiris.comwrote:
I have used OSX for nearly three years and can testify that their desktop environment sucks big time compared to linux - no great
loss.
That might be your experience and opinion, but majority of users feel otherwise. OSX on desktop and mobile (iOS) is highly regarded for user experience.
it is possible - may be I am not dumb enough to appreciate it.
On Wednesday 05 January 2011 03:31 PM, Kenneth Gonsalves wrote:
On Wed, 2011-01-05 at 14:42 +0530, Shamit Verma wrote:
That might be your experience and opinion, but majority of users feel otherwise. OSX on desktop and mobile (iOS) is highly regarded for user experience.
it is possible - may be I am not dumb enough to appreciate it.
No name calling please. Keep it technical.
On Wed, 2011-01-05 at 22:56 +0530, Rony wrote:
On Wednesday 05 January 2011 03:31 PM, Kenneth Gonsalves wrote:
On Wed, 2011-01-05 at 14:42 +0530, Shamit Verma wrote:
That might be your experience and opinion, but majority of users
feel
otherwise. OSX on desktop and mobile (iOS) is highly regarded for
user
experience.
it is possible - may be I am not dumb enough to appreciate it.
No name calling please. Keep it technical.
where is the name calling? I am just echoing a legitimate view that doing everything through GUI without knowing what you are doing dumbs down the user. (and now this will turn into a CLI vs GUI flame).
On Thursday 06 January 2011 12:51 PM, Kenneth Gonsalves wrote:
On Wed, 2011-01-05 at 22:56 +0530, Rony wrote:
On Wednesday 05 January 2011 03:31 PM, Kenneth Gonsalves wrote:
it is possible - may be I am not dumb enough to appreciate it.
No name calling please. Keep it technical.
where is the name calling? I am just echoing a legitimate view that doing everything through GUI without knowing what you are doing dumbs down the user. (and now this will turn into a CLI vs GUI flame).
When we call someone's choice 'dumb' we are restricting that person's freedom to make a choice. Users may simply want to use the software and not be concerned with its internal working. If the software is bad then flame it, not the person who may have his own reasons for using it.
On Thu, 2011-01-06 at 17:59 +0530, Rony wrote:
On Thursday 06 January 2011 12:51 PM, Kenneth Gonsalves wrote:
On Wed, 2011-01-05 at 22:56 +0530, Rony wrote:
On Wednesday 05 January 2011 03:31 PM, Kenneth Gonsalves wrote:
it is possible - may be I am not dumb enough to appreciate it.
No name calling please. Keep it technical.
where is the name calling? I am just echoing a legitimate view that doing everything through GUI without knowing what you are doing
dumbs
down the user. (and now this will turn into a CLI vs GUI flame).
When we call someone's choice 'dumb' we are restricting that person's freedom to make a choice. Users may simply want to use the software and not be concerned with its internal working. If the software is bad then flame it, not the person who may have his own reasons for using it.
ok - I will change that to: 'maybe I am not intelligent enough to appreciate it'. Happy?
On Fri, Jan 7, 2011 at 11:26 AM, Kenneth Gonsalves lawgon@thenilgiris.comwrote:
On Thu, 2011-01-06 at 17:59 +0530, Rony wrote:
On Thursday 06 January 2011 12:51 PM, Kenneth Gonsalves wrote:
On Wed, 2011-01-05 at 22:56 +0530, Rony wrote:
On Wednesday 05 January 2011 03:31 PM, Kenneth Gonsalves wrote:
it is possible - may be I am not dumb enough to appreciate it.
No name calling please. Keep it technical.
where is the name calling? I am just echoing a legitimate view that doing everything through GUI without knowing what you are doing
dumbs
down the user. (and now this will turn into a CLI vs GUI flame).
When we call someone's choice 'dumb' we are restricting that person's freedom to make a choice. Users may simply want to use the software and not be concerned with its internal working. If the software is bad then flame it, not the person who may have his own reasons for using it.
ok - I will change that to: 'maybe I am not intelligent enough to appreciate it'. Happy?
it is not about any individual happiness. it is about 'fixing' the vote. Should not happen in a democracy.
On Sat, 2011-01-08 at 00:43 +0530, Rony Bill wrote:
ok - I will change that to: 'maybe I am not intelligent enough to appreciate it'. Happy?
it is not about any individual happiness. it is about 'fixing' the vote. Should not happen in a democracy.
to be frank I have no idea what you are talking about
On Saturday 08 January 2011 07:16 AM, Kenneth Gonsalves wrote:
On Sat, 2011-01-08 at 00:43 +0530, Rony Bill wrote:
ok - I will change that to: 'maybe I am not intelligent enough to appreciate it'. Happy?
it is not about any individual happiness. it is about 'fixing' the vote. Should not happen in a democracy.
to be frank I have no idea what you are talking about
You cannot coerce someone to make a choice that is favorable to you, with the threat of flaming or name calling. It is similar to allowing people to vote but with a sword hanging over their heads if their choice is different from yours. It becomes a 'fixed' vote. Calling someone dumb because his choice did not match yours is the issue of discussion.
On Wed, Jan 5, 2011 at 2:05 PM, Kenneth Gonsalves lawgon@thenilgiris.com wrote:
On Wed, 2011-01-05 at 13:44 +0530, Shamit Verma wrote:
So that people who benefit from your efforts "have to" contribute back by giving access to source code for the enhancements.
the idea of *forcing* people to contribute is repugnant to me. They should have the freedom to choose whether to contribute back or not. BSD gives them the choice.
what else to says - steve and other guys have well explained the "Reason" for this so called 'forcing' If BSD guys like to help every "daam insect" on planet then please "always code in public domain" No restriction atall.
On Wed, Jan 5, 2011 at 3:46 PM, Narendra Sisodiya narendra@narendrasisodiya.com wrote:
On Wed, Jan 5, 2011 at 2:05 PM, Kenneth Gonsalves lawgon@thenilgiris.com wrote:
On Wed, 2011-01-05 at 13:44 +0530, Shamit Verma wrote:
So that people who benefit from your efforts "have to" contribute back by giving access to source code for the enhancements.
the idea of *forcing* people to contribute is repugnant to me. They should have the freedom to choose whether to contribute back or not. BSD gives them the choice.
what else to says - steve and other guys have well explained the "Reason" for this so called 'forcing' If BSD guys like to help every "daam insect" on planet then please "always code in public domain" No restriction atall.
Also - Your perception on 'freedom is wrong' - you try speak from a hill where you says -- "lets try to work in a system every developer can edit and use code in any manner and that include the evil guys too. look at small BSD devilish logo" GPLs guys speak from a hill where they want "freedom of code" and make sure it should reach to maximum.
On Wed, 2011-01-05 at 15:54 +0530, Narendra Sisodiya wrote:
what else to says - steve and other guys have well explained the "Reason" for this so called 'forcing' If BSD guys like to help every "daam insect" on planet then please "always code in public domain" No restriction atall.
Also - Your perception on 'freedom is wrong' - you try speak from a hill where you says -- "lets try to work in a system every developer can edit and use code in any manner and that include the evil guys too. look at small BSD devilish logo" GPLs guys speak from a hill where they want "freedom of code" and make sure it should reach to maximum.
come to the point - you are the guy who is having so much fun enjoying the real freedom given to you by jquery
On Wed, Jan 5, 2011 at 4:17 PM, Kenneth Gonsalves lawgon@thenilgiris.com wrote:
On Wed, 2011-01-05 at 15:54 +0530, Narendra Sisodiya wrote:
what else to says - steve and other guys have well explained the "Reason" for this so called 'forcing' If BSD guys like to help every "daam insect" on planet then please "always code in public domain" No restriction atall.
Also - Your perception on 'freedom is wrong' - you try speak from a hill where you says -- "lets try to work in a system every developer can edit and use code in any manner and that include the evil guys too. look at small BSD devilish logo" GPLs guys speak from a hill where they want "freedom of code" and make sure it should reach to maximum.
come to the point - you are the guy who is having so much fun enjoying the real freedom given to you by jquery
jQuery is fun because it has so lots of plugins and very easy development procedure. cross platform is a +ve. jQuery is GPL+MIT , its dual license. One cannot hide JavaScript code. http://blogs.msdn.com/b/dorischen/archive/2010/08/27/top-8-reasons-why-jquer... Success of jQuery do not comes from its license. (IMHO). also many plugins and other code I see are also dual licensed like jQuery.
On Wed, Jan 5, 2011 at 6:04 PM, Narendra Sisodiya narendra@narendrasisodiya.com wrote:
On Wed, Jan 5, 2011 at 4:17 PM, Kenneth Gonsalves lawgon@thenilgiris.com wrote:
On Wed, 2011-01-05 at 15:54 +0530, Narendra Sisodiya wrote:
what else to says - steve and other guys have well explained the "Reason" for this so called 'forcing' If BSD guys like to help every "daam insect" on planet then please "always code in public domain" No restriction atall.
Also - Your perception on 'freedom is wrong' - you try speak from a hill where you says -- "lets try to work in a system every developer can edit and use code in any manner and that include the evil guys too. look at small BSD devilish logo" GPLs guys speak from a hill where they want "freedom of code" and make sure it should reach to maximum.
come to the point - you are the guy who is having so much fun enjoying the real freedom given to you by jquery
jQuery is fun because it has so lots of plugins and very easy development procedure. cross platform is a +ve. jQuery is GPL+MIT , its dual license. One cannot hide JavaScript code. http://blogs.msdn.com/b/dorischen/archive/2010/08/27/top-8-reasons-why-jquer... Success of jQuery do not comes from its license. (IMHO). also many plugins and other code I see are also dual licensed like jQuery.
Some more point i was to express : jQuery is a API or Library which eveyone can use, so there is no point in taking its code and making a proprietary API, so jQuery example we can not compare with a Software or Operating system which is MIT/BSD. One cannot hide source code of jQuery or Javascript, so it is different then the software which are shipped into binary format. Also, Developer-base (number of developers) who write and use jQuery is very large. For as long as the nature and purpose of jQuery concerned , I admit, MIT+GPL was most suitable license for jQuery. But If I were given the choice to make an application using jQuery, then I will always prefer GPL or AGPL...
On Wed, 2011-01-05 at 20:27 +0530, Narendra Sisodiya wrote:
But If I were given the choice to make an application using jQuery, then I will always prefer GPL or AGPL...
so the authors and contributors to jquery are idiots?
On Thu, Jan 6, 2011 at 12:16 PM, Kenneth Gonsalves lawgon@thenilgiris.com wrote:
On Wed, 2011-01-05 at 20:27 +0530, Narendra Sisodiya wrote:
But If I were given the choice to make an application using jQuery, then I will always prefer GPL or AGPL...
so the authors and contributors to jquery are idiots?
See, license of jQuery is best combo. I like it. But I am saying, If I write any "application" using jQuery, then I will release it under GPL.
On Thu, 2011-01-06 at 13:33 +0530, Narendra Sisodiya wrote:
On Thu, Jan 6, 2011 at 12:16 PM, Kenneth Gonsalves lawgon@thenilgiris.com wrote:
On Wed, 2011-01-05 at 20:27 +0530, Narendra Sisodiya wrote:
But If I were given the choice to make an application using jQuery, then I will always prefer GPL or AGPL...
so the authors and contributors to jquery are idiots?
See, license of jQuery is best combo. I like it. But I am saying, If I write any "application" using jQuery, then I will release it under GPL.
and if you write one modifying jquery? would you respect the choice of the authors and dual license it? or will you release it under GPL?
On Thu, Jan 6, 2011 at 1:50 PM, Kenneth Gonsalves lawgon@thenilgiris.com wrote:
On Thu, 2011-01-06 at 13:33 +0530, Narendra Sisodiya wrote:
On Thu, Jan 6, 2011 at 12:16 PM, Kenneth Gonsalves lawgon@thenilgiris.com wrote:
On Wed, 2011-01-05 at 20:27 +0530, Narendra Sisodiya wrote:
But If I were given the choice to make an application using jQuery, then I will always prefer GPL or AGPL...
so the authors and contributors to jquery are idiots?
See, license of jQuery is best combo. I like it. But I am saying, If I write any "application" using jQuery, then I will release it under GPL.
and if you write one modifying jquery? would you respect the choice of the authors and dual license it? or will you release it under GPL?
If I wrote jQuery then I would have released under same GPL+MIT license..
On Wed, 2011-01-05 at 18:04 +0530, Narendra Sisodiya wrote:
come to the point - you are the guy who is having so much fun
enjoying
the real freedom given to you by jquery
jQuery is fun because it has so lots of plugins and very easy development procedure. cross platform is a +ve. jQuery is GPL+MIT , its dual license.
http://jquery.org/license <----- that is why so many people contribute
On Wednesday 05 Jan 2011, Kenneth Gonsalves wrote:
so the purpose of GPL is to prevent people from making proprietary clones? I totally fail to understand the rationale behind this. If I have a plot of land, and someone encroaches on it - then I no longer have the land, unless I evict him. But software? Even if someone takes a copy and makes it closed - I still have my copy. So what do I lose? Software is not a commodity that can be bought and sold. Whether I give my software to someone, or sell it - I still have it on my repo, on my hard disk, on forks and on my backup. Why should I worry about it?
Because you want the benefits of other peoples' changes to your software to reach everyone? If I write a free utility to calculate PI up to a million digits, and someone else modifies it to calculate it up to a billion digits, I would want that modified utility and the enhanced techniques it uses to also be available for free.
In other words, I don't want Apple to take my shiny new McDonalds finder program and make it into a sexy proprietary application which only registered Apple users can download for a fee.
You may agree or disagree with that viewpoint but you cannot question its validity.
Regards,
-- Raj
On Wed, 2011-01-05 at 13:44 +0530, Raj Mathur (राज माथुर) wrote:
You may agree or disagree with that viewpoint but you cannot question its validity.
I can and will - it is against freedom and it is treating software as a commodity to be rationed out to only those who accept restrictions.
On Wednesday 05 Jan 2011, Kenneth Gonsalves wrote:
On Wed, 2011-01-05 at 13:44 +0530, Raj Mathur (राज माथुर) wrote:
You may agree or disagree with that viewpoint but you cannot question its validity.
I can and will - it is against freedom and it is treating software as a commodity to be rationed out to only those who accept restrictions.
"against freedom"? That's like saying that a law preventing me from chaining you up is against my freedom to chain people up! Preventing people from creating restrictions is not a restriction, except in a very twisted world view.
Anyway, I'm not getting into a mindless GPL vs BSD debate here. I personally believe that a freedom extends only as far as it doesn't impact on another freedom, and the the GPL is the best way to preserve the freedom and openness of software. You are welcome to disagree as long and as loud as you wish, I'm done.
Regards,
-- Raj
2011/1/5 Kenneth Gonsalves lawgon@thenilgiris.com:
have the land, unless I evict him. But software? Even if someone takes a copy and makes it closed - I still have my copy. So what do I lose?
You perhaps don't lose anything - but consider person A, who takes the software from you - full source code and freedom, and person B, who takes the software from your friend who made it closed - no source code or freedoms. Person B loses out in comparison to person A. Your releasing the software under GPL ensures that both persons A & B get the same deal.
Software is not a commodity that can be bought and sold. Whether I give my software to someone, or sell it - I still have it on my repo, on my hard disk, on forks and on my backup. Why should I worry about it?
It depends on whether you worry about the fate of persons A and B above. If you do, you'll release your code under GPL. If you don't care, you wouldn't. That's all to it.
Binand
On Wed, 2011-01-05 at 13:46 +0530, Binand Sethumadhavan wrote:
2011/1/5 Kenneth Gonsalves lawgon@thenilgiris.com:
have the land, unless I evict him. But software? Even if someone
takes a
copy and makes it closed - I still have my copy. So what do I lose?
You perhaps don't lose anything - but consider person A, who takes the software from you - full source code and freedom, and person B, who takes the software from your friend who made it closed - no source code or freedoms.
then B is an ass - he should have taken it from me. The fact that A takes my code and closes it only applies to the copy A has - my copy is still open.
2011/1/5 Kenneth Gonsalves lawgon@thenilgiris.com:
You perhaps don't lose anything - but consider person A, who takes the software from you - full source code and freedom, and person B, who takes the software from your friend who made it closed - no source code or freedoms.
then B is an ass - he should have taken it from me. The fact that A takes my code and closes it only applies to the copy A has - my copy is still open.
In the real world, your friend is $megacorp with a world-wide supply chain, retail store presence even in little towns and $$$ in marketing budget to burn. B is someone who just needs to solve a problem yesterday, goes to nearest store and picks what his television tells him is the best software since /bin/true.
Binand
On Wed, 2011-01-05 at 14:44 +0530, Binand Sethumadhavan wrote:
then B is an ass - he should have taken it from me. The fact that A takes my code and closes it only applies to the copy A has - my copy
is
still open.
In the real world, your friend is $megacorp with a world-wide supply chain, retail store presence even in little towns and $$$ in marketing budget to burn. B is someone who just needs to solve a problem yesterday, goes to nearest store and picks what his television tells him is the best software since /bin/true.
I wrote this parable some time back: http://lawgon.livejournal.com/68802.html
On 01/05/2011 02:12 PM, Kenneth Gonsalves wrote:
On Wed, 2011-01-05 at 13:46 +0530, Binand Sethumadhavan wrote:
2011/1/5 Kenneth Gonsalveslawgon@thenilgiris.com:
have the land, unless I evict him. But software? Even if someone
takes a
copy and makes it closed - I still have my copy. So what do I lose?
You perhaps don't lose anything - but consider person A, who takes the software from you - full source code and freedom, and person B, who takes the software from your friend who made it closed - no source code or freedoms.
then B is an ass - he should have taken it from me. The fact that A takes my code and closes it only applies to the copy A has - my copy is still open.
Let's us assume that A is smarter than you (OMG ! is that even possible ??) and has added stuff that you cannot implement independently for another year or so -- you have effectively killed B's freedom (of /choice/) -- he now either has to give up his software freedom or give up technical advancements. In this scenario who is the person causing the restriction to freedom ?
cheers, - steve
On Wed, 2011-01-05 at 14:45 +0530, steve wrote:
then B is an ass - he should have taken it from me. The fact that A takes my code and closes it only applies to the copy A has - my copy
is
still open.
Let's us assume that A is smarter than you
the very fact that he is dumb enough to take *my* code makes that assumption very remote ;-)
(OMG ! is that even possible ??) and has added stuff that you cannot implement independently for another year or so -- you have effectively killed B's freedom (of /choice/) -- he now either has to give up his software freedom or give up technical advancements. In this scenario who is the person causing the restriction to freedom ?
*shrugs* that is B's problem - no one compels him to pay cash money for software - it is his choice. If you cannot get something free, and you cannot do without it or work around it - you pay. I see lots of people paying for software because they think they cannot do without it. Not my problem.
On 01/05/2011 03:41 PM, Kenneth Gonsalves wrote:
On Wed, 2011-01-05 at 14:45 +0530, steve wrote:
then B is an ass - he should have taken it from me. The fact that A takes my code and closes it only applies to the copy A has - my copy
is
still open.
Let's us assume that A is smarter than you
the very fact that he is dumb enough to take *my* code makes that assumption very remote ;-)
(OMG ! is that even possible ??) and has added stuff that you cannot implement independently for another year or so -- you have effectively killed B's freedom (of /choice/) -- he now either has to give up his software freedom or give up technical advancements. In this scenario who is the person causing the restriction to freedom ?
*shrugs* that is B's problem - no one compels him to pay cash money for software - it is his choice. If you cannot get something free, and you cannot do without it or work around it - you pay. I see lots of people paying for software because they think they cannot do without it. Not my problem.
How did cash come in the picture ? Let's say A also distributes your app with his improvements for 0 price (ie: freeware). The crux is you don't care about B's loss of freedom of choice although you harp on A's <sarcasm>freedom</sarcasm> to close code that was open. Slightly misplaced priorities, don't you think ?
cheers, - steve
On Wed, 2011-01-05 at 16:11 +0530, steve wrote:
*shrugs* that is B's problem - no one compels him to pay cash money
for
software - it is his choice. If you cannot get something free, and
you
cannot do without it or work around it - you pay. I see lots of
people
paying for software because they think they cannot do without it.
Not my
problem.
How did cash come in the picture ? Let's say A also distributes your app with his improvements for 0 price (ie: freeware). The crux is you don't care about B's loss of freedom of choice although you harp on A's <sarcasm>freedom</sarcasm> to close code that was open. Slightly misplaced priorities, don't you think ?
how does B lose freedom of choice? no one forces him to use freeware. If he thinks he cannot do without it, that is his problem. And A has not closed the code which was open. The code is still open. A has closed his improvements - that is his choice. btw, what happens if A releases his improved code under the GPL? I cannot use his improvements in my code - so as far as I am concerned it is irrelevant whether he releases his code under the GPL or whether he chooses not release his code. (this actually happened to me once - some guy took a lot of my code, incorporated it into his app and released the whole thing under GPL - no doubt he was free to do this, but I flamed him anyway - and he promptly un-GPL'd his code and released it under BSD.)
Greetings,
On Wed, Jan 5, 2011 at 4:38 PM, Kenneth Gonsalves lawgon@thenilgiris.comwrote:
On Wed, 2011-01-05 at 16:11 +0530, steve wrote:incorporated it into his app and released the whole thing under GPL - no doubt he was free to do this, but I flamed him anyway - and he promptly un-GPL'd his code and released it under BSD.)
Nothing particular to offer on this thread. and OT
I was wondering if only my Open Service Network (which has potential for revenue and hence profit) suggestion had so many great minds working on it, we could have gotten off with a brand new network in this brand new year.
I think I will post the entire thread in PLUG and ilugc as I do not know which list reaches out the most.
I hope Indian specific commercial possibilities discussions need to take place at all-India level lists.
After all it is for the financial benefit of the entire community which, AFAIK, is not at all forbidden by any license.
Regards,
Rajagopal
On Wednesday 05 January 2011 04:53 PM, Rajagopal Swaminathan wrote:
Nothing particular to offer on this thread. and OT
I was wondering if only my Open Service Network (which has potential for revenue and hence profit) suggestion had so many great minds working on it, we could have gotten off with a brand new network in this brand new year.
I think I will post the entire thread in PLUG and ilugc as I do not know which list reaches out the most.
I hope Indian specific commercial possibilities discussions need to take place at all-India level lists.
After all it is for the financial benefit of the entire community which, AFAIK, is not at all forbidden by any license.
I don't mean to dampen spirits but a business is run by people who trust each other and can be considered trust worthy, as loyalty to the company means a lot for the company's secure future. An open model that allows everyone to join in may not be a nice idea after all for the company in the long run. People who are looking for a foothold will join, sponge off and leave.
A farmers' cooperative is a singular body where all the farmers pool in their resources and no one can go it all alone so there is no danger to the organisation. A cooperative housing society is an organisation that is created to streamline and share the cost of maintainance of the premises in a collective manner. There is no profit making involved.
I consciously stayed away from this GPL/BSD thread having participated in one too many times, but just for the sake of those reading this thread and are on the fence (as opposed to KG, who is a known BSD ..erm ...weenie if you may :) ), I'd like to point out the essential difference. It basically boils down to this argument always ...
On 01/05/2011 01:21 PM, Kenneth Gonsalves wrote:
On Tue, 2011-01-04 at 22:30 +0530, Shamit Verma wrote:
please do - very curious to know why people who develop code in
closets
choose the GPL for their so-called 'community versions'.
So that someone can not take community version of their code and create another commercial clone. If somebody does that, that clone would have to open the source under GPL.
so the purpose of GPL is to prevent people from making proprietary clones? I totally fail to understand the rationale behind this. If I have a plot of land, and someone encroaches on it - then I no longer have the land, unless I evict him. But software? Even if someone takes a copy and makes it closed - I still have my copy. So what do I lose?
You lose the improvements that the other person makes.
In an ideal world the other person would contribute the improvements back without having to be legally obligated to do so (as in the case of GPL), however in the BSD world this does not happen as often as it should (ask the BSD folk what they gained from Apple and M$ copying their code and improving on it). This is not to say that the other people copying/forking /never/ submit back -- it does happen -- with GPL tho' making it a legal obligation ensures that it always happens.
Software is not a commodity that can be bought and sold. Whether I give my software to someone, or sell it - I still have it on my repo, on my hard disk, on forks and on my backup. Why should I worry about it?
...because unlike a commodity, software also grows and improves with more people contributing back.
I love the way Linus once put it:
"Let me put this in source management terms, since I've also been working on a source control management project for the last few years: the BSD license encourages 'branching', but the fact is, branching is not really all that interesting. What's interesting is 'merging': the branching is just a largely irrelevant prerequisite to be able to merge.
"The GPLv2 encourages *merging*. Again, the right to 'branch' needs to be there in order for merges to be possible, but the right to branch is actually much less important than the right to 'merge'."
cheers, - steve
[1] http://kerneltrap.org/node/8382
On Wed, 2011-01-05 at 13:49 +0530, steve wrote:
In an ideal world the other person would contribute the improvements back without having to be legally obligated to do so (as in the case of GPL), however in the BSD world this does not happen as often as it should (ask the BSD folk what they gained from Apple and M$ copying their code and improving on it).
why harp on apple and M$? no one expects anything from them. Regardless of license they will find a way of perverting everything - look at the lakhs of ordinary contributors who contribute back - look at django or jquery.
This is not to say that the other people copying/forking /never/ submit back -- it does happen -- with GPL tho' making it a legal obligation ensures that it always happens.
not necessarily - a lot of people just do not touch GPL code - they prefer to contribute code to projects with a more free license.
On Wed, Jan 5, 2011 at 3:27 PM, Kenneth Gonsalves lawgon@thenilgiris.comwrote:
why harp on apple and M$? no one expects anything from them. Regardless of license they will find a way of perverting everything
Today, most used browsing engine on mobile devices happens to be WebKit (Also used by Google Chrome and Safari on desktop).
WebKit is an open source project nurtured by Apple. Because of GPL roots, WebKit remains open source and Linux has benefited from work done by Apple/Nokia/Google and others.
-Shamit
2011/1/5 Shamit Verma subs.linux.mum@vshamit.com:
Today, most used browsing engine on mobile devices happens to be WebKit (Also used by Google Chrome and Safari on desktop).
You have any reference for this? I was under the impression that Opera/Presto beats all others on Mobile devices.
Binand
On Wed, Jan 5, 2011 at 4:07 PM, Binand Sethumadhavan binand@gmail.comwrote:
2011/1/5 Shamit Verma subs.linux.mum@vshamit.com:
Today, most used browsing engine on mobile devices happens to be WebKit (Also used by Google Chrome and Safari on desktop).
You have any reference for this? I was under the impression that Opera/Presto beats all others on Mobile devices.
Platforms using WebKit:
1. iOS (iPad, iPhone, iTouch) 2. Android 3. Blackberry 4. Symbian 5. WebOS (Newer Palm devices)
That list is basically who is who of SmartPhone market. Opera mobile is available on few platforms as additional application but is not used by built in browsers in those platforms.
Shamit
2011/1/5 Shamit Verma subs.linux.mum@vshamit.com:
On Wed, Jan 5, 2011 at 4:07 PM, Binand Sethumadhavan binand@gmail.comwrote:
2011/1/5 Shamit Verma subs.linux.mum@vshamit.com:
Today, most used browsing engine on mobile devices happens to be WebKit (Also used by Google Chrome and Safari on desktop).
You have any reference for this? I was under the impression that Opera/Presto beats all others on Mobile devices.
That list is basically who is who of SmartPhone market. Opera mobile is available on few platforms as additional application but is not used by built in browsers in those platforms.
True, but it would still be good if you can provide me with a reference that I can quote to others. Opera ships on a lot more devices than what are nowadays called smartphones - and these devices make up the bulk of the mobile market, if I remember correctly.
Binand
On Wed, Jan 5, 2011 at 5:53 PM, Binand Sethumadhavan binand@gmail.comwrote:
True, but it would still be good if you can provide me with a reference that I can quote to others. Opera ships on a lot more devices than what are nowadays called smartphones - and these devices make up the bulk of the mobile market, if I remember correctly.
The list that I provided is self sufficient. If you look at SDK documentation for any of these platforms, they clearly mention WebKit as default rendering engine. In terms of traffic number:
http://blogs.computerworld.com/iphone_apple_netapplications_marketshare_numb...
http://blogs.computerworld.com/15692/android_marketshare_growing_iphone_shri...
-Shamit
2011/1/5 Shamit Verma subs.linux.mum@vshamit.com:
The list that I provided is self sufficient. If you look at SDK documentation for any of these platforms, they clearly mention WebKit as default rendering engine.
I don't doubt that. My interest is in the actual numbers, which neither of the URLs you pasted mention. Opera in their annual report mentions that theirs is the most popular mobile browser in use globally.
Binand
On Wed, Jan 5, 2011 at 10:07 PM, Binand Sethumadhavan binand@gmail.comwrote:
I don't doubt that. My interest is in the actual numbers, which neither of the URLs you pasted mention. Opera in their annual report mentions that theirs is the most popular mobile browser in use globally.
They indeed made that statement, but it is not true. Opera conveniently distorted numbers to make these claims. For example:
Opera's market share : 20% iPhone browser : 17.5 iPod browser : 5.9%
Total iOS browser share: 23% this alone is higher than Opera (iPod and iPhone have the same browser. ). Total marketshare for WebKit based browsers is 65% (iOS + Nokia + Android+ Blackberry).
Marketshare numbers: http://gs.statcounter.com/#mobile_browser-ww-monthly-200912-201012
-Shamit
2011/1/5 Shamit Verma subs.linux.mum@vshamit.com:
On Wed, Jan 5, 2011 at 10:07 PM, Binand Sethumadhavan binand@gmail.comwrote:
I don't doubt that. My interest is in the actual numbers, which neither of the URLs you pasted mention. Opera in their annual report mentions that theirs is the most popular mobile browser in use globally.
They indeed made that statement, but it is not true. Opera conveniently distorted numbers to make these claims. For example:
Opera's market share : 20% iPhone browser : 17.5 iPod browser : 5.9%
What are the denominators used here? 20% of what?
Total iOS browser share: 23% this alone is higher than Opera (iPod and iPhone have the same browser. ). Total marketshare for WebKit based browsers is 65% (iOS + Nokia + Android+ Blackberry).
But then you are counting entire Blackberry under Webkit - which is probably not true (only recent Blackberries I believe, have Webkit-based browsers).
Also, Nokia uses Webkit only on S60 mobiles - the S40 and older mobiles all had non-Webkit browsers (my Nokia 6303 Classic came with Opera Mini pre-installed).
Lastly, Opera has a number of private-labeling deals with OEMs - in the Statcounter chart, there is an entry for Samsung, which is one such. I think Samsung's non-S60 mobiles all use Opera.
Mind you, I don't doubt Webkit is gaining popularity - Apple ported it to iOS, Nokia to S60, Google to Android - all large markets. But what I'm doubting is if it has already overtaken Opera.
Binand
On Thu, Jan 6, 2011 at 9:06 AM, Binand Sethumadhavan binand@gmail.comwrote:
They indeed made that statement, but it is not true. Opera conveniently distorted numbers to make these claims. For example:
Opera's market share : 20% iPhone browser : 17.5 iPod browser : 5.9%
What are the denominators used here? 20% of what?
Total iOS browser share: 23% this alone is higher than Opera (iPod and iPhone have the same browser. ). Total marketshare for WebKit based
browsers
is 65% (iOS + Nokia + Android+ Blackberry).
But then you are counting entire Blackberry under Webkit - which is probably not true (only recent Blackberries I believe, have Webkit-based browsers).
Also, Nokia uses Webkit only on S60 mobiles - the S40 and older mobiles all had non-Webkit browsers (my Nokia 6303 Classic came with Opera Mini pre-installed).
Lastly, Opera has a number of private-labeling deals with OEMs - in the Statcounter chart, there is an entry for Samsung, which is one such. I think Samsung's non-S60 mobiles all use Opera.
Mind you, I don't doubt Webkit is gaining popularity - Apple ported it to iOS, Nokia to S60, Google to Android - all large markets. But what I'm doubting is if it has already overtaken Opera.
This percentage is based on number of http requests and unique users making those requests. On every http request, client sends a header to server to identify itself. This header indludes info on OS, Browser versions etc.
Statcounter, NetApplications and others take this data from Layer1 routers and poulblish aggregate data. Opera made its claim on these numbers.
Opera, when it is running on Samsung or Nokia or iOS identifies itself as Opera. So if you are using Nokia 6303:
1. If you use Nokia's built in browser, Header will report that as Nokia browser running on Symbian 2. If you use Opera Mini, Header will report that Opera running on Symbian
To debunk Opera's claims, sum of Android + iOS is enough. Because that alone is 36% which is MUCH higher than Opera's share of total http requests. Android and iOS browsers are based on Webkit. Others like Symbian / Smasung have mixed engines (Webkit on latest phones, custom engines on others).
-Shamit
2011/1/6 Shamit Verma subs.linux.mum@vshamit.com:
This percentage is based on number of http requests and unique users making those requests. On every http request, client sends a header to server to identify itself. This header indludes info on OS, Browser versions etc.
Thanks.
Statcounter, NetApplications and others take this data from Layer1 routers and poulblish aggregate data. Opera made its claim on these numbers.
Now, what is a "Layer1 router"?
Opera's claim is from analytics of its Opera Turbo system - which is an Opera-owned proxy that sits between Opera Mini and the actual website and takes up a bunch of processing (including running javascript).
Opera, when it is running on Samsung or Nokia or iOS identifies itself as Opera. So if you are using Nokia 6303:
1. If you use Nokia's built in browser, Header will report that as Nokia browser running on Symbian 2. If you use Opera Mini, Header will report that Opera running on Symbian
And what about case 3: Where a custom build of Opera Mini, based upon a private label deal between Opera and Nokia, is the built-in browser on the handset (as is the case in the Nokia 6303)?
To debunk Opera's claims, sum of Android + iOS is enough. Because that alone is 36% which is MUCH higher than Opera's share of total http requests.
Counting total HTTP requests obviously depends on whether Statscounter or whoever gets to see the request; Opera Mini in Turbo mode apparently doesn't allow them to do so.
Binand
On Thu, Jan 6, 2011 at 1:54 PM, Binand Sethumadhavan binand@gmail.comwrote:
2011/1/6 Shamit Verma subs.linux.mum@vshamit.com:
This percentage is based on number of http requests and unique users
making
those requests. On every http request, client sends a header to server to identify itself. This header indludes info on OS, Browser versions etc.
Thanks.
Statcounter, NetApplications and others take this data from Layer1
routers
and poulblish aggregate data. Opera made its claim on these numbers.
Now, what is a "Layer1 router"?
Opera's claim is from analytics of its Opera Turbo system - which is an Opera-owned proxy that sits between Opera Mini and the actual website and takes up a bunch of processing (including running javascript).
Opera, when it is running on Samsung or Nokia or iOS identifies itself as Opera. So if you are using Nokia 6303:
- If you use Nokia's built in browser, Header will report that as
Nokia
browser running on Symbian 2. If you use Opera Mini, Header will report that Opera running on Symbian
And what about case 3: Where a custom build of Opera Mini, based upon a private label deal between Opera and Nokia, is the built-in browser on the handset (as is the case in the Nokia 6303)?
To debunk Opera's claims, sum of Android + iOS is enough. Because that
alone
is 36% which is MUCH higher than Opera's share of total http requests.
Counting total HTTP requests obviously depends on whether Statscounter or whoever gets to see the request; Opera Mini in Turbo mode apparently doesn't allow them to do so.
Opera in Turbo mode has to send request to StatCounter et el. Path is like this:
Mobile Borwser -> Opera Proxy -> Target Site
Depending on Site, stats companies capture it at Layer 1 routers of major providers like NTT or others like Gawker send daily feeds to it. Opera proxy reports UA as Opera Mini. Layer 1 is something like telephone exchange.
Regarding 6303, it has two browsers. Depending on which browsers you are using (Device or Opera) it will send different strings.
Run a simulation on Nokia's test baords, you will get a list of All UA's reported by a perticular build of OS (In this case S40 firmware for 6303). UA (User Agent) is part of HTTP headersent by client. Based on this, this phone has both WebKit as well as Opera. WebKit is default. So if you use things like Google Maps app, web panel in that App would use WebKit.
UA's sent by this device:
Nokia6303classic/2.0 (06.21) Profile/MIDP-2.1 Configuration/CLDC-1.1 Mozilla/5.0 AppleWebKit/420+ (KHTML, like Gecko) Safari/420+ Nokia6303classic/2.0 (06.40) Profile/MIDP-2.1 Configuration/CLDC-1.1 Nokia6303classic/2.0 (06.40) Profile/MIDP-2.1 Configuration/CLDC-1.1 Mozilla/5.0 AppleWebKit/420+ (KHTML, like Gecko) Safari/420+ Nokia6303classic/2.0 (08.90) Profile/MIDP-2.1 Configuration/CLDC-1.1 Mozilla/5.0 AppleWebKit/420+ (KHTML, like Gecko) Safari/420+ Nokia6303classic/2.0 (08.90) Profile/MIDP-2.1 Configuration/CLDC-1.1 Profile/MIDP-1.0 Configuration/CLDC-1.0 UNTRUSTED/1.0 Nokia6303classic/2.0 (09.10) Profile/MIDP-2.1 Configuration/CLDC-1.1 Mozilla/5.0 AppleWebKit/420+ (KHTML, like Gecko) Safari/420+ Nokia6303classic/2.0 (09.10) Profile/MIDP-2.1 Configuration/CLDC-1.1 Mozilla/5.0 AppleWebKit/420+ (KHTML, like Gecko) Safari/420+ UP.Link/6.6.5.0.0 Nokia6303classic/2.0 (09.10) Profile/MIDP-2.1 Configuration/CLDC-1.1 Profile/MIDP-1.0 Configuration/CLDC-1.0 UNTRUSTED/1.0 Nokia6303classic/2.0 (10.10) Profile/MIDP-2.1 Configuration/CLDC-1.1 Mozilla/5.0 AppleWebKit/420+ (KHTML, like Gecko) Safari/420+ Nokia6303classic/2.0 (10.10) Profile/MIDP-2.1 Configuration/CLDC-1.1 Profile/MIDP-1.0 Configuration/CLDC-1.0 UNTRUSTED/1.0 Nokia6303classic/2.0 (10.12) Profile/MIDP-2.1 Configuration/CLDC-1.1 Mozilla/5.0 AppleWebKit/420+ (KHTML, like Gecko) Safari/420+ Nokia6303classic/2.0 (p) Profile/MIDP-2.1 Configuration/CLDC-1.1 Mozilla/5.0 AppleWebKit/420+ (KHTML, like Gecko) Safari/420+ nokia6303classic/06.40; Opera/9.50 (J2ME/MIDP; Opera Mini/4.1.13961/546; sk; U; ssr) nokia6303classic/08.90; Opera/9.50 (J2ME/MIDP; Opera Mini/4.1.13961/546; de; U) nokia6303classic/09.10; Opera/9.50 (J2ME/MIDP; Opera Mini/4.1.13961/546; sk; U) -Shamit
On Thursday 06 January 2011 01:29 PM, Shamit Verma wrote:
On Thu, Jan 6, 2011 at 9:06 AM, Binand Sethumadhavanbinand@gmail.comwrote:
But then you are counting entire Blackberry under Webkit - which is probably not true (only recent Blackberries I believe, have Webkit-based browsers).
Also, Nokia uses Webkit only on S60 mobiles - the S40 and older mobiles all had non-Webkit browsers (my Nokia 6303 Classic came with Opera Mini pre-installed).
Lastly, Opera has a number of private-labeling deals with OEMs - in the Statcounter chart, there is an entry for Samsung, which is one such. I think Samsung's non-S60 mobiles all use Opera.
Mind you, I don't doubt Webkit is gaining popularity - Apple ported it to iOS, Nokia to S60, Google to Android - all large markets. But what I'm doubting is if it has already overtaken Opera.
This percentage is based on number of http requests and unique users making those requests. On every http request, client sends a header to server to identify itself. This header indludes info on OS, Browser versions etc.
Statcounter, NetApplications and others take this data from Layer1 routers and poulblish aggregate data. Opera made its claim on these numbers.
Opera, when it is running on Samsung or Nokia or iOS identifies itself as Opera. So if you are using Nokia 6303:
1. If you use Nokia's built in browser, Header will report that as Nokia browser running on Symbian 2. If you use Opera Mini, Header will report that Opera running on SymbianTo debunk Opera's claims, sum of Android + iOS is enough. Because that alone is 36% which is MUCH higher than Opera's share of total http requests. Android and iOS browsers are based on Webkit. Others like Symbian / Smasung have mixed engines (Webkit on latest phones, custom engines on others).
So it boils down to the fact that if a browser is willing to give up its identity and let the individual hardware makers use its code but add their own label to it then it will be more popular.
2011/1/6 Rony gnulinuxist@gmail.com:
So it boils down to the fact that if a browser is willing to give up its identity and let the individual hardware makers use its code but add their own label to it then it will be more popular.
Yes, and it is a standard business practice called Private Labeling.
Binand
On Thu, Jan 6, 2011 at 6:07 PM, Rony gnulinuxist@gmail.com wrote:
So it boils down to the fact that if a browser is willing to give up its identity and let the individual hardware makers use its code but add their own label to it then it will be more popular.
Don't get that... You are referring to WebKit or Opera?
-Shamit
On Thursday 06 January 2011 07:13 PM, Shamit Verma wrote:
On Thu, Jan 6, 2011 at 6:07 PM, Ronygnulinuxist@gmail.com wrote:
So it boils down to the fact that if a browser is willing to give up its identity and let the individual hardware makers use its code but add their own label to it then it will be more popular.
Don't get that... You are referring to WebKit or Opera?
WebKit. It lost its identity but gained popularity.
On Thu, Jan 6, 2011 at 8:08 PM, Rony gnulinuxist@gmail.com wrote:
On Thursday 06 January 2011 07:13 PM, Shamit Verma wrote:
On Thu, Jan 6, 2011 at 6:07 PM, Ronygnulinuxist@gmail.com wrote:
So it boils down to the fact that if a browser is willing to give up its identity and let the individual hardware makers use its code but add their own label to it then it will be more popular.
Don't get that... You are referring to WebKit or Opera?
WebKit. It lost its identity but gained popularity.
Don't agree with that. Two reasons :
1. WebKit is Open Source (LGPG and BSD). That is primary reason for adoption by everyone. 2. WebKit is clearly identified in User Agent strings (E.g. Nokia6303classic/2.0 (06.21) Profile/MIDP-2.1 Configuration/CLDC-1.1 Mozilla/5.0 AppleWebKit/420+ (KHTML, like Gecko) Safari/420+)
And despite LGPL+BSD, every major company (Apple/Google/Nokia) commits into codebase. Since its in their own interest.
E.g. if Nokia fixes a JavaScript bug and does not commit, it will have to re-fix it every-time they sync code from main repository.
-Shamit
On Thursday 06 January 2011 09:03 PM, Shamit Verma wrote:
On Thu, Jan 6, 2011 at 8:08 PM, Ronygnulinuxist@gmail.com wrote:
On Thursday 06 January 2011 07:13 PM, Shamit Verma wrote:
On Thu, Jan 6, 2011 at 6:07 PM, Ronygnulinuxist@gmail.com wrote:
So it boils down to the fact that if a browser is willing to give up its identity and let the individual hardware makers use its code but add their own label to it then it will be more popular.
Don't get that... You are referring to WebKit or Opera?
WebKit. It lost its identity but gained popularity.
Don't agree with that. Two reasons :
- WebKit is Open Source (LGPG and BSD). That is primary reason for adoption
by everyone. 2. WebKit is clearly identified in User Agent strings (E.g. Nokia6303classic/2.0 (06.21) Profile/MIDP-2.1 Configuration/CLDC-1.1 Mozilla/5.0 AppleWebKit/420+ (KHTML, like Gecko) Safari/420+)
Generally the browser is called 'browser' or 'web' in the phones. Only Opera is called Opera with the 'O' icon.
On Sat, Jan 8, 2011 at 7:36 PM, Rony gnulinuxist@gmail.com wrote:
Generally the browser is called 'browser' or 'web' in the phones. Only Opera is called Opera with the 'O' icon.
That is only in the End User UI. Http server would see relevant UA (User Agent) header depending on browser used.
Regardless, since WebKit is open source and pretty good in terms of HTML5 support it now clearly dominates mobile world. It also helps that its LGPL and BSD so device makers can easily embed code into devices and contribute back changes made in "core" packages.
-Shamit
On Wednesday 05 January 2011 05:53 PM, Binand Sethumadhavan wrote:
True, but it would still be good if you can provide me with a reference that I can quote to others. Opera ships on a lot more devices than what are nowadays called smartphones - and these devices make up the bulk of the mobile market, if I remember correctly.
+1. Opera is the only browser that has so many platforms to its credit. No one else has bothered to give it so much variety and ease of installation and use.
On Wed, Jan 5, 2011 at 11:20 PM, Rony gnulinuxist@gmail.com wrote:
+1. Opera is the only browser that has so many platforms to its credit. No one else has bothered to give it so much variety and ease of installation and use.
That was the case till last year. This year it is clearly Webkit that has most marketshare in terms of:
1. Number of supported devices (Andriod/iOS/Blackberry/Nokia)
2. Actual Web usage data
-Shamit
On Wed, Jan 5, 2011 at 11:50 PM, Shamit Verma subs.linux.mum@vshamit.comwrote:
On Wed, Jan 5, 2011 at 11:20 PM, Rony gnulinuxist@gmail.com wrote:
+1. Opera is the only browser that has so many platforms to its credit. No one else has bothered to give it so much variety and ease of installation and use.
That was the case till last year. This year it is clearly Webkit that has most marketshare in terms of:
Number of supported devices (Andriod/iOS/Blackberry/Nokia)
Actual Web usage data
Opera has so many desktop versions too. I believe it is the only one that has customised packages for different Linux distros.
On Thu, Jan 6, 2011 at 1:37 PM, Rony Bill gnulinuxist@gmail.com wrote:
Opera has so many desktop versions too. I believe it is the only one that has customised packages for different Linux distros.
That is a different aspect. Opera is a pretty good browser on Desktop as well as on mobile.
But in terms of Marletshare, its negligible on desktop (around 2%) and on Mobile it has been eclipsed by Webkit on mobile.
-Shamit
Hi,
On 01/05/2011 03:27 PM, Kenneth Gonsalves wrote:
This is not to say that the other people copying/forking /never/ submit back -- it does happen -- with GPL tho' making it a legal obligation ensures that it always happens.
not necessarily - a lot of people just do not touch GPL code - they prefer to contribute code to projects with a more free license.
define 'lot'. Judging by pure numbers /maybe/ GPL projects are lesser than those licensed under a <sarcasm>more free</sarcasm> license but judging by the *rate* of improvement GPL projects tend to move much more faster (which proves what I said about the engineering suitability of the GPL too). -- Of course you have to compare apples to apples (eg: Linux to *BSD) not apples to oranges (eg: Python to Linux).
cheers, - steve
On Wed, 2011-01-05 at 16:07 +0530, steve wrote:
not necessarily - a lot of people just do not touch GPL code - they prefer to contribute code to projects with a more free license.
define 'lot'. Judging by pure numbers /maybe/ GPL projects are lesser than those licensed under a <sarcasm>more free</sarcasm> license but judging by the *rate* of improvement GPL projects tend to move much more faster (which proves what I said about the engineering suitability of the GPL too). -- Of course you have to compare apples to apples (eg: Linux to *BSD) not apples to oranges (eg: Python to Linux).
for your information, the growth of linux is not due to the license - it is due to the methodology. I do not know much about the BSD operating system and it's history - I am talking about the BSD license. And if you will really want to compare, I suggest you compare BSD OS with the quintessential GPL project - GNU hurd.
or even better, why not compare linux to hurd? same license - why not the same speed of development?
On Wednesday 05 January 2011 03:27 PM, Kenneth Gonsalves wrote:
This is not to say that the other people copying/forking /never/ submit back -- it does happen -- with GPL tho' making it a legal obligation ensures that it always happens.
not necessarily - a lot of people just do not touch GPL code - they prefer to contribute code to projects with a more free license.
For the sake of those who have been following this long thread and trying to make some sense out of it, could we have an objective list of Licenses from all participants with their pros and cons listed. If GPL restricts freedom then in what way? If BSD restricts freedom then in what way? Short and simple please.
If experts on this list cannot agree on what license is good for software, how do we expect companies to decide on what type of software they will implement on their systems. IMHO, this world has a wide variety of business models, software under different licenses and everyone appears to be making a lot of money and there is nothing that will last forever. Changes are happening all the time and happen to everyone. So lets give everyone the freedom to choose their favorite license and focus on developing software that is most usefull to everyone.
On Wed, Jan 5, 2011 at 10:55 PM, Rony gnulinuxist@gmail.com wrote:
On Wednesday 05 January 2011 03:27 PM, Kenneth Gonsalves wrote:
This is not to say that the other people copying/forking /never/ submit back -- it does happen -- with GPL tho' making it a legal obligation ensures that it always happens.
not necessarily - a lot of people just do not touch GPL code - they prefer to contribute code to projects with a more free license.
For the sake of those who have been following this long thread and trying to make some sense out of it, could we have an objective list of Licenses from all participants with their pros and cons listed. If GPL restricts freedom then in what way? If BSD restricts freedom then in what way? Short and simple please.
If experts on this list cannot agree on what license is good for software,
See, License of application depends on purpose of application ! most of the time when I just make a very small script or some trick - I use MIT license. If size goes bigger, I use GPL. for libraries - LGPL or varient fits good. for applications GPL is good and also depends on How you want to commercialize...
2011/1/6 Narendra Sisodiya narendra@narendrasisodiya.com:
See, License of application depends on purpose of application ! most of the time when I just make a very small script or some trick - I use MIT license. If size goes bigger, I use GPL.
But then you are contradicting yourself - do you license based on purpose (as you say), or based on size (as you seem to actually do)?
for libraries - LGPL or varient fits good. for applications GPL is good and also depends on How you want to commercialize...
Some of the success open-source software don't fit in the above model.
Binand
On Thu, Jan 6, 2011 at 11:06 AM, Binand Sethumadhavan binand@gmail.com wrote:
2011/1/6 Narendra Sisodiya narendra@narendrasisodiya.com:
See, License of application depends on purpose of application ! most of the time when I just make a very small script or some trick - I use MIT license. If size goes bigger, I use GPL.
But then you are contradicting yourself - do you license based on purpose (as you say), or based on size (as you seem to actually do)?
Its obvious ... If I write 10 line script which can be used anywhere in the world in any form then I will use MIT..
for libraries - LGPL or varient fits good. for applications GPL is good and also depends on How you want to commercialize...
Some of the success open-source software don't fit in the above model.
Of-course yes - It depends on purpose, It was just a suggestion.
On Wed, 2011-01-05 at 22:55 +0530, Rony wrote:
not necessarily - a lot of people just do not touch GPL code - they prefer to contribute code to projects with a more free license.
For the sake of those who have been following this long thread and trying to make some sense out of it, could we have an objective list of Licenses from all participants with their pros and cons listed. If GPL restricts freedom then in what way? If BSD restricts freedom then in what way? Short and simple please.
there are 35-40 recognised open source licenses. The simplest is the BSD license. It is only 3 clauses. Basically it says:
you can use modify and redistribute the software in any way you like. The only condition is that if you make it proprietary then you cannot use the original name or attribute to the original.
the GPL says: you can use modify redistribute, but you cannot make it proprietary and if you distribute your modifications you *must* contribute it back
All other licenses fall between these two. (except the microsoft licenses which are even weirder than the GPL)
The above is an over simplification of course.
If experts on this list cannot agree on what license is good for software, how do we expect companies to decide on what type of software they will implement on their systems.
the *nix view is to have many small tools - each tool does only one thing and does it well. The doze view is to have one giant tool that does everything. Each type of software is different, and a license that suits one type will not suit another - also a license that is good for one country may not be good for another.
IMHO, this world has a wide variety of business models, software under different licenses and everyone appears to be making a lot of money and there is nothing that will last forever. Changes are happening all the time and happen to everyone. So lets give everyone the freedom to choose their favorite license and focus on developing software that is most usefull to everyone.
right you are. I for one am not actually anti-gpl. I have many good friends who use the GPL and I respect their choice and also I feel that things like iptables and such stuff are best GPLed or put under some restrictive license. What I am opposing here is the GPLwalas who think that everything (including their pseudo open source wares) should be GPLed. That the GPL is the be all and end all of open source development. And who sneer at all other licenses and gleefully predict doom if one uses one of them. There is also a large class of people who are taken in by this propaganda and think that there is only one open source license foolishly license their software under the GPL and only realise their mistake too late.
2011/1/6 Kenneth Gonsalves lawgon@thenilgiris.com:
There is also a large class of people who are taken in by this propaganda and think that there is only one open source license foolishly license their software under the GPL and only realise their mistake too late.
If you are the copyright holder of the code, there is nothing stopping you from changing the license. I don't see why the above scenario is a "mistake" (unless you are talking of "oh shit! I shouldn't have allowed the world to see my source code").
Once again, GPL's restrictions are on *distribution* - not on writing code, not on using code.
Binand
On Thu, 2011-01-06 at 13:20 +0530, Binand Sethumadhavan wrote:
2011/1/6 Kenneth Gonsalves lawgon@thenilgiris.com:
There is also a large class of people who are taken in by this propaganda and think that there is only one
open
source license foolishly license their software under the GPL and
only
realise their mistake too late.
If you are the copyright holder of the code, there is nothing stopping you from changing the license. I don't see why the above scenario is a "mistake" (unless you are talking of "oh shit! I shouldn't have allowed the world to see my source code").
no, rather "oh shit! now that I have accepted these contributions, I cannot use them in my internal company code without a lot of headache". Or "Oh shit! this license does not suit my business model".
2011/1/6 Kenneth Gonsalves lawgon@thenilgiris.com:
no, rather "oh shit! now that I have accepted these contributions, I cannot use them in my internal company code without a lot of headache". Or "Oh shit! this license does not suit my business model".
Now we come to the crux of the matter - if you have accepted contributions from others into your software (which you sell/support), then you are no longer the sole author - you now move into the "distributor" role. And of course, as I have been maintaining, distributors who do not play fair and by the rules lose out in the GPL world.
You obviously have the choice of not accepting third-party contributions without a copyright assignment.
Binand
On Thu, 2011-01-06 at 13:57 +0530, Binand Sethumadhavan wrote:
2011/1/6 Kenneth Gonsalves lawgon@thenilgiris.com:
no, rather "oh shit! now that I have accepted these contributions, I cannot use them in my internal company code without a lot of
headache".
Or "Oh shit! this license does not suit my business model".
Now we come to the crux of the matter - if you have accepted contributions from others into your software (which you sell/support), then you are no longer the sole author - you now move into the "distributor" role. And of course, as I have been maintaining, distributors who do not play fair and by the rules lose out in the GPL world.
many people open source code in order to attract developers - and they would like to use such code in their closed versions, if they have such a business model. If it is GPL, then they have to only accept code where the copyright is assigned to them. In the BSD world, this is not necessary. I am making no comments on the morality of this model, but all I say is that if it is your model, then you need BSD.
You obviously have the choice of not accepting third-party contributions without a copyright assignment.
only if it is GPLed
On Thu, Jan 6, 2011 at 12:49 PM, Kenneth Gonsalves lawgon@thenilgiris.com wrote:
On Wed, 2011-01-05 at 22:55 +0530, Rony wrote:
not necessarily - a lot of people just do not touch GPL code - they prefer to contribute code to projects with a more free license.
For the sake of those who have been following this long thread and trying to make some sense out of it, could we have an objective list of Licenses from all participants with their pros and cons listed. If GPL restricts freedom then in what way? If BSD restricts freedom then in what way? Short and simple please.
there are 35-40 recognised open source licenses. The simplest is the BSD license. It is only 3 clauses. Basically it says:
you can use modify and redistribute the software in any way you like. The only condition is that if you make it proprietary then you cannot use the original name or attribute to the original.
the GPL says: you can use modify redistribute, but you cannot make it proprietary and if you distribute your modifications you *must* contribute it back
All other licenses fall between these two. (except the microsoft licenses which are even weirder than the GPL)
The above is an over simplification of course.
If experts on this list cannot agree on what license is good for software, how do we expect companies to decide on what type of software they will implement on their systems.
the *nix view is to have many small tools - each tool does only one thing and does it well. The doze view is to have one giant tool that does everything. Each type of software is different, and a license that suits one type will not suit another - also a license that is good for one country may not be good for another.
IMHO, this world has a wide variety of business models, software under different licenses and everyone appears to be making a lot of money and there is nothing that will last forever. Changes are happening all the time and happen to everyone. So lets give everyone the freedom to choose their favorite license and focus on developing software that is most usefull to everyone.
right you are. I for one am not actually anti-gpl. I have many good friends who use the GPL and I respect their choice and also I feel that things like iptables and such stuff are best GPLed or put under some restrictive license. What I am opposing here is the GPLwalas who think that everything (including their pseudo open source wares) should be GPLed.
Let me clarify all - I never said, everything can be GPLed. I opposed only one argument of KG where he said GPL restrict freedom - "The only restriction the GPL imposes is that it prevents people from imposing further restrictions. #GPL"
That the GPL is the be all and end all of open source development. And who sneer at all other licenses and gleefully predict doom if one uses one of them. There is also a large class of people who are taken in by this propaganda and think that there is only one open source license foolishly license their software under the GPL and only realise their mistake too late.
-- regards KG http://lawgon.livejournal.com Coimbatore LUG rox http://ilugcbe.techstud.org/
On Thu, 2011-01-06 at 13:31 +0530, Narendra Sisodiya wrote:
"The only restriction the GPL imposes is that it prevents people from imposing further restrictions. #GPL"
not true - it restricts the freedom to modify the software and close the source and distribute it. This is a restriction - facts are facts.
On 01/06/2011 01:46 PM, Kenneth Gonsalves wrote:
On Thu, 2011-01-06 at 13:31 +0530, Narendra Sisodiya wrote:
"The only restriction the GPL imposes is that it prevents people from imposing further restrictions. #GPL"
not true - it restricts the freedom to modify the software and close the source and distribute it. This is a restriction - facts are facts.
ehe ...are the two statements above the same thing ? Lets see:
"The only restriction ....is that it prevents ... imposing further restrictions. #GPL"
.... it restricts the freedom to ...close the source ...This is a restriction ...
Seems to be essentially the same thing ...so what is the 'not true' part ? Unless you are in the habit of denying something and then repeating exactly what the other person says.
cheers, - steve
On Thu, 2011-01-06 at 14:12 +0530, steve wrote:
On Thu, 2011-01-06 at 13:31 +0530, Narendra Sisodiya wrote:
"The only restriction the GPL imposes is that it prevents people
from
imposing further restrictions. #GPL"
not true - it restricts the freedom to modify the software and close
the
source and distribute it. This is a restriction - facts are facts.
ehe ...are the two statements above the same thing ? Lets see:
"The only restriction ....is that it prevents ... imposing further restrictions. #GPL"
.... it restricts the freedom to ...close the source ...This is a restriction ...
Seems to be essentially the same thing ...so what is the 'not true' part ? Unless you are in the habit of denying something and then repeating exactly what the other person says.
on rereading it can possibly be that you are right - the difference is that they say it in a convoluted manner and I say it more directly. But in either case we all agree that there is a restriction.
On Thursday 06 January 2011 12:49:40 Kenneth Gonsalves wrote:
the *nix view is to have many small tools - each tool does only one thing and does it well. The doze view is to have one giant tool that does everything. Each type of software is different, and a license that suits one type will not suit another - also a license that is good for one country may not be good for another.
How does the conditions on which an open licence is based change with a country?
right you are. I for one am not actually anti-gpl. I have many good friends who use the GPL and I respect their choice and also I feel that things like iptables and such stuff are best GPLed or put under some restrictive license. What I am opposing here is the GPLwalas who think that everything (including their pseudo open source wares) should be GPLed. That the GPL is the be all and end all of open source development. And who sneer at all other licenses and gleefully predict doom if one uses one of them.
One might note that, much of M$ problem creation capabilities arose from the freedom granted by BSD (or similiar licenced) code. Most of the embedded device makers were (and are) making merry with gpl (and bsd) code. Several have been brought to book because of the gpl. That the only thing that might yet save JAVA is the GPL One might note that with the sale of Novell's patents, GPLV3 like terms seems to be the only option for all other non BSDish open licences.
Much of your arguments (except one) is about (1) expecting others to behave and (2) the assumption that an improvment is not desired by the original developer.
I fail to see how (1) holds in the light of the above list. The whole point of opening your code is the desire for improvment, so proposing (2) as an argument against gpl seems rather strange.
The exception is BSD not benefiting from literal copying of gpl code. Note that reading and reimplementing gpl code is a viable alternative, particularly because much of gpl code is incremental improvements, especially if it is derived from BSD, or when bsd code is folded into gpl.
I am quite sure that most foss developers are not anti BSD either, except for the major irritant of having to reverse engineer closed derivative works.
On Thu, 2011-01-06 at 14:49 +0530, jtd wrote:
How does the conditions on which an open licence is based change with a country?
I have not really gone into this. I did note that CC tries to give country specific licenses. One possible use case would be a country that prohibits export of a particular category of software beyond it's borders (and makes it a criminal offence). One would need a few extra clauses in the license to deal with this.
<snip>
I cannot really answer the stuff below because I do not understand it. Can you clarify:
One might note that, much of M$ problem creation capabilities arose from the freedom granted by BSD (or similiar licenced) code.
what do you mean by 'problem creation capabilities'?
Most of the embedded device makers were (and are) making merry with gpl (and bsd) code. Several have been brought to book because of the gpl.
most of them have not been caught yet! and I do not understand what this has to do with the points that I am raising.
That the only thing that might yet save JAVA is the GPL
save JAVA from what?
One might note that with the sale of Novell's patents, GPLV3 like terms seems to be the only option for all other non BSDish open licences.
what does this mean?
Much of your arguments (except one) is about (1) expecting others to behave
huh? who am I expecting to behave? and behave how?
and (2) the assumption that an improvment is not desired by the original developer.
where did I make that assumption - I am on record saying that a major motivation for open sourcing code is the hope that people will step in improve the software.
I fail to see how (1) holds in the light of the above list. The whole point of opening your code is the desire for improvment, so proposing (2) as an argument against gpl seems rather strange.
I haven't proposed this
The exception is BSD not benefiting from literal copying of gpl code. Note that reading and reimplementing gpl code is a viable alternative,
are we allowed to do that? I wanted to port RT to python/django, but I saw GPL and was discouraged. If you can certify that I can do this and license it under BSD I will be forever grateful to you
particularly because much of gpl code is incremental improvements, especially if it is derived from BSD, or when bsd code is folded into gpl.
I have news for you - most open source code is incremental improvements - the methodology that is proven to be successful. This is methodology and has nothing to do with license.
I am quite sure that most foss developers are not anti BSD either,
cool - are you among their number?
except for the major irritant of having to reverse engineer closed derivative works.
be clear on one thing - I personally feel that writing closed source code is immoral and evil, I campaign against it - but unfortunately closed source software has not yet been added in the schedule prohibited substances in relevant anti trafficking laws.
On Thursday 06 January 2011 16:10:35 Kenneth Gonsalves wrote:
On Thu, 2011-01-06 at 14:49 +0530, jtd wrote:
How does the conditions on which an open licence is based change with a country?
I have not really gone into this. I did note that CC tries to give country specific licenses. One possible use case would be a country that prohibits export of a particular category of software beyond it's borders (and makes it a criminal offence). One would need a few extra clauses in the license to deal with this.
<snip>
Ok
I cannot really answer the stuff below because I do not understand it.
Can you clarify:
One might note that, much of M$ problem creation capabilities arose from the freedom granted by BSD (or similiar licenced) code.
what do you mean by 'problem creation capabilities'?
Mangling of protocols merely to prevent others from interworking - kerberos and pptp or rather M$ version. http://www.schneier.com/pptp-faq.html
Most of the embedded device makers were (and are) making merry with gpl (and bsd) code. Several have been brought to book because of the gpl.
most of them have not been caught yet! and I do not understand what this has to do with the points that I am raising.
While the gpl provides one with a legal means of enforcing compliance, a mangled BSD stack provides no such protection as they dont care. Unfortunately it's the end user who suffers.
That the only thing that might yet save JAVA is the GPL
save JAVA from what?
One might note that with the sale of Novell's patents, GPLV3 like terms seems to be the only option for all other non BSDish open licences.
what does this mean?
GPLV3 requires assignment of patent rights automatically to all downstream distributors.
Much of your arguments (except one) is about (1) expecting others to behave
huh? who am I expecting to behave? and behave how?
1) the guy who takes bsd code into gpl and 2) the guy who takes his contribution private (pseudo gplsts)
In both cases you want him to behave in a way that the licence does not require. If you intend to prevent 1 you will have to add a derivative clause that requires release of derivative works under BSD licence. So now you will be rewarding bad behaviour. If someone takes the code closed it's ok, but if he takes it gpl you wont allow
and (2) the assumption that an improvment is not desired by the original developer.
where did I make that assumption - I am on record saying that a major motivation for open sourcing code is the hope that people will step in improve the software.
How does the software improve without contributing back?. If a recipient takes his contibution private, inspite of deriving his work from foss he is without a shadow of doubt nullifying the major reason. Which partly is what the gpl prevents.
With BSD you are, by not specifically asking for contribution thru clauses in the licence, telling the downstream guy I dont care.
With gpl you are saying I care, so dont touch the damned thing if you dont want to contribute your code.
I fail to see how (1) holds in the light of the above list. The whole point of opening your code is the desire for improvment, so proposing (2) as an argument against gpl seems rather strange.
I haven't proposed this
The exception is BSD not benefiting from literal copying of gpl code. Note that reading and reimplementing gpl code is a viable alternative,
are we allowed to do that? I wanted to port RT to python/django, but I saw GPL and was discouraged. If you can certify that I can do this and license it under BSD I will be forever grateful to you
You can read and reimplement it in a different way. You are not copying (or transcribing), which is what copyright is about.
There have been innumerable cases on stories, poems and particularly music, which were litigated alleging copying. Most of them were thrown out, even though they sound substantially similiar. The famed Music director Naushad lost (afaik) a case on remixes of his music. In essence copyright does not preclude plagiarism of ideas, as intended by law. In the case of GPL software, reimplementing code is very clearly not copying.
particularly because much of gpl code is incremental improvements, especially if it is derived from BSD, or when bsd code is folded into gpl.
I have news for you - most open source code is incremental improvements - the methodology that is proven to be successful. This is methodology and has nothing to do with license.
I am quite sure that most foss developers are not anti BSD either,
cool - are you among their number?
Absolutely. If someone realises his code as BSD, he knows (or should know) what he is doing. However when it comes to advocacy or release of publicly funded code, I am absolutely clear that the code must be released under the GPL.
except for the major irritant of having to reverse engineer closed derivative works.
be clear on one thing - I personally feel that writing closed source code is immoral and evil, I campaign against it - but unfortunately closed source software has not yet been added in the schedule prohibited substances in relevant anti trafficking laws.
Note: I abhor closed works derived from foss. I could not care less about an independent closed implementation of any code.
-- regards KG http://lawgon.livejournal.com Coimbatore LUG rox http://ilugcbe.techstud.org/
On Thu, 2011-01-06 at 17:50 +0530, jtd wrote:
That the only thing that might yet save JAVA is the GPL
save JAVA from what?
you have not answered this point
One might note that with the sale of Novell's patents, GPLV3 like terms seems to be the only option for all other non BSDish open licences.
what does this mean?
GPLV3 requires assignment of patent rights automatically to all downstream distributors.
Much of your arguments (except one) is about (1) expecting others to behave
huh? who am I expecting to behave? and behave how?
- the guy who takes bsd code into gpl and
- the guy who takes his contribution private (pseudo gplsts)
In both cases you want him to behave in a way that the licence does not require. If you intend to prevent 1 you will have to add a derivative clause that requires release of derivative works under BSD licence. So now you will be rewarding bad behaviour. If someone takes the code closed it's ok, but if he takes it gpl you wont allow
when did I say that - he has the right to close his copy and the right to make it gpl. I also have the right to try and make him see sense and flame him if he doesnt. But I do not have the right to prevent him from doing bad things like this.
and (2) the assumption that an improvment is not desired by the original developer.
where did I make that assumption - I am on record saying that a major motivation for open sourcing code is the hope that people will step in improve the software.
How does the software improve without contributing back?. If a recipient takes his contibution private, inspite of deriving his work from foss he is without a shadow of doubt nullifying the major reason. Which partly is what the gpl prevents.
well, it may come as a surprise to you that there are thousands of BSD licensed projects where people contribute back - sometimes in very large numbers. In fact the normal method of contribution is contribution back. And it is voluntary - I have seen some instances of modifying and distributing a closed source copy - and then contributing back part or whole of the closed portion.
With BSD you are, by not specifically asking for contribution thru clauses in the licence, telling the downstream guy I dont care.
With gpl you are saying I care, so dont touch the damned thing if you dont want to contribute your code.
I am a firm believer in persuasion over force
I fail to see how (1) holds in the light of the above list. The whole point of opening your code is the desire for improvment, so proposing (2) as an argument against gpl seems rather strange.
I haven't proposed this
The exception is BSD not benefiting from literal copying of gpl code. Note that reading and reimplementing gpl code is a viable alternative,
are we allowed to do that? I wanted to port RT to python/django, but I saw GPL and was discouraged. If you can certify that I can do this and license it under BSD I will be forever grateful to you
You can read and reimplement it in a different way. You are not copying (or transcribing), which is what copyright is about.
suppose I take RT, study the code and implement the whole thing in python/django, is that a copy? or a reimplementation. As far I can see the problem would lie in the database structure - I would have to restructure the database to suit django, but that could be interpreted as a copy?
In the case of GPL software, reimplementing code is very clearly not copying.
so I can go ahead?
Note: I abhor closed works derived from foss. I could not care less about an independent closed implementation of any code.
I abhor both
On Friday 07 January 2011 12:59:20 Kenneth Gonsalves wrote:
On Thu, 2011-01-06 at 17:50 +0530, jtd wrote:
That the only thing that might yet save JAVA is the GPL
save JAVA from what?
you have not answered this point
From losing foss developers.
One might note that with the sale of Novell's patents, GPLV3 like terms seems to be the only option for all other non BSDish open licences.
what does this mean?
GPLV3 requires assignment of patent rights automatically to all downstream distributors.
Much of your arguments (except one) is about (1) expecting others to behave
huh? who am I expecting to behave? and behave how?
- the guy who takes bsd code into gpl and
- the guy who takes his contribution private (pseudo gplsts)
In both cases you want him to behave in a way that the licence does not require. If you intend to prevent 1 you will have to add a derivative clause that requires release of derivative works under BSD licence. So now you will be rewarding bad behaviour. If someone takes the code closed it's ok, but if he takes it gpl you wont allow
when did I say that - he has the right to close his copy and the right to make it gpl. I also have the right to try and make him see sense and flame him if he doesnt. But I do not have the right to prevent him from doing bad things like this.
If it's your code you do have a right and a responsibilty too. It's entirely your chioice. Same with the folks who use the GPL.
and (2) the assumption that an improvment is not desired by the original developer.
where did I make that assumption - I am on record saying that a major motivation for open sourcing code is the hope that people will step in improve the software.
How does the software improve without contributing back?. If a recipient takes his contibution private, inspite of deriving his work from foss he is without a shadow of doubt nullifying the major reason. Which partly is what the gpl prevents.
well, it may come as a surprise to you that there are thousands of BSD licensed projects where people contribute back - sometimes in very large numbers. In fact the normal method of contribution is contribution back. And it is voluntary
Who is disputing this?
- I have seen some instances
of modifying and distributing a closed source copy - and then contributing back part or whole of the closed portion.
So how is " part" = "whole". And how is "some" = "All" BTW if you ship a closed GPL package, and contribute back to head, alongwith a link to head with the closed, there is no problem at all.
The problem is "part" and "some".
With BSD you are, by not specifically asking for contribution thru clauses in the licence, telling the downstream guy I dont care.
With gpl you are saying I care, so dont touch the damned thing if you dont want to contribute your code.
I am a firm believer in persuasion over force
Fair enough.
I fail to see how (1) holds in the light of the above list. The whole point of opening your code is the desire for improvment, so proposing (2) as an argument against gpl seems rather strange.
I haven't proposed this
The exception is BSD not benefiting from literal copying of gpl code. Note that reading and reimplementing gpl code is a viable alternative,
are we allowed to do that? I wanted to port RT to python/django, but I saw GPL and was discouraged. If you can certify that I can do this and license it under BSD I will be forever grateful to you
You can read and reimplement it in a different way. You are not copying (or transcribing), which is what copyright is about.
suppose I take RT, study the code and implement the whole thing in python/django, is that a copy? or a reimplementation.
Very very much a reimplementation.
As far I can see the problem would lie in the database structure - I would have to restructure the database to suit django, but that could be interpreted as a copy?
Even if you exactly replicated the db structure, it would not be a copy. A database structure would be analogous to a filing cabinet. I am am sure nobody could sue me for copying the "method" of organising a filing cabinet or the internal organisation of the contents in a filing cabinet.
In the case of GPL software, reimplementing code is very clearly not copying.
so I can go ahead?
IMO 100%
One assumes that patents is a non issue.
http://kerneltrap.org/mailarchive/openbsd-misc/2007/11/9/399443
Note: I abhor closed works derived from foss. I could not care less about an independent closed implementation of any code.
I abhor both
-- regards KG http://lawgon.livejournal.com Coimbatore LUG rox http://ilugcbe.techstud.org/
On Fri, 2011-01-07 at 14:18 +0530, jtd wrote:
As far I can see the problem would lie in the database structure - I would have to restructure the database to suit django, but that could be interpreted as a copy?
Even if you exactly replicated the db structure, it would not be a copy. A database structure would be analogous to a filing cabinet. I am am sure nobody could sue me for copying the "method" of organising a filing cabinet or the internal organisation of the contents in a filing cabinet.
In the case of GPL software, reimplementing code is very clearly not copying.
so I can go ahead?
IMO 100%
cool - anyone on this list who is interested in reimplementing RT in python/django please contact me offlist - I have a company that is willing to pay for the work. (only they want BSD licensing, but I think it is ok as an expert has sanctioned it)
2011/1/7 Kenneth Gonsalves lawgon@thenilgiris.com:
cool - anyone on this list who is interested in reimplementing RT in python/django please contact me offlist - I have a company that is willing to pay for the work. (only they want BSD licensing, but I think it is ok as an expert has sanctioned it)
Just curious, why do they care it is BSD or GPL?
Binand
On Fri, 2011-01-07 at 16:43 +0530, Binand Sethumadhavan wrote:
2011/1/7 Kenneth Gonsalves lawgon@thenilgiris.com:
cool - anyone on this list who is interested in reimplementing RT in python/django please contact me offlist - I have a company that is willing to pay for the work. (only they want BSD licensing, but I
think
it is ok as an expert has sanctioned it)
Just curious, why do they care it is BSD or GPL?
well they had only heard of GPL and their legal eagles were not very happy with it - so I gave them a full list of licenses available, and after discussion they felt that a BSD style license would suit them best.
2011/1/7 Kenneth Gonsalves lawgon@thenilgiris.com:
they felt that a BSD style license would suit them best.
What I wanted to know was the reason for this "feeling". Anyway, if you know the answer please share - otherwise, ignore - not important.
Binand
On Fri, 2011-01-07 at 17:26 +0530, Binand Sethumadhavan wrote:
2011/1/7 Kenneth Gonsalves lawgon@thenilgiris.com:
they felt that a BSD style license would suit them best.
What I wanted to know was the reason for this "feeling". Anyway, if you know the answer please share - otherwise, ignore - not important.
well - please go through this thread - enough reasons are there.
2011/1/7 Kenneth Gonsalves lawgon@thenilgiris.com:
What I wanted to know was the reason for this "feeling". Anyway, if you know the answer please share - otherwise, ignore - not important.
well - please go through this thread - enough reasons are there.
The reasons that made this *specific* company to spurn GPL in favour of BSD...
Binand
On Fri, 2011-01-07 at 18:16 +0530, Binand Sethumadhavan wrote:
2011/1/7 Kenneth Gonsalves lawgon@thenilgiris.com:
What I wanted to know was the reason for this "feeling". Anyway, if you know the answer please share - otherwise, ignore - not
important.
well - please go through this thread - enough reasons are there.
The reasons that made this *specific* company to spurn GPL in favour of BSD...
some morons have been spreading rumours that the GPL is 'viral' - I find that as a result, a huge number of people in the proprietary world who are looking towards open source are absolutely terrified of the GPL for fear that their computers will get infected ;-) In this particular case they want to open source in the hope that they can attract developers to improve their project for free. They are willing to pay developers who come forward, but their resources are not unlimited. There is also a possibility that they may want to market their own customised version of the project in future - they cannot do this if it is GPL'ed. Also for some strange reason they want me to do the implementation - and I do not do GPL.
On Friday 07 January 2011 15:20:33 Kenneth Gonsalves wrote:
On Fri, 2011-01-07 at 14:18 +0530, jtd wrote:
As far I can see the problem would lie in the database structure - I would have to restructure the database to suit django, but that could be interpreted as a copy?
Even if you exactly replicated the db structure, it would not be a copy. A database structure would be analogous to a filing cabinet. I am am sure nobody could sue me for copying the "method" of organising a filing cabinet or the internal organisation of the contents in a filing cabinet.
In the case of GPL software, reimplementing code is very clearly not copying.
so I can go ahead?
IMO 100%
cool - anyone on this list who is interested in reimplementing RT in python/django please contact me offlist - I have a company that is willing to pay for the work. (only they want BSD licensing, but I think it is ok as an expert has sanctioned it)
I am not an expert. But I am quite sure that the gpl (or any other copyright licence ) cannot prevent a new implementation, especially in the case of software. In This case you are changing the language itself. IMO more than sufficient to disprove derivation and most certainly only an idiot would allege copying.
There is also sufficient precedent for interface reverse engineering, even on patented code (imo patents are far more unforgiving about plagiarism ).
IMO you are ok. But as you have mentioned in the next mail, those guys have a legal team, you might as well take their opinion.
-- regards KG http://lawgon.livejournal.com Coimbatore LUG rox http://ilugcbe.techstud.org/
On Fri, 2011-01-07 at 17:42 +0530, jtd wrote:
IMO you are ok. But as you have mentioned in the next mail, those guys have a legal team, you might as well take their opinion.
I have more faith in your opinion - I will convince them.
On Thursday 06 January 2011 12:49 PM, Kenneth Gonsalves wrote:
Now this was short and to the point. Thanks.
there are 35-40 recognised open source licenses. The simplest is the BSD license. It is only 3 clauses. Basically it says:
you can use modify and redistribute the software in any way you like. The only condition is that if you make it proprietary then you cannot use the original name or attribute to the original.
Can a software under BSD be simply copied and renamed under a proprietary name and locked out to the developers? How does it benefit the developer community, except the chance to get paid for developing on a contract like basis till the project is running? On reading your mails after this one, it appears that the BSD form of license is good for companies who want people to contribute to their code but after the job is done they will close the code and use it commercially. If the developers are aware of what they are getting into and are willing to help then its fine. Opening the code helps the company in improving its software's quality so end users will get a better product. However if the proprietary product is now commercially available for a price that is out of reach of the common man then it beats one of the unwritten purposes of FOSS ideology ie. to make the software more accessible to the masses. What about vendor lock-ins due to proprietary data formats used for software that has turned proprietary after its conversion from BSD? In short a BSD license would be used by commercial organisations to develop and improvise their software through the public without being compelled to share the code for their finished product.
the GPL says: you can use modify redistribute, but you cannot make it proprietary and if you distribute your modifications you *must* contribute it back
Does it not make sense that if a software is created openly by the public, for the public, then those members of the public who use the code for distribution and or make changes to it for re-distribution should pass on the same rights that they have _inherited_ from the developing public? GPL simply wants to ensure that what is open remains open when it is passed on to others. You even have the freedom to make commercial gains from the GPLed software without any financial obligitation towards the GPLed software developers. Fair enough. I would not call it restrictive as it is only protecting the freedom of the community to have _access_ to the code that was created from a public resource and is distributed back to the public. You still have the freedom to use the GPLed code and modify it for your private usage without revealing your modifications. This license would be ideal for community projects that are meant to make software easily accessible to everyone at lowest cost. Commercial organisations with a conscience towards the community will take advantage of this license and help the community grow and in the process make the company grow too. Commercial organisations that are only profit and monopoly oriented may dislike the full freedom that the GPL license obligates its _inheritors_ to pass on ( which they find restrictive to themselves as developers, who do not want to share code for the finished product ). They would be more comfortable with a BSD license.
Ultimately both are going to make money. It all depends on one's beliefs, ethics and conscience and how one wants to make money.
On Thu, 2011-01-06 at 20:04 +0530, Rony wrote:
On Thursday 06 January 2011 12:49 PM, Kenneth Gonsalves wrote:
Now this was short and to the point. Thanks.
there are 35-40 recognised open source licenses. The simplest is the BSD license. It is only 3 clauses. Basically it says:
you can use modify and redistribute the software in any way you like. The only condition is that if you make it proprietary then you cannot use the original name or attribute to the original.
Can a software under BSD be simply copied and renamed under a proprietary name and locked out to the developers?
I suggest you read this. Please read the *whole* including the list of software projects it covers:
http://www.apache.org/foundation/licence-FAQ.html
one snippet for example:
<quote> Q. I have made changes to an Apache package and I want to distribute them. Do I need to contribute them to the Apache Software Foundation?
A. No. You can keep your changes a secret if you like. Maybe your modifications are embarrassing, maybe you'll get rich selling those improvements. Whatever. But please seriously consider giving your changes back! We all benefit when you do.
<unquote>
As for your other questions, I cannot answer them. And I have one question for you - do you seriously think that the lakhs of users and contributors to the projects mentioned below do not know what they are doing:
HTTP Server * Abdera * ActiveMQ * Ant * APR * Archiva * Avro * Axis * Buildr * Camel * Cassandra * Cayenne * Click * Cocoon * Commons * Continuum * CouchDB * CXF * DB * Directory * ESME * Excalibur * Felix * Forrest * Geronimo * Gump * Hadoop * Harmony * HBase * Hive * HttpComponents * Jackrabbit * Jakarta * James * Karaf * Lenya * Logging * Lucene * Mahout * Maven * Mina * MyFaces * Nutch * ODE * OODT * OFBiz * OpenEJB * OpenJPA * OpenWebBeans * PDFBox * Perl * Pig * Pivot * POI * Portals * Qpid * Roller * Santuario * ServiceMix * Shindig * Shiro * Sling * SpamAssassin * STDCXX * Struts * Subversion * Synapse * Tapestry * TCL * Thrift * Tika * Tiles * Tomcat * TrafficServer * Turbine * Tuscany * UIMA * Velocity * Wicket * Web Services * Xalan * Xerces * XML * XMLBeans * XML Graphics * Zoo Keeper
On Friday 07 January 2011 13:15:49 Kenneth Gonsalves wrote:
On Thu, 2011-01-06 at 20:04 +0530, Rony wrote:
<unquote>
As for your other questions, I cannot answer them. And I have one question for you - do you seriously think that the lakhs of users and contributors to the projects mentioned below do not know what they are doing:
You are looking at the lookable parts and what they are doing. You would have to search for the unlookable parts and what they are not doing (wrt contributing back). Non contributions may or may not be large or damaging, but we are not going to convince each other without hard data. As it stands I think everbody has plenty of other stuff to do, but it would be good exercise.
HTTP Server * Abdera * ActiveMQ * Ant * APR * Archiva * Avro * Axis * Buildr * Camel * Cassandra * Cayenne * Click * Cocoon * Commons * Continuum * CouchDB * CXF * DB * Directory * ESME * Excalibur * Felix * Forrest * Geronimo * Gump * Hadoop * Harmony * HBase * Hive * HttpComponents * Jackrabbit * Jakarta * James * Karaf * Lenya * Logging * Lucene * Mahout * Maven * Mina * MyFaces * Nutch * ODE * OODT * OFBiz * OpenEJB * OpenJPA * OpenWebBeans * PDFBox * Perl * Pig * Pivot * POI * Portals * Qpid * Roller * Santuario * ServiceMix * Shindig * Shiro * Sling * SpamAssassin * STDCXX * Struts * Subversion * Synapse * Tapestry * TCL * Thrift * Tika * Tiles * Tomcat * TrafficServer * Turbine * Tuscany * UIMA * Velocity * Wicket * Web Services * Xalan * Xerces * XML * XMLBeans * XML Graphics * Zoo Keeper
-- regards KG http://lawgon.livejournal.com Coimbatore LUG rox http://ilugcbe.techstud.org/
On Fri, 2011-01-07 at 14:24 +0530, jtd wrote:
Non contributions may or may not be large or damaging, but we are not going to convince each other without hard data. As it stands I think everbody has plenty of other stuff to do, but it would be good exercise.
actually from my experience - and from discussions with others who are developing projects, the 'improvements' made by people who take the code and close the source and distribute without contributing back are usually worthless, so no great loss.
On Friday 07 January 2011 15:23:25 Kenneth Gonsalves wrote:
On Fri, 2011-01-07 at 14:24 +0530, jtd wrote:
Non contributions may or may not be large or damaging, but we are not going to convince each other without hard data. As it stands I think everbody has plenty of other stuff to do, but it would be good exercise.
actually from my experience - and from discussions with others who are developing projects, the 'improvements' made by people who take the code and close the source and distribute without contributing back are usually worthless,
I agree. The example of pptp.
so no great loss.
But crappy code did cause a pita. So non contribituions not only resulted in no gain, but actually a loss to everybody.
For the record i had a taste of M$ pptp while trying to get a pilot of major project off the ground. Needless to say the isp lost big time - 10000 connections - and the bank money and time. I was ofcourse paid, but getting things done and working is what interests me rather than just money. Circa 2003-4.
On Fri, 2011-01-07 at 16:39 +0530, jtd wrote:
but getting things done and working is what interests me rather than just money.
I could use the money - want my swiss bank no?
On Friday 07 January 2011 01:15 PM, Kenneth Gonsalves wrote:
As for your other questions, I cannot answer them. And I have one question for you - do you seriously think that the lakhs of users and contributors to the projects mentioned below do not know what they are doing:
HTTP Server * Abdera * ActiveMQ
[snip]
Even closed commercial software is popular so what?
In a nutshell, we can separate BSD and GPL in terms of software freedom like this.
BSD believes that something is better than nothing.
GPL believes that either it is full freedom or nothing.
On Sat, 2011-01-08 at 19:43 +0530, Rony wrote:
Even closed commercial software is popular so what?
In a nutshell, we can separate BSD and GPL in terms of software freedom like this.
BSD believes that something is better than nothing.
GPL believes that either it is full freedom or nothing.
/me bangs his head on the keyboard
On 01/09/2011 03:33 AM, Kenneth Gonsalves wrote:
On Sat, 2011-01-08 at 19:43 +0530, Rony wrote:
Even closed commercial software is popular so what?
In a nutshell, we can separate BSD and GPL in terms of software freedom like this.
BSD believes that something is better than nothing.
GPL believes that either it is full freedom or nothing.
/me bangs his head on the keyboard
ROFL ! The reason I am LOLing is, I had starting posting something along the lines below but then got distracted and then I didn't bother completing since BSD Vs GPL is a never-ending debate.
However, I found your response funny enough to warrant completing this:
------------------------------------- See, that thing that you would typically feel if I were to take your BSD licensed code and redistribute it under the GPL (ensuring that you cannot use my modifications without compromising your license), is the same as what GPLwallas feel when somebody wants to take their code and wants to redistribute it in a closed manner. So, from a GPLwalla's perspective, BSD is one-step-removed from the 'proprietary-zation' of software.
So, the GPLwallas ensure that this does not happen and live happily whereas there are times when you will fret and fume and stay angry because you cannot force, only persuade.
GPLwallas prefer that everyone plays by the same rules and thus stay happy (and more productive) rather than let it be a free-for-all-no-rules and then fret, fume and flame because somebody didn't play as fairly as you hoped (and I am talking /not only/ of people who close BSD code, but also the GPLwallas who take your code and turn it into GPL). -------------------------------------
I know ^^^^ that's not exactly the reason you are banging your head, but you are banging it nonetheless since you just can't seem to convince people in either simple or a long-winded manner just /how/ BSD is ^more free^. heh
cheers, - steve
On Sunday 09 January 2011 12:02 PM, steve wrote:
So, from a GPLwalla's perspective, BSD is one-step-removed from the 'proprietary-zation' of software.
Exactly. Allowing a free code to become closed is no freedom. It beats the very purpose behind it.
I know ^^^^ that's not exactly the reason you are banging your head, but you are banging it nonetheless since you just can't seem to convince people in either simple or a long-winded manner just /how/ BSD is ^more free^. heh
So true. Case dismissed !!
On Sun, 2011-01-09 at 12:02 +0530, steve wrote:
I know ^^^^ that's not exactly the reason you are banging your head, but you are banging it nonetheless since you just can't seem to convince people in either simple or a long-winded manner just /how/ BSD is ^more free^. heh
I am banging my head on the keyboard because if you see sub thread, the reason I posted that list of projects that have happily existed for years without being taken over was to illustrate the point that for a project to sustain as open source, it needs to attract a critical mass of developers who each retain their own copyright and hence make it impossible for anyone to buy the copyright. The type of license is irrelevant here. Mysql is the classic case on the one side and linux is the classic case on the other side. And both are GPLed. The Apache project is a classic case on the BSD license side, but I am unable to find an equivalent of Mysql model of development on the BSD side - but I am sure the GPLwalas would be able to supply any number of examples.
I was bit surprised to find that apart from Narendra in the case of small scripts, every one else on this list publishes their open source code under the GPL. On analysing why, I think I have found the solution. I am an applications developer - right at the bottom of the food chain and being in the python/django world, which is mainly driven by BSD style licenses, I find using the BSD style license helps me remain friends with the people whose code I use. But looking at the examples given by the list members, I now realise that most of them are linux kernel hackers - or developers of embedded stuff. This stuff (as I have mentioned before) could be best GPLed - and in fact GPL rules in this sphere.
I had however expected that those in this list who contribute code to the modern scripting languages - perl, python php etc - would appreciate and abide by the BSD style licenses of those languages. But it looks like most of the list members hack on C, C++ and java - which are all GPLed. I personally am incapable of learning these languages (I *have* tried) but I have nothing but respect for people who can - and so have to respect their choice of GPL - they have no choice actually.
And it is obvious that no one contributes code to the apache family of applications (probably no one uses them since these come much lower down in the food chain than the kernel, GNU toolchain and the core languages). Fortunately I happen to belong to other lists where such lower level people exist - so life is not all complications ;-)
I admit in my earlier days I never used to sleep well because I was worried that someone would steal my code over night and either GPL it or make it closed source. But I am happy to note that all the code in the various repositories is still there every morning when I check - so now I sleep well.
I was surprised to find that if one contributes translations to launchpad, one is compelled to submit it under the BSD license. What are the consequences of integrating a BSD licensed translation into a GPL'ed code base? But it looks like no one here contributes to launchpad - which is a pity, there are so many applications which need translation and a lot of people who cannot contribute code or documentation can do this - and launchpad makes it so easy. You can contribute as much you like - even just do a word a day if you do not have much time. But unfortunately it is BSD license, so some one may 'steal' the translation and make it proprietary. And why do some thing so mundane as translation when one can hack the kernel?
One big positive that I can take from this debate is that I learned that the GPL does not compel one to release one's code to the public if one distributes it. A can sell the code to B under GPL, and then flog the same copy to C and to D and to E ... B, C, D et al, having paid huge amounts for the 'product' are very unlikely to give it away, so as long as they do not meet up A can go laughing all the way to the bank. Nice to know.
2011/1/3 Kenneth Gonsalves lawgon@thenilgiris.com:
An interesting thing is the so-called dual-licensed projects. Having a 'community' edition with limited functionality to serve a bait to buy the 'full version' which is proprietary. This is usually a massive con job. And strangely enough 99% of dual licensed projects use the GPL. I wonder why.
Could you give a few examples? The ones I have used have full-featured open-source editions.
Binand
On Mon, 2011-01-03 at 17:21 +0530, Binand Sethumadhavan wrote:
2011/1/3 Kenneth Gonsalves lawgon@thenilgiris.com:
An interesting thing is the so-called dual-licensed projects. Having
a
'community' edition with limited functionality to serve a bait to
buy
the 'full version' which is proprietary. This is usually a massive
con
job. And strangely enough 99% of dual licensed projects use the GPL.
I
wonder why.
Could you give a few examples? The ones I have used have full-featured open-source editions.
zimbra
On Mon, 2011-01-03 at 17:37 +0530, Kenneth Gonsalves wrote:
Could you give a few examples? The ones I have used have
full-featured
open-source editions.
zimbra
actually a pretty large industrial group in Coimbatore migrated to zimbra 'community edition' - in one month they migrated back to Microsoft exchange. Reason - 1. grindingly slow, and more important 2. very rudimentary search features. These problems are not there in the editions developed in the closet. There are hundreds of these bogus open source apps around. Although there are quite a few where there is a single edition - the paid for plans offer support and customisation, but the code is the same.
On Monday 03 January 2011 03:35 PM, Kenneth Gonsalves wrote:
On Mon, 2011-01-03 at 12:42 +0530, Raj Mathur (राज माथुर) wrote:
On the other hand, I cannot do anything for those who wish to remain ignorant so that they can continue to misinterpret things to strengthen their fallacious arguments.
yes it is tragic how people refuse to read simple texts which would help them to understand - I feel your pain.
You guys remind me of one joke. A dentist is about to extract a tooth and tells the patient "Madam you are holding my balls". The patient replies "Yes that is to ensure that we do not give each other any pain".
On Wednesday 29 December 2010 20:58:06 Sagar Belure wrote:
Hi all,
Maybe I'm asking another noob question.
Do the home work. Grep the list for every possible variation on this question. Doing ones homework and then offering others the answer is one wonderful method of earning money on foss.
On Wed, Dec 29, 2010 at 10:13 PM, jtd jtd@mtnl.net.in wrote:
On Wednesday 29 December 2010 20:58:06 Sagar Belure wrote:
Hi all,
Maybe I'm asking another noob question.
Do the home work. Grep the list for every possible variation on this question. Doing ones homework and then offering others the answer is one wonderful method of earning money on foss.
Well, thanks for wasting time and giving the useless reply. Although, I felt that talking about FOSS on LUG list gives me feeling of freedom.
PS: When one has got nothing to say/point to some URLs, better not waste time of your own and others deleting such mails.
On Thu, Dec 30, 2010 at 12:25 AM, Sagar Belure sagar.belure@gmail.com wrote:
Do the home work. Grep the list for every possible variation on this question.
Well, thanks for wasting time and giving the useless reply. Although, I felt that talking about FOSS on LUG list gives me feeling of freedom.
Thanks for wasting our time too.
On Thu, Dec 30, 2010 at 12:25 AM, Sagar Belure sagar.belure@gmail.comwrote:
On Wed, Dec 29, 2010 at 10:13 PM, jtd jtd@mtnl.net.in wrote:
On Wednesday 29 December 2010 20:58:06 Sagar Belure wrote:
Hi all,
Maybe I'm asking another noob question.
Do the home work. Grep the list for every possible variation on this question. Doing ones homework and then offering others the answer is one wonderful method of earning money on foss.
Well, thanks for wasting time and giving the useless reply. Although, I felt that talking about FOSS on LUG list gives me feeling of freedom.
PS: When one has got nothing to say/point to some URLs, better not waste time of your own and others deleting such mails.
He is also correct. Even if you search on a google you will get well written articles. After reading you can ask more indepth.
On Thursday 30 December 2010 00:37:51 Narendra Sisodiya wrote:
On Thu, Dec 30, 2010 at 12:25 AM, Sagar Belure
sagar.belure@gmail.comwrote:
On Wed, Dec 29, 2010 at 10:13 PM, jtd jtd@mtnl.net.in wrote:
On Wednesday 29 December 2010 20:58:06 Sagar Belure wrote:
Hi all,
Maybe I'm asking another noob question.
Do the home work. Grep the list for every possible variation on this question. Doing ones homework and then offering others the answer is one wonderful method of earning money on foss.
Well, thanks for wasting time and giving the useless reply.
The ops reply has not made it to my inbox as yet - looks like my mailserver is trying to findout which is dumber, the op or the reply.
Although, I felt that talking about FOSS on LUG list gives me feeling of freedom.
Talking? you were asking questions without research. Infact you are now demanding answers without even bothering to understand the reply.
PS: When one has got nothing to say/point to some URLs, better not waste time of your own and others deleting such mails.
That is a personal attack. But given the level of intelligence we are dealing with I will let it pass.
Get this clear: BEFORE you ask questions, you research and post the results of your research. Then others will reply based on your understanding or lack thereof.
One of the very good methods of making money is studying some topic of interest, then writing articles and holding seminars - one way of providing answers. Do you have the faintest clue how sought after are such people?.
FOSS is vast ecosystem of every concievable tool imaginable and invariably many thousand before you have faced the same problem and found solutions, usually by a bit of research, many suggestions and sometimes by writing code. The nature of the net is such that all such exchanges are archived and google throws up the answers.
But if you expect to sit on your derriere and get answers you are going nowhere.
He is also correct. Even if you search on a google you will get well written articles. After reading you can ask more indepth.
On Thu, Dec 30, 2010 at 1:59 AM, jtd jtd@mtnl.net.in wrote:
Get this clear: BEFORE you ask questions, you research and post the results of your research. Then others will reply based on your understanding or lack thereof.
Alright. The Revolution OS documentary which was made in 2001 shows difficulties Eric Raymond and other VA systems software developers were facing problems while implementing the projects and to get venture capital firms investments. Also, why was the term "Open Source" came into existence instead of "Free Software", and so the BSD license. And then, the Netscape's decision to make their source code open so to complete with Microsoft's IE.
And, so on and forth. But, the documentary and even some of links I got by googling are like late 90's.
I mean, if you think for now, say, "What? A browser for $$? Are you nuts to buy that?"
Also, for guy like me, dealing with all this Free and Open source world not even more than an year now, is not at all worth to refer that all. I wanted the real-time scenario, or should I say, how the market look at all this FOSS development life cycles.
One of the very good methods of making money is studying some topic of interest, then writing articles and holding seminars - one way of providing answers. Do you have the faintest clue how sought after are such people?.
I can't really imagine, people making a *real* business out of this.
FOSS is vast ecosystem of every concievable tool imaginable and invariably many thousand before you have faced the same problem and found solutions, usually by a bit of research, many suggestions and sometimes by writing code. The nature of the net is such that all such exchanges are archived and google throws up the answers.
But if you expect to sit on your derriere and get answers you are going nowhere.
Agreed. I wish I see that line, I wake up every morning out of my bed.
On Thursday 30 December 2010 03:28:26 Sagar Belure wrote:
On Thu, Dec 30, 2010 at 1:59 AM, jtd jtd@mtnl.net.in wrote:
Get this clear: BEFORE you ask questions, you research and post the results of your research. Then others will reply based on your understanding or lack thereof.
Alright. The Revolution OS documentary which was made in 2001 shows difficulties Eric Raymond and other VA systems software developers were facing problems while implementing the projects and to get venture capital firms investments.
Oh. Moral of the story venture capitalists are stupid.
Also, why was the term "Open Source" came into existence instead of "Free Software", and so the BSD license.
Cause ESR could not get VC funding. BSD came about because the BSD guys dont need money, they are devils - just look at their logo - and dont need anything more than a raging fire. .
And then, the Netscape's decision to make their source code open so to complete with Microsoft's IE.
M$ got their IE code from NCSA Mosaic a free software. Some they took from BSD and the rest from a trash can.
And, so on and forth. But, the documentary and even some of links I got by googling are like late 90's.
Something is wrong with google. They cant figure out searches properly. BTW the hits you get have a readership ranking. The scheme is stupid, because higher beings dont ever read whatever everybody else reads.
I mean, if you think for now, say, "What? A browser for $$? Are you nuts to buy that?"
If you say "What? a M$ product ? you must be nuts to kill your computer, screw your data, and pay money. Not to mention getting shafted en passant by those crazy FOSS guys who dont know how to make money.
Also, for guy like me, dealing with all this Free and Open source world not even more than an year now, is not at all worth to refer that all.
True. After all history never repeats for those who dont know. Better hibernate. 20 years from now the world will have crawled backwards and the 90ish answers would be like so relevant.
I wanted the real-time scenario, or should I say, how the market look at all this FOSS development life cycles.
One of the very good methods of making money is studying some topic of interest, then writing articles and holding seminars - one way of providing answers. Do you have the faintest clue how sought after are such people?.
I can't really imagine, people making a *real* business out of this.
Will someone lend him some imagination. I am really on the floor now.
FOSS is vast ecosystem of every concievable tool imaginable and invariably many thousand before you have faced the same problem and found solutions, usually by a bit of research, many suggestions and sometimes by writing code. The nature of the net is such that all such exchanges are archived and google throws up the answers.
But if you expect to sit on your derriere and get answers you are going nowhere.
Agreed. I wish I see that line, I wake up every morning out of my bed.
Take a print and paste it on your wall. Or set it up as a wake up tone. On second thought read all the nineties stuff - every alphabet. If that does not help, nothing will.
On Thu, Dec 30, 2010 at 4:21 AM, jtd jtd@mtnl.net.in wrote:
On Thursday 30 December 2010 03:28:26 Sagar Belure wrote:
On Thu, Dec 30, 2010 at 1:59 AM, jtd jtd@mtnl.net.in wrote:
Get this clear: BEFORE you ask questions, you research and post the results of your research. Then others will reply based on your understanding or lack thereof.
Alright. The Revolution OS documentary which was made in 2001 shows difficulties Eric Raymond and other VA systems software developers were facing problems while implementing the projects and to get venture capital firms investments.
Oh. Moral of the story venture capitalists are stupid.
Also, why was the term "Open Source" came into existence instead of "Free Software", and so the BSD license.
Cause ESR could not get VC funding. BSD came about because the BSD guys dont need money, they are devils - just look at their logo - and dont need anything more than a raging fire. .
And then, the Netscape's decision to make their source code open so to complete with Microsoft's IE.
M$ got their IE code from NCSA Mosaic a free software. Some they took from BSD and the rest from a trash can.
And, so on and forth. But, the documentary and even some of links I got by googling are like late 90's.
Something is wrong with google. They cant figure out searches properly. BTW the hits you get have a readership ranking. The scheme is stupid, because higher beings dont ever read whatever everybody else reads.
I mean, if you think for now, say, "What? A browser for $$? Are you nuts to buy that?"
If you say "What? a M$ product ? you must be nuts to kill your computer, screw your data, and pay money. Not to mention getting shafted en passant by those crazy FOSS guys who dont know how to make money.
Also, for guy like me, dealing with all this Free and Open source world not even more than an year now, is not at all worth to refer that all.
True. After all history never repeats for those who dont know. Better hibernate. 20 years from now the world will have crawled backwards and the 90ish answers would be like so relevant.
I wanted the real-time scenario, or should I say, how the market look at all this FOSS development life cycles.
One of the very good methods of making money is studying some topic of interest, then writing articles and holding seminars - one way of providing answers. Do you have the faintest clue how sought after are such people?.
I can't really imagine, people making a *real* business out of this.
Will someone lend him some imagination. I am really on the floor now.
FOSS is vast ecosystem of every concievable tool imaginable and invariably many thousand before you have faced the same problem and found solutions, usually by a bit of research, many suggestions and sometimes by writing code. The nature of the net is such that all such exchanges are archived and google throws up the answers.
But if you expect to sit on your derriere and get answers you are going nowhere.
Agreed. I wish I see that line, I wake up every morning out of my bed.
Take a print and paste it on your wall. Or set it up as a wake up tone. On second thought read all the nineties stuff - every alphabet. If that does not help, nothing will.
-- Rgds JTD -- http://mm.glug-bom.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxers
Wow. Awesome. Again. See, you've got so much to say than just making *another* comment. So, when I want to share this thread with my other peers, they just go saying "Another LUG thread..."
And, I love FOSS. :)
On Thu, 2010-12-30 at 13:15 +0530, Sagar Belure wrote:
Wow. Awesome. Again. See, you've got so much to say than just making *another* comment. So, when I want to share this thread with my other peers, they just go saying "Another LUG thread..."
kindly refrain from bottom posting
On Thu, 2010-12-30 at 00:37 +0530, Narendra Sisodiya wrote:
Even if you search on a google
how much is google paying you to advertise it's site?
On Thu, Dec 30, 2010 at 12:37 AM, Narendra Sisodiya narendra@narendrasisodiya.com wrote:
On Thu, Dec 30, 2010 at 12:25 AM, Sagar Belure sagar.belure@gmail.comwrote:
On Wed, Dec 29, 2010 at 10:13 PM, jtd jtd@mtnl.net.in wrote:
On Wednesday 29 December 2010 20:58:06 Sagar Belure wrote:
Hi all,
Maybe I'm asking another noob question.
Do the home work. Grep the list for every possible variation on this question. Doing ones homework and then offering others the answer is one wonderful method of earning money on foss.
Well, thanks for wasting time and giving the useless reply. Although, I felt that talking about FOSS on LUG list gives me feeling of freedom.
PS: When one has got nothing to say/point to some URLs, better not waste time of your own and others deleting such mails.
He is also correct. Even if you search on a google you will get well written articles. After reading you can ask more indepth.
May be this may be useful as reference.
http://producingoss.com/en/index.html
HTH With regards,
Greetings,
2010/12/30 Dinesh Shah (દિનેશ શાહ/दिनेश शाह) dineshah@gmail.com:
On Thu, Dec 30, 2010 at 12:37 AM, Narendra Sisodiya narendra@narendrasisodiya.com wrote:
On Thu, Dec 30, 2010 at 12:25 AM, Sagar Belure sagar.belure@gmail.comwrote:
On Wed, Dec 29, 2010 at 10:13 PM, jtd jtd@mtnl.net.in wrote:
On Wednesday 29 December 2010 20:58:06 Sagar Belure wrote:
--Dinesh Shah :-) Shah Micro System Pvt. Ltd. +91-98213-11906 +91-9833-TICKET http://www.shahmicro.com http://iopt.in http://crm.iopt.in Blog: http://dineshah.wordpress.com
could you kindly post resolvable URLs (in the sig at least)?
regards
Rajagopal
On Thu, Dec 30, 2010 at 12:25 AM, Sagar Belure sagar.belure@gmail.comwrote:
On Wed, Dec 29, 2010 at 10:13 PM, jtd jtd@mtnl.net.in wrote:
On Wednesday 29 December 2010 20:58:06 Sagar Belure wrote:
Hi all,
Maybe I'm asking another noob question.
Do the home work. Grep the list for every possible variation on this question. Doing ones homework and then offering others the answer is one wonderful method of earning money on foss.
Well, thanks for wasting time and giving the useless reply. Although, I felt that talking about FOSS on LUG list gives me feeling of freedom.
PS: When one has got nothing to say/point to some URLs, better not waste time of your own and others deleting such mails.
Don't behave like this.. you are not paying anybody on mailing list. It hurts. Specially JTD is one of respectable persons in FOSS+India.
On Thu, Dec 30, 2010 at 1:37 AM, Narendra Sisodiya narendra@narendrasisodiya.com wrote:
Don't behave like this.. you are not paying anybody on mailing list.
Neither I'm getting paid.
It hurts.
I can imagine that. (You can follow the thread, and there shouldn't be *seniority* when it comes to hurting the egos)
Specially JTD is one of respectable persons in FOSS+India.
Yes, that's really true though, even if you ask me. Seriously, even I have been paying a lot more attention to each and every word he puts on the list. I had an image of him on my own.
Let me just say, when I get the disgusting thoughts looking at someone's thread. I ignore answering. I will wait for others replies, so to read their views. Or *at worst*, I will delete it.
So instead of pointing someone in *any* direction, I would simply save my time, replying *anything* at all.
On Thursday 30 December 2010 03:01:26 Sagar Belure wrote:
On Thu, Dec 30, 2010 at 1:37 AM, Narendra Sisodiya
narendra@narendrasisodiya.com wrote:
Don't behave like this.. you are not paying anybody on mailing list.
Neither I'm getting paid.
Perfect biz. We pay you to answer your questions. WOW. Brilliant.
It hurts.
I can imagine that. (You can follow the thread, and there shouldn't be *seniority* when it comes to hurting the egos)
Dont worry your self. I dont give a damn.
Specially JTD is one of respectable persons in FOSS+India.
Take that with a pinch of salt.
Yes, that's really true though, even if you ask me. Seriously, even I have been paying a lot more attention to each and every word he puts on the list. I had an image of him on my own.
Let me just say, when I get the disgusting thoughts looking at someone's thread. I ignore answering.
No. You have to go to church and make a confession, especially when you look at someone's threads. You can have disgusting thoughts, even threadbare ones, but only after you have confessed the previous one.
I will wait for others replies, so to read their views. Or *at worst*, I will delete it.
So instead of pointing someone in *any* direction, I would simply save my time, replying *anything* at all.
Thank god you are not going to write or train others. That was what I was suggesting. But since you quite, obviously know a lot about real biz.....
On Thu, Dec 30, 2010 at 4:57 AM, jtd jtd@mtnl.net.in wrote: [...snip...]
Neither I'm getting paid.
Perfect biz. We pay you to answer your questions. WOW. Brilliant.
[...snip...]
Well, I meant I'm not getting paid by answering others/my own queries nor I'm getting paid my asking questions. So, as you see, it's not *compulsory* to answer/reply for anyone to reply for every post.
On Thu, 2010-12-30 at 01:37 +0530, Narendra Sisodiya wrote:
Don't behave like this.. you are not paying anybody on mailing list. It hurts. Specially JTD is one of respectable persons in FOSS+India.
s/respectable/respected/
On Thu, Dec 30, 2010 at 12:38 PM, Kenneth Gonsalves lawgon@thenilgiris.comwrote:
On Thu, 2010-12-30 at 01:37 +0530, Narendra Sisodiya wrote:
Don't behave like this.. you are not paying anybody on mailing list. It hurts. Specially JTD is one of respectable persons in FOSS+India.
s/respectable/respected/
Thanks for correcting my English.
On Thursday 30 December 2010 12:38 PM, Kenneth Gonsalves wrote:
On Thu, 2010-12-30 at 01:37 +0530, Narendra Sisodiya wrote:
Don't behave like this.. you are not paying anybody on mailing list. It hurts. Specially JTD is one of respectable persons in FOSS+India.
s/respectable/respected/
I have been wanting to ask this for a long time. What is this code many of you guys use to show corrections? 's/wrong/right/' ?
On Fri, Dec 31, 2010 at 12:06 AM, Rony gnulinuxist@gmail.com wrote:
I have been wanting to ask this for a long time. What is this code many of you guys use to show corrections? 's/wrong/right/' ?
This is the syntax of ed/sed which is also used in vim. e.g. In vim, <Esc>:s/foo/bar/<Enter> to change the first occurrence of 'foo' to 'bar' on the current line.
Thanks, Mohan S N
On Fri, 2010-12-31 at 00:06 +0530, Rony wrote:
On Thursday 30 December 2010 12:38 PM, Kenneth Gonsalves wrote:
On Thu, 2010-12-30 at 01:37 +0530, Narendra Sisodiya wrote:
Don't behave like this.. you are not paying anybody on mailing
list.
It hurts. Specially JTD is one of respectable persons in FOSS+India.
s/respectable/respected/
I have been wanting to ask this for a long time. What is this code many of you guys use to show corrections? 's/wrong/right/' ?
I think it is perl - translated it means 'substitute right for wrong'
2010/12/31 Kenneth Gonsalves lawgon@thenilgiris.com:
of you guys use to show corrections? 's/wrong/right/' ?
I think it is perl - translated it means 'substitute right for wrong'
Perl came much later - this is actually from sed(1).
Binand
On Friday 31 December 2010 11:16 AM, Binand Sethumadhavan wrote:
2010/12/31 Kenneth Gonsalveslawgon@thenilgiris.com:
of you guys use to show corrections? 's/wrong/right/' ?
I think it is perl - translated it means 'substitute right for wrong'
Perl came much later - this is actually from sed(1).
Binand
Ok so it is the 'substitute' command. Thanks everyone for your inputs.
On Wed, 2010-12-29 at 20:58 +0530, Sagar Belure wrote:
PS: Apologize for the cross post. Do not include the other mailing list id if you are not subscribed to it.
please do not cross post - an apology will not cure the matter. If you want an answer to a question, choose the best mailing list and ask there. If no answer is forthcoming choose another. Otherwise please cross post, but announce a bounty for the mailing list that gives the best answer. (it need not be a big amount - a couple of lakhs will do)
On Thu, Dec 30, 2010 at 12:19 PM, Kenneth Gonsalves lawgon@thenilgiris.com wrote:
On Wed, 2010-12-29 at 20:58 +0530, Sagar Belure wrote:
PS: Apologize for the cross post. Do not include the other mailing list id if you are not subscribed to it.
please do not cross post - an apology will not cure the matter. If you want an answer to a question, choose the best mailing list and ask there. If no answer is forthcoming choose another.
Again. My apologies sir. And, will make sure that, I will do as you suggested.
Otherwise please cross post, but announce a bounty for the mailing list that gives the best answer. (it need not be a big amount - a couple of lakhs will do)
At least, previous one is better than this one. ;-)
On Wednesday 29 December 2010 08:58 PM, Sagar Belure wrote:
Hi all,
Maybe I'm asking another noob question. But, wanted to know, how the big companies gain profit who run Free and Open Source project like Mozilla, Apache, etc. Of course, even if you are working for Free and Open source projects, there has to be some income.
IMHO, there is a lot of variation in the term software and profit. Within closed and open software you have further sub divisions like serviceable or non-serviceable. Non-serviceable are one time installations that do not require any service intervention, like browsers, office suites, multimedia players. They are installed once and except for installing a new version, there is no maintainance required during their usage. Therefore such FOSS software will rely on donations and sponsorships. Serviceable ones are like accounting, database, operating systems, server systems. These require regular maintainance as they process critical and valuable data. The developers can make good money by providing good service for the software they develop. Within these parameters there is also another variation, whether you are distributing the software to a customer privately or you are putting it on the web for anyone to download. If you are distributing it privately, you can still make one time profit on the non-serviceable FOSS you develop.
Now it is up to you to decide what type of software you want to develop, how will you sell it, how will you provide effective maintainance for it to make profit. For more details on individual companies or projects, as others have suggested, do look up google for their success stories.
For profit too there is a variation. Do you want to make money enough to recover your development and distribution cost or all that _and_ make a handsome profit over it or do you want to do the above _and_ keep milking your customers for every copy of the software they install, for as many years that you can pull it off. It is need vs greed. If a poor taxiwala overcharges a few rupees during a taxi shortage, he is considered a criminal who should be severely punished. If airline companies form a cartel, create artificial shortage and extremely overcharge their customers, they are respectable blue collared businessmen who simply call it the laws of 'supply and demand'.
On Dec 30, 2010, at 11:58 PM, Rony wrote:
For profit too there is a variation. Do you want to make money enough to recover your development and distribution cost or all that _and_ make a handsome profit over it or do you want to do the above _and_ keep milking your customers for every copy of the software they install, for as many years that you can pull it off.
:o)
It is need vs greed. If a poor taxiwala overcharges a few rupees during a taxi shortage, he is considered a criminal who should be severely punished. If airline companies form a cartel, create artificial shortage and extremely overcharge their customers, they are respectable blue collared businessmen who simply call it the laws of 'supply and demand'.
Bang on! In short, everything depends on whose side the law is. Morality and law, often they don't agree.
Cheers,
Amol Hatwar
2010/12/30 Rony gnulinuxist@gmail.com:
taxiwala overcharges a few rupees during a taxi shortage, he is considered a criminal who should be severely punished. If airline companies form a cartel, create artificial shortage and extremely overcharge their customers, they are respectable blue collared businessmen who simply call it the laws of 'supply and demand'.
First of all, I think you mean "white collared businessmen". :-)
Secondly, the taxiwalla can do it because his friend, the next taxi in line, is also going to do it. That is, they too are operating in a cartel.
Third, the laws of supply and demand as taught in introductory economics courses assume "many suppliers and consumers" that one or a group of them cannot control the price - which obviously doesn't hold true in the case of a cartel. The airline bosses are taking the travelling public for a ride (pun intended) when they use these laws to justify their actions.
The concept of profit goes through three distinct phases:
1. When you are the sole provider of something, you can charge pretty much what the buyer is willing to pay for that. Basically, the buyer will have an idea, "I'll pay $N for this, but if the price is beyond that, I'll do without it". When you are the sole provider, you can try to estimate what $N is and charge the customer precisely that. Think of Indian Airlines in the eighties.
2. When you are one among a small group of providers for something, you price your output at what Rony suggests - cost plus markup. The cost would be different for different providers (and the markup too!), so there will be variations in prices. But Since there are only few providers, each one can find a buyer at his price. This is where Indian aviation industry should be, today. But unfortunately, this is the situation where cartelization is most appealing - sit around a table and fix the price.
3. When the number of providers become large enough, the law of supply and demand takes over, and you lose the ability to set the price. You have to sell at the market price (and bring down your costs to make a profit), or perish. The aviation industries in some mature markets (Europe) is in this stage - so much so that air travel in Europe is actually much cheaper than train travel, but still airlines make profits year after year.
Binand
On Friday 31 December 2010 08:55 AM, Binand Sethumadhavan wrote:
2010/12/30 Ronygnulinuxist@gmail.com:
taxiwala overcharges a few rupees during a taxi shortage, he is considered a criminal who should be severely punished. If airline companies form a cartel, create artificial shortage and extremely overcharge their customers, they are respectable blue collared businessmen who simply call it the laws of 'supply and demand'.
First of all, I think you mean "white collared businessmen". :-)
Yes. Thanks for pointing it out.
Third, the laws of supply and demand as taught in introductory economics courses assume "many suppliers and consumers" that one or a group of them cannot control the price - which obviously doesn't hold true in the case of a cartel. The airline bosses are taking the travelling public for a ride (pun intended) when they use these laws to justify their actions.
One of the head honchos had actually used the term 'supply and demand' in his statement to justify the high ticket prices.
The concept of profit goes through three distinct phases:
You have painstakingly explained it. Thanks. :-)
-
Amol Hatwár -
Binand Sethumadhavan -
Dinesh Shah (દિનેશ શાહ/दिनेश शाह) -
jtd -
Kartik Mistry -
Kenneth Gonsalves -
Mohan Nayaka -
Narendra Sisodiya -
Raj Mathur (राज माथुर) -
Rajagopal Swaminathan -
Rony -
Rony Bill
-
Sagar Belure -
Shamit Verma -
steve