User Name
Password
AppleNova Forums » Programmer's Nook »

Spider Solitaire License


Register Members List Calendar Search FAQ Posting Guidelines
View Poll Results: Which license should we use?
GNU GPL 13 68.42%
GNU LGPL 3 15.79%
BSD 7 36.84%
MIT 0 0%
Apache 0 0%
Other 1 5.26%
Multiple Choice Poll. Voters: 19. You may not vote on this poll

Spider Solitaire License
Thread Tools
pmazer
Member
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Atlanta, GA
Send a message via AIM to pmazer  
2005-12-12, 00:18

I think it's time to all agree on a license. Above, I listed a couple of licenses. If you want something else, list it below.
  quote
Dave
Ninja Editor
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Bay Area, CA
 
2005-12-12, 02:50

I don't know the difference between them.
  quote
AsLan^
Not a tame lion...
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Narnia
 
2005-12-12, 07:21

If you guys are interested in participating in the project, be sure to put your name down at the wiki... Spider Solitaire Wiki

If you don't know the difference between the licenses, choose GPL. The BSD license is good for projects that people want to turn in to commerical projects later on.

The GPL ensures that if anyone uses part of the program in their program the source remains "free" (as in freedom) and must be distributed with or made available with the binary. The BSD license gives the derived work the option of keeping the alterations closed source, which is good for projects that might fork into commercial ventures and keeping your source secret gives you a competitive edge.
  quote
Enki
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
 
2005-12-12, 17:12

That's exactly the reason I don't like the GPL, the LGPL is better but still makes me twitch. It is becoming an impediment to anyone other than strict hobbyists using it. Even academia's lawyers are getting antsy over GPL licenced code because someday they might like to provide something to a funding entity and not publish ALL the code. The derivative works issues are draconian.

BSD gives the original coders control of their code which nobody else can take away, and ensures attribution if the code is rolled into another project. But no draconian "Thou must publish all changes and all code from anything that you have linked against it."
  quote
pmazer
Member
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Atlanta, GA
Send a message via AIM to pmazer  
2005-12-12, 17:51

Quote:
Originally Posted by Enki
That's exactly the reason I don't like the GPL, the LGPL is better but still makes me twitch. It is becoming an impediment to anyone other than strict hobbyists using it. Even academia's lawyers are getting antsy over GPL licenced code because someday they might like to provide something to a funding entity and not publish ALL the code. The derivative works issues are draconian.

BSD gives the original coders control of their code which nobody else can take away, and ensures attribution if the code is rolled into another project. But no draconian "Thou must publish all changes and all code from anything that you have linked against it."
I think you're misunderstanding the point of the GPL. As I understand it, and the reason I believe most developers use it, is that GPL code is not intended to go into commercial products. Rather, it's meant to go into code which will also be GPL'd and the source code fully released. Using it this way, the GPL is quite easy to abide by. BSD is used for code which has both purposes in mind. Many developers don't want people to profit off of code which they write, and thus they use GPL.
  quote
rollercoaster375
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: UIllinois (Champaign, IL)
Send a message via AIM to rollercoaster375 Send a message via MSN to rollercoaster375 Send a message via Yahoo to rollercoaster375 Send a message via Skype™ to rollercoaster375 
2005-12-12, 18:00

Quote:
Originally Posted by Enki
That's exactly the reason I don't like the GPL, the LGPL is better but still makes me twitch. It is becoming an impediment to anyone other than strict hobbyists using it. Even academia's lawyers are getting antsy over GPL licenced code because someday they might like to provide something to a funding entity and not publish ALL the code. The derivative works issues are draconian.

BSD gives the original coders control of their code which nobody else can take away, and ensures attribution if the code is rolled into another project. But no draconian "Thou must publish all changes and all code from anything that you have linked against it."
But the BSD doesn't ensure that the code will stay Open Source. Keeping the development open is an absolute nesscessity.
  quote
ahdustin
New Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
 
2005-12-12, 19:17

I think on this project, the people as a whole want the GNU GPL. Plus this is going to be a fully open-source for ever.

So i think that that should end the voting.

GNU GPL it is.
  quote
Enki
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
 
2005-12-13, 13:32

Quote:
Originally Posted by rollercoaster375
But the BSD doesn't ensure that the code will stay Open Source. Keeping the development open is an absolute nesscessity.

A code base licenced under BSD will always be open. But it receives updates by the choice of the contributer, not by a coder being compelled to contribute by the licence lest the coder or company or researcher that touches the code be liable for damages.

Open source with a good licence that enables contribution by choice is a great thing. Open source that compells contribution of all linked code is scary in my eyes.

OS X is built on top of BSD licenced code. Darwin's licence is slightly different, but roughly analogous to the BSD licence. These licences work because they do not remove the choice of a code user as to whether or not they HAVE to contribute any and ALL changes to the original code, they just have to give it an attribution. Apple tends to make money and make contributions back to the OS community, but they can hold back some things as proprietaty if they wish. I see that as a very successful model that doesn't get paranoid about future use of contributed code.


If I download and use a GPL project and use my existing code to modify it, my code is no longer mine except that the copyright to those lines would be in my name, but I forfiet all future control of it and the influences the tentacles the GPL licence suddenly gives it over other folks code. I can never make another change without posting it, because I gave up that right when I gave it that licence. And heaven forbid I get the least bit sloppy at 2AM and let that GPL code on my machine touch other code which is part of a research project...

I am not paranoid that code I write and post as open source is used by others to make money. I posted it as open source with no strings attached when I selected the BSD licence. It is truly a gift to the community then with the one small request, that if someone finds it useful to acknowledge that in the small print someplace.

I respect the choice of GPL if that's how the team wants to go, but means I'm out. Good luck guys!
  quote
AsLan^
Not a tame lion...
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Narnia
 
2005-12-13, 13:46

I dont mean to be rude but... are you saying that you dont want to work on a GPL project because you are afraid that someone wont have the freedom to take your work and incorporate it into a closed source project later ?

I mean, I could see that if you were creating a technology that would have some impact on computing, or the internet, or anything, or had commercial viability, but we are just trying to come up with a spider solitaire game !

I'm not a GNU vs BSD guy myself, use the right license for whatever the intentions of what it is you are programming. I think in this case, people are more familiar with GPL and GPL has a friendly public image, BSD is less well known and probably got less votes because of that.
  quote
Mr Beardsley
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Colorado Springs
Send a message via AIM to Mr Beardsley  
2005-12-13, 14:14

Enki makes good points, and I agree with him that GPL does have some real suckatude. I don't think the license will keep me from helping on the project, but I'm sure not a fan of the straight GPL.

"Slow vehicle speeds with frequent stops would signal traffic congestion, for instance."

uh... it could also signal that my Mom is at the wheel...
  quote
thuh Freak
Finally broke the seal
 
Join Date: May 2004
 
2005-12-13, 15:24

Enki and others, i think you have misunderstood copyright law and the GNU GPL. As the original writer of a piece of independant code, you own the copyright. If you choose to contribute your independant portion (be it a line, or several pages..) to a GPL project, and to license your piece as GPL, then anyone who receives it under that license must abide by the GPL. If you, the copyright owner, want to contribute the same code to a GPL, a BSD, and a completely closed source project, you are free to do so all at the same time, or only one or two. The copyright owner is not bound by any license or agreement over their works. The person who receives the code/program, is bound by the terms under which they recieved the code. They are not allowed to do many things (including derive new works, and distribute), without explicit statement in the license. The license or agreement grants some of those rights from the (c) holder to the individual.

So, you make A, and GPL it. I really like your algorithms, and I want to make B, with all/most of your code plus a little of mine; your code must remin under the GPL or compatible license, as thats how i received it and i've not contacted you about other licensing options. To be useful, I'll generally make my portions GPL and distribute yours and mine together as 'B'. My portions, even if I contribute them upstream to you, are mine to own. I can take my pieces, cut them out of B, and put them into a new project, 'C'. I read and study your original 'A', and figure out a new way to do it (in a clean room, of course), without any of your original code. With 'C', it now contains 100% code I've made, and thus, I'm free to license it however I like; GPL be damned.

accidentally using GPL code in a closed source project would be quite unfortunate, but not as disasterous as you imply. it does NOT require you to open up your closed code. you own that code, the GPL does not cede ownership of that closed code to the GPL code's project. as the GPL pieces were accidentally included, and your program was released without a GPL compatible license, you need only to remove the GPL code [sooner rather than later, so you dont piss off whoever owns the GPL portions for stealing from them; potentially the GPL code's owners could ask for damages, i suppose, to be expected, since in this instance you did steal their code from them]. you will never, under the terms of the GPL, be forced to open the source of your own proprietary closed code (unless, perhaps, by a judge, who wishes to investigate if your proprietary closed code is as proprietary and closed as you claim).

to use the GPL is a choice by the developers who wish for all contributions and derivative works of a product to be distributed freely. free as in source availability and freedom to make local modifications (without requiring they be upstreamed) and use it however you want {plus other freedoms that RMS likes to talk about}. if you download a GPL project, and make your own modifications to it, you are free to do so. you dont ever have to open your own modifications, if you never distribute. the GPL only becomes 'viral' when you want to take someone else's GPL code, and distribute it with your own.

the LGPL is a bit foolish, imo, for this project. the LGPL is intended for use in shared code (libraries, DLLs, ...) for which a closed option already exists. the intent is to make a standin replacement for the closed library. that way, an end user can choose to not use the closed library and substitute the GPL version.

also, commercial, proprietary, closed source and open source are important terms with special meanings. commercial does not exclude open source (Red Hat, for example, is a PTC listed on the NASDAQ which engages in commerce and deals in open source software). proprietary means something is owned (the code pieces that I write are just as proprietary {my property} as the code that MS or Apple write). closed source refers to a project where the source code is not and will not be made available. open source refers to the availability of source code (technically, if you are the government of China and paid MS billions of dollars, they might give you access to their Windows code; making it "open source").

(in case you didn't figure it out from all the paragraphs above, i like the GPL)
  quote
thuh Freak
Finally broke the seal
 
Join Date: May 2004
 
2005-12-13, 15:27

unfortunately, i've just come across some paid outside work, so i wont be able to contribute much to the project itself.
  quote
Enki
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
 
2005-12-13, 20:25

Quote:
Originally Posted by AsLan^
I dont mean to be rude but... are you saying that you dont want to work on a GPL project because you are afraid that someone wont have the freedom to take your work and incorporate it into a closed source project later ?

I mean, I could see that if you were creating a technology that would have some impact on computing, or the internet, or anything, or had commercial viability, but we are just trying to come up with a spider solitaire game !

I'm not a GNU vs BSD guy myself, use the right license for whatever the intentions of what it is you are programming. I think in this case, people are more familiar with GPL and GPL has a friendly public image, BSD is less well known and probably got less votes because of that.
No.

I don't want to loose the ability to write new code and use/link against my submitted GPL code without being compelled to post the entire new work as a GPL'ed derived work. Use of a licence that compells all derived works to make the source available does not allow me, the original writer, to derive anything unless it is free software (in entirety) as well. [and in an aside to thuh Freak: I don't want to completely rewrite from scratch a non-GPL version of the code that I already wrote and hold copyright on to get around having to publish the entire derived project source. ]

Frankly, there are several open source licences that do not potentially take away the the rights of the copyright holder to do future work and decide to not make the new derivative work open source. There is absolutely no mention of any holiday from licence restrictions to the copyrightholder of the original code, just a lot of ominous You's.

GPL License site

To put it bluntly, I don't want to chance FSF lawyers taking a different interpretation than thuh Freak and getting behind the 8-ball. Especially when there are OS licences available that I am comfortable with where there is zero chance of that happening.

I agree most folks are familiar with the acronym GPL, but I don't think many have actually looked at what it could do to their future use of their own code. I believe in open source software, but I do not agree with the GPL.

Yes, this may only be a spider solitare game, but I have written a mostly really bad networked Hearts game a few years back and have re-used the randomizing code and some of the networking code in research projects. I hate typing so I tend to reuse a lot, and I don't want to have to do even parts of something a second time if I can avoid it.

Last edited by Enki : 2005-12-13 at 20:31.
  quote
drewprops
Space Pirate
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Atlanta
 
2005-12-13, 23:45

I have to say that this is actually a damned interesting thread. The GPL license seems to be a breakwater between Pro and Hobbyist, entrepreneur and altruist. I know that's too cursory a reading and I think that I'd be wrong to assume that those who object to the GPL are the Pros, but it seems like a good business decision to retain the ability to develop and keep subsequent code proprietary. While my first thought was "why would they care about the code from a silly card game I realize that elegant code can happen anywhere.

With there being so few coders who know their stuff in this forum to begin with should you guys try to go for a license that the most of you can live with? If this project gets huge (it couldn't possibly) would you lose a lot of money or control of the code if someone took the code, fiddled it, and took it commercial (why would they?).

Like I said, this is interesting dialogue. I sure hope that you can find a license that fits the group.

Steve Jobs ate my cat's watermelon.
Captain Drew on Twitter
  quote
AsLan^
Not a tame lion...
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Narnia
 
2005-12-14, 01:08

Enki, perhaps this will alleviate your fears...

The bit you are looking for

Quote:
To release a non-free program is always ethically tainted, but legally there is no obstacle to your doing this. If you are the copyright holder for the code, you can release it under various different non-exclusive licenses at various times.
That bit about releasing a non-free program being unethical is a bit rich, but they do indeed state on the site that you can re-use your own code.

Last edited by AsLan^ : 2005-12-14 at 01:11. Reason: a little of this and that...
  quote
pmazer
Member
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Atlanta, GA
Send a message via AIM to pmazer  
2005-12-14, 09:02

Quote:
Originally Posted by AsLan^
Enki, perhaps this will alleviate your fears...

The bit you are looking for

That bit about releasing a non-free program being unethical is a bit rich, but they do indeed state on the site that you can re-use your own code.
Yep, this is why, for example, the MySQL guys can release both a GPL and non-GPL version of their database. You own the copyright to your code, but under the GPL, in order to use someone else's code, you have to release any changes.
  quote
faramirtook
A for effort.
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: New Jersey
 
2005-12-14, 11:38

Quote:
Originally Posted by pmazer
Yep, this is why, for example, the MySQL guys can release both a GPL and non-GPL version of their database. You own the copyright to your code, but under the GPL, in order to use someone else's code, you have to release any changes.

Trolltech does the same with the Qt libraries. If you want to use it in a commercial, closed-source project, you have to pay for it. But if you want to use the same libraries in a free/open source project, go ahead and use a GPL-compatable license

Ale, man, ale's the stuff to drink
For fellows whom it hurts to think
  quote
Enki
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
 
2005-12-14, 12:36

Quote:
Originally Posted by AsLan^
Enki, perhaps this will alleviate your fears...

The bit you are looking for

That bit about releasing a non-free program being unethical is a bit rich, but they do indeed state on the site that you can re-use your own code.
I hadn't looked there before, I tend to read the primary source. I am still troubled though that that page is not actually part of the license, but explaining the license and giving a slightly different interpretation. Also that the academic organization I work for has vetted the licences and the lawyers have been quite negative about the GPL restrictions and potential problems.
  quote
pmazer
Member
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Atlanta, GA
Send a message via AIM to pmazer  
2005-12-14, 14:04

Quote:
Thus, it is not the intent of this section to claim rights or contest your rights to work written entirely by you; rather, the intent is to exercise the right to control the distribution of derivative or collective works based on the Program.
Quote:
10. If you wish to incorporate parts of the Program into other free programs whose distribution conditions are different, write to the author to ask for permission. For software which is copyrighted by the Free Software Foundation, write to the Free Software Foundation; we sometimes make exceptions for this. Our decision will be guided by the two goals of preserving the free status of all derivatives of our free software and of promoting the sharing and reuse of software generally.
I think it's implied that you can do whatever you want with code you personally write.

The thing that scares me this most about the GPL is:

Quote:
Each version is given a distinguishing version number. If the Program specifies a version number of this License which applies to it and "any later version", you have the option of following the terms and conditions either of that version or of any later version published by the Free Software Foundation.
That means at any time the FSF could potentially write a GPL which states that they can do whatever they want with the code, and begin releasing other works commercially. Also, I see no reason to require this line. Why can't works just be released under the license you release it, and not the latest version. Then, anyone would be free to pick any version they wanted.
  quote
thuh Freak
Finally broke the seal
 
Join Date: May 2004
 
2005-12-14, 14:48

Quote:
Originally Posted by Enki
and in an aside to thuh Freak: I don't want to completely rewrite from scratch a non-GPL version of the code that I already wrote and hold copyright on to get around having to publish the entire derived project source.
if you wrote code, you are automatically (within the US atleast) granted copyright over it. no end-user license that I know of affects the copyright owner's rights (insofar as the rights granted by (c) law). the GPL only comes in to play with code that a person receives from another person, explicitly distributed by the GPL terms. the receiver is bound by the GPL (and in the case of the GPL, it basically only affects you if you distribute to others). the copyright owner is not bound by any license over his/her own creation. the GPL does not, and cannot, remove any rights from the copyright holder. the license only deals with rights granted to the person who receives the code. the sticky part of the GPL is when you try to take someone else's GPL code, and try to distribute it outside of the GPL.

the ominous "You" is defined in the 0-section. "You" refers to each licensee (ie, NOT the licensor).

Quote:
Originally Posted by pmazer
That means at any time the FSF could potentially write a GPL which states that they can do whatever they want with the code, and begin releasing other works commercially. Also, I see no reason to require this line. Why can't works just be released under the license you release it, and not the latest version. Then, anyone would be free to pick any version they wanted.
the Linux kernel, as maintained by Linus Torvalds, is released explicitly and exclusively under the GPLv2. It is the perogative of the author to allow the license to change after distribution by including a clause like "or any later version." if you are afraid of GPLv3+ (which is in the works now; its the first major change in like 2 decades), you don't have to include that clause. it makes it more difficult, i presume, to move to GPLv3 later on (if one so desires). i personally would recommend against using that phrase, because it gives way too much power to the FSF (luckily the FSF is a nonprofit, and not eligible for a buyout from redmond, but still). for my own projects, i prefer to license under GPL2 explicitly, and when I have a chance to read the finished v3, I may move them to that. the FSF is honor bound to not make any horrific changes; i trust that they won't do anything evil, but I still hold my guard.
  quote
AsLan^
Not a tame lion...
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Narnia
 
2005-12-14, 15:01

Quote:
Originally Posted by Enki
Also that the academic organization I work for has vetted the licences and the lawyers have been quite negative about the GPL restrictions and potential problems.
I dont think the GNU GPL has ever been tested in court, that leaves lots of room for the lawyers to pick holes and no precedent for interpretation by a judge. That's okay though, like I said before, I personally believe you should pick the best license that represents your intentions and in this case, I personally would like that anyone who uses our code is compelled to release the changes they have made, if they re-distribute said code.

As far as I know, License agreements should not infringe upon the copyright holders rights (which are guaranteed by law) unless specifically relinquished by the copyright holder such as releasing your work into the public domain.
  quote
faramirtook
A for effort.
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: New Jersey
 
2005-12-16, 21:55

This guy is the legal councillor to the FSF. He has a bunch of essays on his site about enforcing the GPL, those concerned may want to take a look at them.

Ale, man, ale's the stuff to drink
For fellows whom it hurts to think
  quote
AsLan^
Not a tame lion...
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Narnia
 
2005-12-16, 22:23

Quote:
Originally Posted by faramirtook
This guy is the legal councillor to the FSF. He has a bunch of essays on his site about enforcing the GPL, those concerned may want to take a look at them.
I liked his explanation of why it is un-necessary for the GPL to go to court. I wish he would have cited some specific examples of the companies that intentionally violated that GPL.
  quote
Posting Rules Navigation
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Post Reply

Forum Jump
Thread Tools
Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
A ninja spider vs. a ninja tapeworm: who wins? Luca AppleOutsider 16 2010-04-26 09:52
Solitaire intlplby General Discussion 11 2005-11-24 02:19
A itty bitty spider dies an excruciatingly and extremely embrassing death Banana AppleOutsider 13 2005-09-12 21:06
Brother Ray, Dead & Gone SKMDC AppleOutsider 5 2004-06-10 23:33


« Previous Thread | Next Thread »

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:42.


Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2024, AppleNova