Note that for GPL, there is no such requirement. If you don't distribute binaries, you need not release *anything* of the sources to anybody, including modifications. If you *do* distribute binaries, you must release *all* the sources, not just modifications.
Chuck,
What is exorbitant? If a software refugee from the 20th century will solve the problem then fine. If it takes a state of the art solution to meet an application requirement then that is the price. If there are multiple solutions even better there is a choice. Even free software tools have development costs.
To directly address your newspaper comment there are newspapers that cost less than the paper they are printed on and others that cost a thousand dollars a copy is is all in ink placement.
w..
CBFalc> > I just re-read this paragraph. What you are saying for is it is
He had it right the first time. GPL is more restrictive than many commercial licenses.
w..
CBFalc> Chris H wrote:
This is a very broad brush statement. I am aware of one major car company that recently replaced unix with Microsoft in their production products over reliability problems.
w..
Please do not top-post. Your answer belongs after (or intermixed with) the quoted material to which you reply, after snipping all irrelevant material. See the following links:
(taming google) (newusers)
--
[mail]: Chuck F (cbfalconer at maineline dot net)
[page]:
Try the download section.
Indeed! In fact, that's exactly how I took this situation and explained it to others who were talented, yet complaining.
We seem to be in substantial agreement.
Jon
No I didn't.
-- \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\ \/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/ \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/
It is so I was referring to China.
Not at all. It works. None are as unsafe as Linux. The Unix backdoor hack is easily implimentable in any GCC compiler and can infect any version of Linux.
Yes
Hence it is a very restrictive licence that most commercial users ignore.
-- \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\ \/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/ \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/
In message , DJ Delorie writes
Which is where the vast majority of commercial users break the license and do not distribute.
-- \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\ \/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/ \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/
GPL Usual commercial s/w You get source yes no You can modify the source yes no You can distribute it yes no You can port it to your CPU/OS yes no Free evaluation yes maybe Crippled evaluation product no maybe "per seat" license fees no yes "per seat", "per year" support fees maybe maybe Survives maker's bancrupcy yes maybe not
Either my dictionary disagrees with you upon the meaning of "restrictive", or GPL isn't that restrictive at all.
The GPL has one big restriction that manifests when you include GPL'd product in your own product. In contrast, commercial s/w comes with other creative strings attached, such as "per device runtime fees" or "your marketing material must include our logo". Essentially, the maker of the code you use wants to participate in some way in your success. Looks like a sound balance to me.
You may not like the GPL's restriction. Your choice. But that doesn't make it evil[tm]. From a technical point of view, I like it. My current employer doesn't agree with me on that, so we don't use GPL'd stuff in our products. Simple.
Stefan
That would be true if everyone does protocol. I've heard plausible stories from smaller European companies that big American companies simply say "who cares about copyrights, we're big, they're small, they should sue us if they think we're violating their rights". Even if you are right, it can cost bazillion bucks having a judge tell that your competition. Especially when there's an ocean inbetween. Really small companies do not survive that.
And then, there's of course the National Spionage Agency; look at the "Enercon vs. Kenetech Windpower" case.
Stefan
The Chinese and in fact most Asian and far Eastern companies say that as they have a different approach to copyright and business. And they use a lot of Open Source they modify and don't release...
-- \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\ \/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/ \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/
And YES for commercial depending on what it is.
And YES for commercial depending on what it is.
And YES for commercial depending on what it is.
And YES for commercial depending on what it is.
Normally YES for commercial SW all be it with some restrictions.
Crippled? Emotive and loaded word showing complete bias indicating that poster can not be trusted.
NO depending on what it is.
Agreed
That is a Maybe for both.
No your biased view can not see the restrictions.
Yes.
All licenses have restrictions.
Which is what I have been saying about commercial SW
Likewise for the less restrictive commercial licenses.
It is your employer that pays the wages... BTW what if your employer finds the competition is putting him out of business using the Open source that you are developing in your spare time.. Explain that to your wife and mortgage company.
BTW if you work as a SW engineer and you work on Open Source you may find that *technically* any software you work on the IP belongs to the employer. Therefore in theory most Open Source actually belongs to the employers of the authors.
This is very rarely if ever invoked though it was in a rather famous case involving Barbie and Bratz. The designer of Bratz previously worked for the Barbie people and they went to court to say the Bratz designs were built on the Barbie work and done (all be it in his own time) whilst still technically employed by the Barbie people
The courts found for Barbie and against Bratz.
This could be interesting if anyone invokes this for some one doing Open source in their spare time... I suspect the only winners would be the Lawyers. I suspect M$ have not raised this as it would open so many other cans of worms on employment law that it would have a bigger effect on the world then the credit crunch :-)
Of course the other side is the large number of companies who are using and modifying Open Source but not making the source public. Some are going to court.
The question is:- is it better to let them do that and use Open Source or is it better to take them to court and risk them not using open source anymore because for commercial reasons they do not want to release their products source code.
On the other hand are those using Open source and not releasing it just using Open Source to cut development costs whilst putting nothing back? If so most are gaining an unfair advantage over many companies whose staff actually do write Open Source in their spare time.
-- \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\ \/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/ \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/
No one seems to be making the distinction between the *tools*, and the
*product* that you make with the tools. It is critical to this whole argument. You can use GPL *tools* to make proprietary software, as long as you do not include GPL libraries. Libraries aimed at embedded use are generally not GPL'ed.So e.g. when Chris talks about some commercial software being "open source", he is referring to the libraries that end up on the target. Not the tools themselves!
And it is particularly nonsensical to compare the commercial license for distribution of the *target*, to the GPL terms for distribution of the
*compiler*.-- John Devereux
This is is a good point.
Source licenses are available for our tools and generally are available from those we compete against.
I don't know of any current commercial tools that don't license the libraries for inclusion into products as part of the license. The GPL case is more restrictive in that regard. Commercial embedded systems tools generally distribute library source with the distribution. (I don't know of an exception to this although I am sure there are some)
Regards,
-- Walter Banks Byte Craft Limited
We saw most of these things at one time as the business model for commercial software was maturing. Now per copy licensing and logo is part of a much bigger license agreement. I see the opposite in as many agreements. We can't publicly or privately reference the customer in our material.
My ego would love to see "Byte Craft inside" logo's on the products that were developed with our tools. Our research has shown it is of limited value in our marketplace.
I would agree. The product is 99% done and the release date is next Tuesday, we get a call looking for coding suggestions. I know what I will be doing for the weekend. The feeling is so intense when it all comes together that this is worth it. From a business perspective it is called support from a personal perspective , priceless. We have a desire to see our customers succeed.
Regards,
-- Walter Banks Byte Craft Limited
...
What all this thread has avoided so far is that "GPL/FOSS" software uses a different business model from "proprietary" software.
Proprietary software puts more emphasis on the initial price of acquisition, but you can usually have an update and support contract.
For GPL/FOSS software, if you want support, you pay for it at consultancy rates or you buy a support contract. If you do not want support, you pay for it in your developers' wages.
In either case, what really counts for a commercial operation acquiring software tools is how long (paid person-hours) it takes to be up and running. After that, problems cost according to the responsiveness of the maintainers of the acquired software.
Cost, reliability and risk in software acquisition, IMHO, has very little to do with the initial licence terms.
Stephen
-- Stephen Pelc, stephenXXX@mpeforth.com MicroProcessor Engineering Ltd - More Real, Less Time 133 Hill Lane, Southampton SO15 5AF, England tel: +44 (0)23 8063 1441, fax: +44 (0)23 8033 9691 web: http://www.mpeforth.com - free VFX Forth downloads
Well thanks... except you seem to be missing it below... :)
Really? The sources for the compiler itself? Surely that would allow someone to bypass the dongle/node-locking/license manager/whatever.
(I don't mean specifically for your tools; ISTR you - commendably - don't do that?)
OK - but again, the libraries are *not* generally GPLed, and having a GPL'ed compiler in itself says nothing about the license of the generated code. For example, here is the license for avr-libc (the library for use with the AVR target of GCC):
Another scenario is the case of larger systems like linux based appliances. Linux is GPL, but that does not automatically bring *all* the code in a linux appliance under the GPL. Only the GPLed programs, including any *modifications* to them, require this. AFAIK it is perfectly permissable to make all the manufacturer-written code "userland", binary and proprietary.
-- John Devereux
Usually proprietary software requires a maintenance fee too doesn't it?
Updates for free software are also free!
In my experience free mailing list "support" is better too (even though unpaid!). I used the paid support for a £2k compiler for two issues.
Q) function pointers broken. A) We never got that working in that memory model
Q) Dongle now preventing access to code with original compiler A) Upgrade to our new (incompatible) compiler
-- John Devereux
Obviously not as they contain a lot of IP.
Why would you want to do that?
-- \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\ \/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/ \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/
ElectronDepot website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.