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 |
Member
|
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 |
Ninja Editor
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Bay Area, CA
|
I don't know the difference between them.
|
quote |
Not a tame lion...
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Narnia
|
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 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2004
|
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 |
Member
|
Quote:
|
|
quote |
Senior Member
|
Quote:
|
|
quote |
New Member
Join Date: Nov 2005
|
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 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2004
|
Quote:
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 |
Not a tame lion...
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Narnia
|
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 |
Member
|
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 |
Finally broke the seal
Join Date: May 2004
|
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 |
Finally broke the seal
Join Date: May 2004
|
unfortunately, i've just come across some paid outside work, so i wont be able to contribute much to the project itself.
|
quote |
Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2004
|
Quote:
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 |
Space Pirate
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Atlanta
|
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. |
quote |
Not a tame lion...
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Narnia
|
Enki, perhaps this will alleviate your fears...
The bit you are looking for Quote:
Last edited by AsLan^ : 2005-12-14 at 01:11. Reason: a little of this and that... |
|
quote |
Member
|
Quote:
|
|
quote |
A for effort.
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: New Jersey
|
Quote:
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 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2004
|
Quote:
|
|
quote |
Member
|
Quote:
Quote:
The thing that scares me this most about the GPL is: Quote:
|
|||
quote |
Finally broke the seal
Join Date: May 2004
|
Quote:
the ominous "You" is defined in the 0-section. "You" refers to each licensee (ie, NOT the licensor). Quote:
|
||
quote |
Not a tame lion...
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Narnia
|
Quote:
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 |
Not a tame lion...
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Narnia
|
Quote:
|
|
quote |
Posting Rules | Navigation |
|
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 |