hai to all,
one year ago i left Common Lisp just because i wanted to have a job
and tried some other languages(namely C++) . now after 1 year, i
found that in order to become successful at getting a job, one needs
to become a good programmer by having a good understanding of data-
structures, algorithms, OOD, modularity and software design. i tried
many languages Ruby, Python, Haskell, C etc. but i always missed
Common Lisp.
so i came back to Lisp in order to become a good programmer(after 12
months i reached at the same point where i started). i searched the
Archives. i tried the PCL but it is TOO advanced for me. only *one*
book is available in my country, Lisp 3/e by Winston and Horn, but
that is AI based. :-(
i want to start common Lisp and very soon want to get into building
some GPL-ed softwares written using Common Lisp.
i will appreciate any advice.
thanks
On Mar 16, 1:49 pm, "arnuld" <···········@gmail.com> wrote:
> hai to all,
>
> one year ago i left Common Lisp just because i wanted to have a job
> and tried some other languages(namely C++) . now after 1 year, i
> found that in order to become successful at getting a job, one needs
> to become a good programmer by having a good understanding of data-
> structures, algorithms, OOD, modularity and software design. i tried
> many languages Ruby, Python, Haskell, C etc. but i always missed
> Common Lisp.
>
I understand what you mean , the more i used other languages the more
i love lisp.
> so i came back to Lisp in order to become a good programmer(after 12
> months i reached at the same point where i started). i searched the
> Archives. i tried the PCL but it is TOO advanced for me. only *one*
> book is available in my country, Lisp 3/e by Winston and Horn, but
> that is AI based. :-(
>
The two books suggested above are very good especially for someone
with
small or non-existing programming experience.
Go through one of them then try PCL.
> i want to start common Lisp and very soon want to get into building
> some GPL-ed softwares written using Common Lisp.
>
As you wish, but consider that Lisp community is already quite small
making your library GPLed your users would be very very few.
Reconsider using LLGPL instead.
> i will appreciate any advice.
>
> thanks
arnuld wrote:
> i tried the PCL but it is TOO advanced for me.
There's an easier book (Successful Lisp) here:
http://psg.com/~dlamkins/sl/contents.html
It includes a very quick introduction to Lisp in the third chapter:
http://psg.com/~dlamkins/sl/chapter03.html
Someone found an error later in the book, but I found the
12 lessons in chapter 3 a good way to start.
--
Dan
www.prairienet.org/~dsb
> On Mar 16, 7:01 pm, Dan Bensen <··········@cyberspace.net> wrote:
> There's an easier book (Successful Lisp) here:http://psg.com/~dlamkins/sl/contents.html
>
> It includes a very quick introduction to Lisp in the third chapter:http://psg.com/~dlamkins/sl/chapter03.html
>
> Someone found an error later in the book, but I found the
> 12 lessons in chapter 3 a good way to start.
thanks buddy
:-)
> --
> Danwww.prairienet.org/~dsb
From: Alexander Schmolck
Subject: Re: learning Common Lisp ;; i came back Full-Circle
Date:
Message-ID: <yfsr6rppa3w.fsf@oc.ex.ac.uk>
"arnuld" <···········@gmail.com> writes:
> i tried the PCL but it is TOO advanced for me.
Then defer learning lisp and learn python (or ruby) first. Seriously, I think
you're wasting your time learning Common Lisp (or C++ for that matter) if PCL
is too advanced conceptually. You will improve your programming skills faster
and be able to tackle interesting problems much quicker in python (and python
will be useful to know later on, too). Once you've actually written a few
applications that do something useful in python go back to PCL.
> i want to start common Lisp and very soon want to get into building
> some GPL-ed softwares written using Common Lisp.
It's of course your choice but why make your software less useful to others
and hence less popular by using such a restrictive licence without a
compelling reason?
'as
> On Mar 16, 6:54 pm, Alexander Schmolck <··········@gmail.com> wrote:
> Then defer learning lisp and learn python (or ruby) first. Seriously, I think
> you're wasting your time learning Common Lisp (or C++ for that matter) if PCL
> is too advanced conceptually. You will improve your programming skills faster
> and be able to tackle interesting problems much quicker in python (and python
> will be useful to know later on, too). Once you've actually written a few
> applications that do something useful in python go back to PCL.
conceptually, PCL is NOT difficult for me. actually i found all
chapters after 22 difficult to comprehend in the sense that i did not
understand why he preferred some constructs rather than others.
> > i want to start common Lisp and very soon want to get into building
> > some GPL-ed softwares written using Common Lisp.
>
> It's of course your choice but why make your software less useful to others
> and hence less popular by using such a restrictive licence without a
> compelling reason?
<OT>
less restrictive ?
by the same analogy, Windows must have more freedom than Linux. which
of course is not the truth.
i am not angry or something like that. i only want to emphasize that
there are very *few* who understand "Hacker Ethic" because there were
very-very *few* who understood "Charles Darwin" ( IIRC, only 1 person
at that time). Darwin spent his whole life explaining to scientists
and biologists his theories of Evolution but *nobody* understood. He
was criticized to death. after 100 years of his death all of his
"Evolutionary Principles" were accepted without any criticism. the
people of this world took 100 years to understand his technical
explanations.
IMVHO, same will happen to Richard M. Stallman. RMS is technical,
*very-few* understand that.
i will leave it here.
</OT>
From: Alexander Schmolck
Subject: Re: learning Common Lisp ;; i came back Full-Circle
Date:
Message-ID: <yfsk5xhp4tu.fsf@oc.ex.ac.uk>
"arnuld" <···········@gmail.com> writes:
> conceptually, PCL is NOT difficult for me. actually i found all
> chapters after 22 difficult to comprehend in the sense that i did not
> understand why he preferred some constructs rather than others.
Have you tried just implementing his practicals with those other constructs?
> > > i want to start common Lisp and very soon want to get into building
> > > some GPL-ed softwares written using Common Lisp.
> >
> > It's of course your choice but why make your software less useful to others
> > and hence less popular by using such a restrictive licence without a
> > compelling reason?
>
> <OT>
>
> less restrictive ?
>
> by the same analogy, Windows must have more freedom than Linux.
I think few would argue that windows EULA is less restrictive than the GPL in
the same sense that e.g. the MIT licence is less restrictive than the GPL.
> which of course is not the truth.
>
> i am not angry or something like that. i only want to emphasize that
> there are very *few* who understand "Hacker Ethic" because there were
> very-very *few* who understood "Charles Darwin" ( IIRC, only 1 person
> at that time). Darwin spent his whole life explaining to scientists
> and biologists his theories of Evolution but *nobody* understood. He
> was criticized to death. after 100 years of his death all of his
> "Evolutionary Principles" were accepted without any criticism. the
> people of this world took 100 years to understand his technical
> explanations.
>
> IMVHO, same will happen to Richard M. Stallman. RMS is technical,
> *very-few* understand that.
>
> i will leave it here.
probably best.
'as
> On Mar 16, 8:48 pm, Alexander Schmolck <··········@gmail.com> wrote:
> "arnuld" <···········@gmail.com> writes:
> > [SNIP ]
> > i am not angry or something like that. i only want to emphasize that
> > there are very *few* who understand "Hacker Ethic" because there were
> > very-very *few* who understood "Charles Darwin" ( IIRC, only 1 person
> > at that time). Darwin spent his whole life explaining to scientists
> > and biologists his theories of Evolution but *nobody* understood. He
> > was criticized to death. after 100 years of his death all of his
> > "Evolutionary Principles" were accepted without any criticism. the
> > people of this world took 100 years to understand his technical
> > explanations.
>
> > IMVHO, same will happen to Richard M. Stallman. RMS is technical,
> > *very-few* understand that.
>
> > i will leave it here.
> probably best.
thanks for these words
:-)
(message (Hello 'arnuld)
(you :wrote :on '(16 Mar 2007 08:10:55 -0700))
(
a> less restrictive ?
yes, try to think from point of view of normal commercial developer, who
needs some library for particular purpose. when he finds one, but it's GPL,
and he is not able to use it in a normal closed-source commercial product,
he'll really HATE GPL and RMS personally for this when he'll have to write
his ad-hoc bug-ridden replacement for functionality already present in the
library. because actually he has no options -- he can't go and ask
manager/CEO to release software with open-source license. and managers do
not have choise -- if they release software open source, and it will be
successful, competitors will just recompile software from sources..
thus good people should release their source with less restrictive license,
at least with LGPL, but better with MIT or BSD 'sans advertising' :)
or even better release it to 'public domain'.
there's also bugroff license:
http://www.geocities.com/SoHo/Cafe/5947/bugroff.html
"Unfortunately using copyright to protect free software is a lot like using
a Jackal to guard the hens."
"The only way to get rid of pushy Jackals (sorry, I mean lawyers) is to
ignore them and not feed them. The GPL is just begging somebody to take it
to court. Can't you just see it."
"Who really benefits from this trademark / patent / copyright thing anyway?
The lawyers. Who made it up in the first place? The lawyers."
a> IMVHO, same will happen to Richard M. Stallman. RMS is technical,
a> *very-few* understand that.
i can't imagine problems understanding RMS
)
(With-best-regards '(Alex Mizrahi) :aka 'killer_storm)
"?? ???? ??????? ?????")
From: Alain Picard
Subject: Re: learning Common Lisp ;; i came back Full-Circle
Date:
Message-ID: <87648z2edi.fsf@memetrics.com>
"Alex Mizrahi" <········@users.sourceforge.net> writes:
> yes, try to think from point of view of normal commercial developer, who
> needs some library for particular purpose. when he finds one, but it's GPL,
> and he is not able to use it in a normal closed-source commercial product,
> he'll really HATE GPL and RMS personally for this when he'll have to write
> his ad-hoc bug-ridden replacement for functionality already present in the
> library.
The commercial developer started out not having the library he needed.
After reading the license, he _still_ doesn't have the library he needed.
And he's supposed to now hate the GPL and RPM "personally"?
Sounds like that developer is very immature and has an over-inflated
sense of entitlement.
Is he also supposed to hate the CEOs of all the commercial companies
which make a suitable library, but which are too expensive for his
company to buy for him? If not, how is that different?
--ap
Alain Picard wrote:
> "Alex Mizrahi" <········@users.sourceforge.net> writes:
>
>> yes, try to think from point of view of normal commercial developer, who
>> needs some library for particular purpose. when he finds one, but it's GPL,
>> and he is not able to use it in a normal closed-source commercial product,
>> he'll really HATE GPL and RMS personally for this when he'll have to write
>> his ad-hoc bug-ridden replacement for functionality already present in the
>> library.
>
> The commercial developer started out not having the library he needed.
> After reading the license, he _still_ doesn't have the library he needed.
> And he's supposed to now hate the GPL and RPM "personally"?
>
> Sounds like that developer is very immature and has an over-inflated
> sense of entitlement.
>
> Is he also supposed to hate the CEOs of all the commercial companies
> which make a suitable library, but which are too expensive for his
> company to buy for him? If not, how is that different?
I see no problem that people use the GPL after careful consideration of
the effects. However, there is a problem that some people seem to apply
the GPL blindly when they want to release open-source software, as if it
were the only viable option. And I guess that this is what the criticism
of the GPL is about: It seems to present itself to be without
alternative, and for those who don't take a closer look, it appears to
be the most obvious and/or only candidate for an open-source license.
The truth is that there are several alternatives, with different
trade-offs wrt what rights are granted for commercial use. The GPL does
have some serious implications in this area, and everyone who uses it
should be aware of them.
The same holds, of course, for the different kinds of commercial
licenses as well.
Pascal
--
My website: http://p-cos.net
Common Lisp Document Repository: http://cdr.eurolisp.org
Closer to MOP & ContextL: http://common-lisp.net/project/closer/
Pascal Costanza <··@p-cos.net> writes:
> I see no problem that people use the GPL after careful consideration
> of the effects. However, there is a problem that some people seem to
> apply the GPL blindly when they want to release open-source software,
> as if it were the only viable option. And I guess that this is what
> the criticism of the GPL is about: It seems to present itself to be
> without alternative, and for those who don't take a closer look, it
> appears to be the most obvious and/or only candidate for an
> open-source license.
Indeed, I chosed to use GPL by default for my code, because it's the
license that gives me most protection.
> The truth is that there are several alternatives, with different
> trade-offs wrt what rights are granted for commercial use. The GPL
> does have some serious implications in this area, and everyone who
> uses it should be aware of them.
But I'm conscious of the alternative, and I don't mind considering
them, when need arise.
For example, <hint> if any corporation wants to include my code in
their proprietary software, I won't refuse to discuss a price to
release it under a commercial license for them </hint> ;-)
There's really a difference of behavior between the actors, and GPL
just implements some reciprocality. The corporations don't give us
their product, so there's no reason to give them ours. Individuals
usually give their products for free, so there's no reason why not to
give them ours. Two worlds...
> The same holds, of course, for the different kinds of commercial
> licenses as well.
>
>
> Pascal
--
__Pascal Bourguignon__
http://www.informatimago.com
http://pjb.ogamita.org
On 2007-03-19 05:11:15 -0400, Pascal Bourguignon <···@informatimago.com> said:
> There's really a difference of behavior between the actors, and GPL
> just implements some reciprocality. The corporations don't give us
> their product, so there's no reason to give them ours. Individuals
> usually give their products for free, so there's no reason why not to
> give them ours. Two worlds...
I think this may represent something of an oversimplification - a
division of the world into large corporations on the one hand, and
individual developers who give all their code away on the other. It
leaves out small developers who are not working entirely on a contract
basis. Such small developers are effectively prevented from using GPLed
code in projects where they will be paid for the finished product, not
for their time. Not all jobs consist in contract work where one doesn't
care if the source is given away as long as one is paid for the
contract. Some pieces of work consist essentially in selling the end
product. Being required to give the source away effectively prevents
multiple sales. Note that this situation does not arise with any number
of other open source licenses such as the MIT, BSD, Apache, etc. A
small developer can use code or libraries licensed under the MIT
license for example, and still keep the source of his work closed, thus
allowing multiple sales.
As a practical matter it means that developers who find themselves in a
situation where they will be selling the work, not their time, or - and
this is the real problem - forsee some time where they *may* be selling
the work, not their time, will simply avoid GPLed code and libraries.
The net effect is that libraries that might otherwise have seen wider
use languish because of the nature of their license.
Raffael Cavallaro <················@pas-d'espam-s'il-vous-plait-mac.com> writes:
> On 2007-03-19 05:11:15 -0400, Pascal Bourguignon <···@informatimago.com> said:
>
>> There's really a difference of behavior between the actors, and GPL
>> just implements some reciprocality. The corporations don't give us
>> their product, so there's no reason to give them ours. Individuals
>> usually give their products for free, so there's no reason why not to
>> give them ours. Two worlds...
>
>
> I think this may represent something of an oversimplification - a
> division of the world into large corporations on the one hand, and
> individual developers who give all their code away on the other. It
> leaves out small developers who are not working entirely on a contract
> basis. Such small developers are effectively prevented from using
> GPLed code in projects where they will be paid for the finished
> product, not for their time. Not all jobs consist in contract work
> where one doesn't care if the source is given away as long as one is
> paid for the contract. Some pieces of work consist essentially in
> selling the end product. Being required to give the source away
> effectively prevents multiple sales. Note that this situation does not
> arise with any number of other open source licenses such as the MIT,
> BSD, Apache, etc. A small developer can use code or libraries licensed
> under the MIT license for example, and still keep the source of his
> work closed, thus allowing multiple sales.
But note that this matters only when you want to distribute the
software. Corporations, and small contract developers can still use
GPL modules in their software they keep for themselves (even if they
sell the results of these software).
And with the availability of cheap digital telecomunications nowadays,
this is often the case that you sell software results or software use
without distributing the software itself. When have you ever
downloaded the sources of youtube or googlemaps? Perhaps they use my
nice GPL Lisp library and I don't even know about it!?! :-)
> As a practical matter it means that developers who find themselves in
> a situation where they will be selling the work, not their time, or -
> and this is the real problem - forsee some time where they *may* be
> selling the work, not their time, will simply avoid GPLed code and
> libraries. The net effect is that libraries that might otherwise have
> seen wider use languish because of the nature of their license.
What would be the benefit for these libraries to be used by THESE
people? They would still languish the same, since THEY wouldn't
contribute back their sources (and patches to the libraries).
By the way, I've never received any patch from Google (or any other
corporation) for my GPL code. Is it because they're evil, or because
they just don't use my GPL software? :-)
--
__Pascal Bourguignon__
http://www.informatimago.com
http://pjb.ogamita.org
On 2007-03-19 13:05:52 -0400, Pascal Bourguignon <···@informatimago.com> said:
> But note that this matters only when you want to distribute the
> software. Corporations, and small contract developers can still use
> GPL modules in their software they keep for themselves (even if they
> sell the results of these software).
>
> And with the availability of cheap digital telecomunications nowadays,
> this is often the case that you sell software results or software use
> without distributing the software itself.
Again, the whole GPL argument reduces to "don't try to make money by
distributing the software itself." This effectively eliminates a whole
category of revenue. This is why small independent developers will
avoid using GPLed code - they may someday find themselves in a
situation where it makes sense to sell the software itself.
Basically it comes down to this - one set of open source licenses
requires you to conform your economic behaviour to the license by
forgoing certain classes of income. The other set of open source
licenses do not. Guess which one developers will prefer for libraries
that they use?
> On Mar 20, 5:12 am, Raffael Cavallaro
<················@pas-d'espam-s'il-vous-plait-mac.com> wrote:
> Again, the whole GPL argument reduces to "don't try to make money by
> distributing the software itself."
Huh.. you don't even have any idea of what GPL is. have you ever tried
to read it. [1]
i read it and it does not say anything like this. this is the trouble
with most people, they just say what they "hear" from /other's
mouths/. they just do not want to take a look themselves.
my analysis tells me that "Amway" and "GPL" are 2 biggest confusions
to this world because this world *never* even tried to read/do these 2
things *themselves*. they just believe what others says :-(
BTW, a little search on google tells me that Red Hat sells its Product
named RHEL (for as high as $8499 + $2499) and you know that Linux is
GPL-ed product. perfectly legal and a good thing they are doing. [2]
bottom-line:
GPL is a technical-edge but it is *extremely* technical and that is
trouble with most people. most corporations and managers working in
them have just a "degree-holder" kind of mentality which is quite
opposite to how practical world works.
> This effectively eliminates a whole
> category of revenue. This is why small independent developers will
> avoid using GPLed code - they may someday find themselves in a
> situation where it makes sense to sell the software itself.
see above.
> Basically it comes down to this - one set of open source licenses
> requires you to conform your economic behaviour to the license by
> forgoing certain classes of income. The other set of open source
> licenses do not. Guess which one developers will prefer for libraries
> that they use?
read the bottom line. you got it all wrong. way-way wrong.
thanks
-- arnuld
http://arnuld.blogspot.com
[1] http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/gpl.html
[2] https://www.redhat.com/wapps/store/catalog.html;jsessionid=pjMdwDGaMEPq5bNR5EPeFQ415iuwWsUKPnP.www02
On Tue, 20 Mar 2007 05:31:22 +0100, arnuld <···········@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Basically it comes down to this - one set of open source licenses
>> requires you to conform your economic behaviour to the license by
>> forgoing certain classes of income. The other set of open source
>> licenses do not. Guess which one developers will prefer for libraries
>> that they use?
>
> read the bottom line. you got it all wrong. way-way wrong.
>
I fear it is you who has gotten it wrong.
The whole point of GPL is that software that is GPL stays GPL.
Stallmans original idea is that making a copy cost nothing, so charging for
making a copy is plain wrong.
You can charge for:
1. making software
2. installing software
3. teaching how to use software
4. custom design
Like, say, MySQL does.
I cant say I disagree. Making one copy and then selling a million at near
zero additional cost at high price is one of the biggest rip-offs ever.
It started in the music industry and then again in the software industry.
It is no accident that Bill Gates is the richest man in the world.
If illegal copying and distribution is cutting down on the "free lunch"
enjoyed by many in music and software that just means the world is
discovering
that they are being ripped off.
The "don't steal my "free lunch"! I might have to work for my money.."
sulking of the music and software industry doesn't cut much with me.
Lets just say the world is demanding to pay what their product actually
cost
to produce. (No, I don't pirate copy, but I use a lot of open-source
software.)
That being said I prefer the BSD licence which dosn't have these
restrictins.
--
Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/mail/
Raffael Cavallaro <················@pas-d'espam-s'il-vous-plait-mac.com> writes:
> On 2007-03-19 13:05:52 -0400, Pascal Bourguignon <···@informatimago.com> said:
>
>> But note that this matters only when you want to distribute the
>> software. Corporations, and small contract developers can still use
>> GPL modules in their software they keep for themselves (even if they
>> sell the results of these software).
>>
>> And with the availability of cheap digital telecomunications nowadays,
>> this is often the case that you sell software results or software use
>> without distributing the software itself.
>
> Again, the whole GPL argument reduces to "don't try to make money by
> distributing the software itself." This effectively eliminates a whole
> category of revenue. This is why small independent developers will
> avoid using GPLed code - they may someday find themselves in a
> situation where it makes sense to sell the software itself.
>
> Basically it comes down to this - one set of open source licenses
> requires you to conform your economic behaviour to the license by
> forgoing certain classes of income. The other set of open source
> licenses do not. Guess which one developers will prefer for libraries
> that they use?
You have to see how things work in practice.
In practice, the little developer won't be competing against big
software houses to sell shrinkwrapped software. In practice, the
little developer will earn his money anyways with a few customers he
knows personnally, and for whom he'll provide more than just the
software. So it doesn't matter if his sources are available or not.
--
__Pascal Bourguignon__
http://www.informatimago.com
http://pjb.ogamita.org
> On Mar 20, 1:03 pm, Pascal Bourguignon <····@informatimago.com> wrote:
> You have to see how things work in practice.
>
> In practice, the little developer won't be competing against big
> software houses to sell shrinkwrapped software. In practice, the
> little developer will earn his money anyways with a few customers he
> knows personnally, and for whom he'll provide more than just the
> software. So it doesn't matter if his sources are available or not.
Pascal, thanks a lot for this excellent business-tactic.
i will use it.
:-)
On 2007-03-20 04:03:30 -0400, Pascal Bourguignon <···@informatimago.com> said:
> In practice, the
> little developer will earn his money anyways with a few customers he
> knows personnally, and for whom he'll provide more than just the
> software. So it doesn't matter if his sources are available or not.
This is belied by the existence of hundreds if not thousands of small
independent developers of closed source software available for general
purchase. I'd recommend a trip to VersionTracker to see how many small
scale independent developers there are, and how many of them publish
closed source software so that they can sell the sofware *itself*.
Of course if you spend all of your computing time on an open source OS
like linux you'd be far less aware of the existence of such developers.
This is because linux users tend to believe that all software should be
free in both senses of the word. As a result, small scale commercial
developers simply don't target linux.
> On Mar 21, 12:56 am, Raffael Cavallaro
<················@pas-d'espam-s'il-vous-plait-mac.com> wrote:
> Of course if you spend all of your computing time on an open source OS
> like linux you'd be far less aware of the existence of such developers.
> This is because linux users tend to believe that all software should be
> free in both senses of the word.
what makes you think so ?
i can see a lot of Linux folks like proprietary software, even Linus
Torvals likes proprietary softwares (..shocked!)
do you use Linux ? and do you live and contribute to in this
community ?
your *guess* is simply wrong. 1st become the one and live *into* this
community and then make start making any guesses. GNU community and
Linux community are 2 very different things.
> As a result, small scale commercial
> developers simply don't target linux.
2nd, if most Windows/Mac/whatever users *think* that Linux means
software companies must not make money, then that is their problem.
they need to look at the GPL correctly and start living in the real
world.
BTW, i have one *technical* stuff specific to Windows users:
"every Windows user lives in his own imaginative world, he has his own
ideas about how OSs work, he has his imaginations and beliefs to
support that world and he always thinks he GOT the real world and he
always thinks he knows the rules, exactly like a Kid who thinks Harry
Potter is a real-world"
and one day when he uses UNIX, and he gets enlightened. [1]
NOTICE: my point is only technical, it has nothing to do with
Licenses.
-- arnuld
http://arnuld.blogspot.com
[1] http://catb.org/~esr/writings/unix-koans/
On 2007-03-21 08:10:24 -0400, "arnuld" <···········@gmail.com> said:
>>
>> This is because linux users tend to believe that all software should be
>> free in both senses of the word.
>
> what makes you think so ?
The fact that the overwhelming majority of software listed on linux
software sites is free in both senses of the word. There is
conspicuously more non-free (in both senses of the word) software on
mac and windows software sites.
>
> i can see a lot of Linux folks like proprietary software, even Linus
> Torvals likes proprietary softwares (..shocked!)
Linus Torvalds is a dot com millionaire. Most linux users are not.
> On Mar 22, 10:56 am, Raffael Cavallaro
> The fact that the overwhelming majority of software listed on linux
> software sites is free in both senses of the word. There is
> conspicuously more non-free (in both senses of the word) software on
> mac and windows software sites.
the fact that the overwhelming (nearly 90%) majority of software on
Linux comes from Free Software Movement, GNU, carrying the License
named GPL, the same Linux kernel carries.
if most of people conspicuously, do NOT want to make money by selling
GPL softwares then that is their choice. i like to sell GPL softwares.
> Linus Torvalds is a dot com millionaire. Most linux users are not.
that "millionaire part" came much later and was unintentional.
you don't even have any guess on what UNIX culture is about. every man
who accuses GPL of being not able to make money, always has ZERO
knowledge of UNIX culture. that is because he believes what most of
people say without analyzing himself. that is the same trouble i have
when i tell people that "Amway" is a great company. i hear the same
*false* arguments like "GPL means no money" :-( blind people.
guess what was the name Linus chose for his kernel before choosing
"Linux". he created his kernel using GNU tools (namely gcc) ?
"Freaks"
i am leaving it here, for sure
On 2007-03-22 02:16:28 -0400, "arnuld" <···········@gmail.com> said:
> if most of people conspicuously, do NOT want to make money by selling
> GPL softwares then that is their choice. i like to sell GPL softwares.
Others like to take the sources, compile them, and distribute the
software for $0.00. This makes your desire to "sell GPL softwares"
difficult to realize since the same software you wish to sell can
easily be had for nothing.
> you don't even have any guess on what UNIX culture is about. every man
> who accuses GPL of being not able to make money, always has ZERO
> knowledge of UNIX culture. that is because he believes what most of
> people say without analyzing himself.
"UNIX culture" cannot change the fact that most free *nix users will
not pay for gpl software when they can get it for nothing.
> that is the same trouble i have
> when i tell people that "Amway" is a great company.
<kicks self> I can't believe I've been bothering to respond to an Amway
advocate.
On Mar 23, 7:23 am, Raffael Cavallaro <················@pas-d'espam-
s'il-vous-plait-mac.com> wrote:
> On 2007-03-22 02:16:28 -0400, "arnuld" <···········@gmail.com> said:
>
> > if most of people conspicuously, do NOT want to make money by selling
> > GPL softwares then that is their choice. i like to sell GPL softwares.
>
> Others like to take the sources, compile them, and distribute the
> software for $0.00. This makes your desire to "sell GPL softwares"
> difficult to realize since the same software you wish to sell can
> easily be had for nothing.
>
> > you don't even have any guess on what UNIX culture is about. every man
> > who accuses GPL of being not able to make money, always has ZERO
> > knowledge of UNIX culture. that is because he believes what most of
> > people say without analyzing himself.
>
> "UNIX culture" cannot change the fact that most free *nix users will
> not pay for gpl software when they can get it for nothing.
Don't intermingle GPL and UNIX . I'm a happy user of OpenBSD,
which is real pain to install but afterwards you're cool for life,
and currently working on a Linux port of my code, because I could
ask for some part of the money my client will save from Windows
licenses
on his machines.
But if all you want is to Listen to some music , watch DVDs from the
box
and play games there's no other option but Windows,
unless you want to become expert in OpenSource and 99.9% people don't.
On 2007-03-23 08:35:14 -0400, ·············@hotmail.com said:
> Don't intermingle GPL and UNIX .
I think you misunderstand me - I was mocking his use of the term "UNIX
culture" (hence the quotes) and his assumption that his particular
pro-gpl views represented some shared, uniform "UNIX culture." I have
used various *nices since the 80s, and use Mac OS X mostly now, which
is, of course, a Unix.
Raffael Cavallaro <················@pas-d'espam-s'il-vous-plait-mac.com> writes:
> On 2007-03-22 02:16:28 -0400, "arnuld" <···········@gmail.com> said:
>
>> if most of people conspicuously, do NOT want to make money by selling
>> GPL softwares then that is their choice. i like to sell GPL softwares.
>
>
> Others like to take the sources, compile them, and distribute the
> software for $0.00. This makes your desire to "sell GPL softwares"
> difficult to realize since the same software you wish to sell can
> easily be had for nothing.
On the other hand, there are examples of GPL software you cannot get
(download the sources from the internet) so easily.
I've sold custom software under GPL to some customer, he's not in the
IT industry, I doubt he will even publish it on Internet. Meanwhile,
if he wants to have modifications made on this software, he could hire
any programmer, not only me, to do it.
Some software are niche software, they're not designed to be used by
millions of users. They could still be licensed under GPL. They
won't necessarily be distributed widely, since it's not necessarily in
the best interest of either the user or the programmer. But there's
still the benefit of the GPL, namely that sources are available to the
user for later modifications, improvements and adaptations, which
should give more easily work to programmers.
--
__Pascal Bourguignon__
http://www.informatimago.com
http://pjb.ogamita.org
On Mar 23, 9:25 am, Pascal Bourguignon <····@informatimago.com> wrote:
> Raffael Cavallaro <················@pas-d'espam-s'il-vous-plait-mac.com> writes:
> > On 2007-03-22 02:16:28 -0400, "arnuld" <···········@gmail.com> said:
>
> >> if most of people conspicuously, do NOT want to make money by selling
> >> GPL softwares then that is their choice. i like to sell GPL softwares.
>
> > Others like to take the sources, compile them, and distribute the
> > software for $0.00. This makes your desire to "sell GPL softwares"
> > difficult to realize since the same software you wish to sell can
> > easily be had for nothing.
>
> On the other hand, there are examples of GPL software you cannot get
> (download the sources from the internet) so easily.
Don't understimate people with few money and a lot of free time,
>
> I've sold custom software under GPL to some customer, he's not in the
> IT industry, I doubt he will even publish it on Internet.
How do you know who works/will work , administrates his system,
or maybe some practice student will get your sources and put them on
the net,
with some description so anybody who need staff like that will just
compile it without you or any other programmer getting paid for.
Or what will stop somebody to sell your staff as closed source,
with little bit of make-up, I guess you don't have enaphe money for
lawyers
and even if you do how will you find out for some Bangladesh or
Bulgarian shop.
GPL protects you from nothing, only the source could do that.
If you decided to give some staff for free at least give it
under LGPL or BSD.
> Meanwhile,
> if he wants to have modifications made on this software, he could hire
> any programmer, not only me, to do it.
Assuming that your code is well documented, clearly written and it's
in
popular language like Java/C/C++.
>
> Some software are niche software, they're not designed to be used by
> millions of users. They could still be licensed under GPL. They
> won't necessarily be distributed widely, since it's not necessarily in
> the best interest of either the user or the programmer. But there's
> still the benefit of the GPL, namely that sources are available to the
> user for later modifications, improvements and adaptations, which
> should give more easily work to programmers.
>
That's hold only if you're software is selfsustainable, what if
you're
cool code must be linked with a dll which I can't provide the source
for,
or it's from some company that don't want to release under source.
Sopose I could make deal with you to sell it to me under non-GPL
license
but what happened if your code is version 9 with contributions from
40 authors (part of them could be already death) should I track all of
them
and try to negotiate non-GPL license. That's insane.
GPL is contagious, and that's a disease i don't wanna spread.
On 23 Mar, 13:04, ·············@hotmail.com wrote:
> with some description so anybody who need staff like that will just
> compile it without you or any other programmer getting paid for.
> Or what will stop somebody to sell your staff as closed source,
> with little bit of make-up, I guess you don't have enaphe money for
> lawyers
> and even if you do how will you find out for some Bangladesh or
> Bulgarian shop.
Everyone in this thread is, quite naturally, arguing from their
particular viewpoint. The difficulty that a license writer has is
trying to satisfy enough of these different agendas for the license to
have widespread appeal.
You argue from the perfectly reasonable point of view of someone
worrying about having their code 'stolen' and sold such that you don't
make money from it. That's fair enough but I doubt many open source
licenses are going to suit you as you then have to provide your code
and therefore have opened yourself up to this possible situation.
I on the other hand distribute my program under the GPL. I did this
because, rightly or wrongly, it was the easiest thing to slap on to my
code when I hurried the first version out. I can't read the legal
language but presumably other, smarter people have and they think it's
OK. And frankly I'm more interested in the programming so a nice pre-
canned license with instructions for how to release my project under
it was the main requirement.
But if the GPL causes anyone any problems then they can just let me
know and I'll consider almost any reasonable license. In fact I'll
probably license the next version under a "more free" license to avoid
upsetting anyone.
But then the problem becomes: is it "more free" or "less free" to do
that? Again, it depends on your point of view.
Phil
http://phil.nullable.eu/
On 23 Mar 2007 06:04:27 -0700, ·············@hotmail.com said:
| ...
| Or what will stop somebody to sell your staff as closed source,
| with little bit of make-up, I guess you don't have enaphe money for
| lawyers
| and even if you do how will you find out for some Bangladesh or
| Bulgarian shop.
Can you elaborate on your choice of countries here?
---Vassil.
--
The truly good code is the obviously correct code.
On Mar 24, 5:05 am, Vassil Nikolov <···············@pobox.com> wrote:
> On 23 Mar 2007 06:04:27 -0700, ·············@hotmail.com said:
> | ...
> | Or what will stop somebody to sell your staff as closed source,
> | with little bit of make-up, I guess you don't have enaphe money for
> | lawyers
> | and even if you do how will you find out for some Bangladesh or
> | Bulgarian shop.
>
> Can you elaborate on your choice of countries here?
>
> ---Vassil.
I just throw up the first two distant countries (from the US point of
view)
that came up on my mind.
From: Ken Tilton
Subject: Re: learning Common Lisp ;; i came back Full-Circle (OT)
Date:
Message-ID: <KBMNh.729$OL7.598@newsfe12.lga>
·············@hotmail.com wrote:
> On Mar 24, 5:05 am, Vassil Nikolov <···············@pobox.com> wrote:
>
>>On 23 Mar 2007 06:04:27 -0700, ·············@hotmail.com said:
>>| ...
>>| Or what will stop somebody to sell your staff as closed source,
>>| with little bit of make-up, I guess you don't have enaphe money for
>>| lawyers
>>| and even if you do how will you find out for some Bangladesh or
>>| Bulgarian shop.
>>
>> Can you elaborate on your choice of countries here?
>>
>> ---Vassil.
>
>
> I just throw up the first two distant countries (from the US point of
> view)
> that came up on my mind.
From the US point of view, Canada and Mexico are distant.
hth,kt
--
"As long as algebra is taught in school,
there will be prayer in school." - Cokie Roberts
"Stand firm in your refusal to remain conscious during algebra."
- Fran Lebowitz
"I'm an algebra liar. I figure two good lies make a positive."
- Tim Allen
"Algebra is the metaphysics of arithmetic." - John Ray
http://www.theoryyalgebra.com/
On Mar 26, 11:44 am, Ken Tilton <····@theoryyalgebra.com> wrote:
> ·············@hotmail.com wrote:
> > On Mar 24, 5:05 am, Vassil Nikolov <···············@pobox.com> wrote:
>
> >>On 23 Mar 2007 06:04:27 -0700, ·············@hotmail.com said:
> >>| ...
> >>| Or what will stop somebody to sell your staff as closed source,
> >>| with little bit of make-up, I guess you don't have enaphe money for
> >>| lawyers
> >>| and even if you do how will you find out for some Bangladesh or
> >>| Bulgarian shop.
>
> >> Can you elaborate on your choice of countries here?
>
> >> ---Vassil.
>
> > I just throw up the first two distant countries (from the US point of
> > view)
> > that came up on my mind.
>
> From the US point of view, Canada and Mexico are distant.
>
> hth,kt
>
Change Bangladesh and Bulgaria with Elbonia and Matobo.
BTW
Kenny I'm starting a new ERP technology demonstrator
which will run clisp on both Win and linux,
and still hesitating between Celltk , Cells-Gtk & cello.
What do you recommend ?
And which one is the best integrated with lisp?
thanks
bobi
From: Ken Tilton
Subject: Re: learning Common Lisp ;; i came back Full-Circle (OT)
Date:
Message-ID: <LMPNh.5$Tv.2@newsfe12.lga>
fireblade wrote:
> On Mar 26, 11:44 am, Ken Tilton <····@theoryyalgebra.com> wrote:
>
>>·············@hotmail.com wrote:
>>
>>>On Mar 24, 5:05 am, Vassil Nikolov <···············@pobox.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>On 23 Mar 2007 06:04:27 -0700, ·············@hotmail.com said:
>>>>| ...
>>>>| Or what will stop somebody to sell your staff as closed source,
>>>>| with little bit of make-up, I guess you don't have enaphe money for
>>>>| lawyers
>>>>| and even if you do how will you find out for some Bangladesh or
>>>>| Bulgarian shop.
>>
>>>> Can you elaborate on your choice of countries here?
>>
>>>> ---Vassil.
>>
>>>I just throw up the first two distant countries (from the US point of
>>>view)
>>>that came up on my mind.
>>
>> From the US point of view, Canada and Mexico are distant.
>>
>>hth,kt
>>
>
>
> Change Bangladesh and Bulgaria with Elbonia and Matobo.
>
> BTW
> Kenny I'm starting a new ERP technology demonstrator
> which will run clisp on both Win and linux,
> and still hesitating between Celltk , Cells-Gtk & cello.
>
> What do you recommend ?
I cannot say a word against Cells-GTk, except maybe the bit about GTk2
not being up on OS X yet, and I do not even know if that is still true.
I prefer Celtk because Tcl/Tk gives me more than just a GUI, and the
Tile package is even more native than vanilla Tk, and as current on the
Mac as on Windows.
Cello is just for insanely dynamic, unconventional interfaces. I was
going to add "OpenGL" then remembered the Celtk3D project includes a
classic gears demo using cl-opengl and the Togl widget.
> And which one is the best integrated with lisp?
They are even on that score. Hmmm. Celtk might have an edge in that one
can really get ones hand on the event stream. I do not recall if
Cells-Gtk offered that.
kt
--
"Algebra is the metaphysics of arithmetic." - John Ray
http://www.theoryyalgebra.com/
On 26 Mar 2007 00:13:15 -0700, ·············@hotmail.com said:
| On Mar 24, 5:05 am, Vassil Nikolov <···············@pobox.com> wrote:
|| On 23 Mar 2007 06:04:27 -0700, ·············@hotmail.com said:
|| | ...
|| | Or what will stop somebody to sell your staff as closed source,
|| | with little bit of make-up, I guess you don't have enaphe money for
|| | lawyers
|| | and even if you do how will you find out for some Bangladesh or
|| | Bulgarian shop.
||
|| Can you elaborate on your choice of countries here?
||
|| ---Vassil.
| I just throw up the first two distant countries (from the US point
| of view) that came up on my mind.
Don't do this.
---Vassil.
--
The truly good code is the obviously correct code.
On 2007-03-23 04:25:14 -0400, Pascal Bourguignon <···@informatimago.com> said:
> On the other hand, there are examples of GPL software you cannot get
> (download the sources from the internet) so easily.
>
>
> I've sold custom software under GPL to some customer, he's not in the
> IT industry, I doubt he will even publish it on Internet.
You cannot point to exceptional cases - ones where the source of gpl
software are *not* available - and treat those exceptional cases as if
they were the norm. The reality is very simple. If you sell gpl
software you have no control over whether the source becomes public and
hence, you have no control over whether your software becomes available
at no cost to anyone who wants it. Note that the gpl prohibits you from
including such a provision in a license to your clients (i.e., you
cannot sell software under the gpl and require that your clients keep
the source secret).
No number of anecdotes about clients who didn't release your source is
going to change the facts: the overwhelming majority of gpl software is
made available for zero cost by right; once delivered it is inherently
beyond the control of the developer; selling multiple copies of gpl
software is a very poor economic proposition. By contrast: making
copies of proprietary software available without authorization is not a
right and is subject to both civil and criminal penalties in many
jurisdictions; one can make money by selling copies of non-gpl software
in a way that one controls; selling copies of non-gpl software has
proven to be a profitable economic proposition for many.
Note that if we replace one open source license for libraries (gpl)
with another (say, bsd, or evel lgpl), we gain all the benefits of
being able to sell multiple copies in a controlled way and still retain
most of the benefits of open source licenses. This is why many
developers will avoid libraries that are licensed under the gpl.
On Mar 22, 8:16 am, "arnuld" <···········@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Mar 22, 10:56 am, Raffael Cavallaro
> > The fact that the overwhelming majority of software listed on linux
> > software sites is free in both senses of the word. There is
> > conspicuously more non-free (in both senses of the word) software on
> > mac and windows software sites.
>
> the fact that the overwhelming (nearly 90%) majority of software on
> Linux comes from Free Software Movement, GNU, carrying the License
> named GPL, the same Linux kernel carries.
>
> if most of people conspicuously, do NOT want to make money by selling
> GPL softwares then that is their choice. i like to sell GPL softwares.
> i hear the same
> *false* arguments like "GPL means no money" :-( blind people.
>
Since you love to mention Red hat model it's not bad idea to also
mention
what makes it work ( and what could you duplicate) from
http://asay.blogspot.com/2006/01/red-hat-mother-of-all-open-source.html
Here's how Red Hat's model works:
(1)
Red Hat helps to drive Linux development, ensuring momentum and
competitiveness for the open source project.
(2)
Red Hat splits its Linux offerings into two camps: Enterprise (Red Hat
Enterprise Linux - the one you'll see prominently displayed on the
company's website) and Community (Fedora). Attention and energy is
primarily focused on the product that will actually bring in revenues
(RHEL), but Red Hat is careful to also nurture the development
community, which will pay it little to nothing but which brings other,
less tangible benefits.
(3)
Red Hat tests and certifies RHEL to run on certain hardware, with
certain software. Red Hat restricts access to this certified,
supported RHEL - you can get the raw source for the uncertified RHEL,
but not the compiled, ready-to-go binaries. Only paying customers get
that. (Note: Red Hat recognizes that few to no large enterprises are
going to depend on an unsupported, self-compiled distribution.)
(4)
Red Hat ties support to its software - you cannot get and run the RHEL
binary noted above without buying commensurate units of support. Red
Hat ensures this through its ingenious subscription agreement. If you
want the real Red Hat, you must pay - there's no effective way around
it. (There are workarounds, but they're not worth the bother. Red Hat
knows this, and mints money from the result.)
(5)
Red Hat delivers updates (and ensures customers stay with it) through
the Red Hat Network. Companies plug in, get updates, occasionally call
for support, and make Red Hat an explosive, important open source
company.
So Red Hat makes money by selling SUPPORT for it's enterprise linux,
making
big bosses feel less anxious having a big company take care of their
OS.
For those who want RHEL for free and are willing to do some work
download it from http://www.centos.org/ , and if you really need Red
Hat support buy RHEL for a one machine
and put centos on all the others, you'll get (allmost) the same
thing.
To summarize what you need in order to make money from selling GPL
code like RedHat:
1. You're users must need support after they install your product with
patches
and helpdesc - this rules out many categories where users just
install and forgeth
and patches are rather enforced thing, games being most notable who
are almost
nonexistent on linux (don't mention Wine please)
2. being big stable corporation so they will call YOU for support and
patches
3. Have tons of money for Marketing to make your product distinct from
various
source rebuilds
I wish you good luck for making money with GPL and please tell us when
you'll
succeed so all of us blind to open the eyes.
bobi
On Mar 20, 1:05 am, Pascal Bourguignon <····@informatimago.com> wrote:
> What would be the benefit for these libraries to be used by THESE
> people? They would still languish the same, since THEY wouldn't
> contribute back their sources (and patches to the libraries).
Just because they don't release the full sources for their product,
doesn't mean they won't contribute patches and improvements to the
libraries they use.
--
-asbjxrn
"Asbj�rn Bj�rnstad" <·······@gmail.com> writes:
> On Mar 20, 1:05 am, Pascal Bourguignon <····@informatimago.com> wrote:
>
>> What would be the benefit for these libraries to be used by THESE
>> people? They would still languish the same, since THEY wouldn't
>> contribute back their sources (and patches to the libraries).
>
> Just because they don't release the full sources for their product,
> doesn't mean they won't contribute patches and improvements to the
> libraries they use.
Of course, since I don't have any precise statistics, I have to speak
"generally". It would be interesting actually to have real statistics
about free software and who contributes what, etc...
--
__Pascal Bourguignon__
http://www.informatimago.com
http://pjb.ogamita.org
Pascal Bourguignon íàïèøà:
> Pascal Costanza <··@p-cos.net> writes:
> > I see no problem that people use the GPL after careful consideration
> > of the effects. However, there is a problem that some people seem to
> > apply the GPL blindly when they want to release open-source software,
> > as if it were the only viable option. And I guess that this is what
> > the criticism of the GPL is about: It seems to present itself to be
> > without alternative, and for those who don't take a closer look, it
> > appears to be the most obvious and/or only candidate for an
> > open-source license.
>
> Indeed, I chosed to use GPL by default for my code, because it's the
> license that gives me most protection.
>
>
> > The truth is that there are several alternatives, with different
> > trade-offs wrt what rights are granted for commercial use. The GPL
> > does have some serious implications in this area, and everyone who
> > uses it should be aware of them.
>
> But I'm conscious of the alternative, and I don't mind considering
> them, when need arise.
>
> For example, <hint> if any corporation wants to include my code in
> their proprietary software, I won't refuse to discuss a price to
> release it under a commercial license for them </hint> ;-)
>
That makes sense if the only thing I need is your library, and you're
willing
to release it under other license for some reasonable fee. (MySQL
model)
But what if you don't ( this happened to me), or if your library
depends on other library which I can't get non GPL license for.
>From my own humble opinion, the GPL doesn't protects small developers
it protects
the big companies who lives from services,so they sponsor opensource
like Sun, IBM etc.
If some start up makes something that could make waves and release it
under GPL how long would it take for the big corporations to recode
same thing, or even add gadzilion functionalities and grab the pile of
cash through their marketing machines,
consultancy etc. even if program is still under GPL.
The big corporations want status quo on the market ,they don't want
some freshman to take their share,that's why they prefer GPL so
developers would feel easier to combine few staff and make something
GPL than creating something closed source that could threathen them.
1.if you want to give something for free ,free like an beer use Boost
license.
http://www.boost.org/more/license_info.html
2. If you want only the credit old BSD is good candidate. or
something alike
that only wants some aknowledgements.
3. If you want get fruits from future development of your code but
still be able to make closed source apps use LLGPL .
4. GPL makes sense only in dual licensing model , everything else is
crup.
regards
Slobodan
And BTW disassembling the program might take more than rebuilding it
from scratch
for any sufficiently large program.
From: Alain Picard
Subject: Re: learning Common Lisp ;; i came back Full-Circle
Date:
Message-ID: <87vegwtjob.fsf@memetrics.com>
Pascal Costanza <··@p-cos.net> writes:
> The truth is that there are several alternatives, with different
> trade-offs wrt what rights are granted for commercial use. The GPL
> does have some serious implications in this area, and everyone who
> uses it should be aware of them.
Use of the GPL is a political decision, and I'd be very surprised
indeed if there were a large number of people "using it blindly".
I expect that when people put the GPL on their code, they know
precisely what they're doing, and why.
In cases where you are in doubt, you politely ask the author
if he would consider licensing it in some other manner---I've done
this, and it sometimes works. You can also consider asking the
author for a _commercial_ license --- because she releases the
code under GPL doesn't mean she's not willing to concede you a
license for financial compensation.
--ap
Alain Picard wrote:
> Pascal Costanza <··@p-cos.net> writes:
>
>> The truth is that there are several alternatives, with different
>> trade-offs wrt what rights are granted for commercial use. The GPL
>> does have some serious implications in this area, and everyone who
>> uses it should be aware of them.
>
> Use of the GPL is a political decision, and I'd be very surprised
> indeed if there were a large number of people "using it blindly".
> I expect that when people put the GPL on their code, they know
> precisely what they're doing, and why.
Unfortunately, I have seen this quite a few times, at least in academic
environments, that people have applied the GPL because "that's what you
do when you want to release something as open source, right?" :(
So I am not convinced here.
> In cases where you are in doubt, you politely ask the author
> if he would consider licensing it in some other manner---I've done
> this, and it sometimes works. You can also consider asking the
> author for a _commercial_ license --- because she releases the
> code under GPL doesn't mean she's not willing to concede you a
> license for financial compensation.
That's true, and it's clear that there are cases where the GPL makes sense.
Pascal
--
My website: http://p-cos.net
Common Lisp Document Repository: http://cdr.eurolisp.org
Closer to MOP & ContextL: http://common-lisp.net/project/closer/
On Tue, 20 Mar 2007 11:45:35 +0100, Pascal Costanza <··@p-cos.net> wrote:
>
> That's true, and it's clear that there are cases where the GPL makes
> sense.
>
Take as a example Troll Techs product Qt.
If comes with a GPL under Linux/Unix.
But it also has a commercial licence. For windows there is only the
commercial licence.
The GPL allow people especially students to become familiar with
the code and used to the library. When they later take their place in the
computer industry they naturally want to continue using it so they press
for
a commercial licence. They were once a small Norwegian firm of only 6
employees.
I can't help but wonder if they wouldn't have been completely ignored if
not
for the GPL version that got people interested in it.
--
Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/mail/
From: Edi Weitz
Subject: Re: learning Common Lisp ;; i came back Full-Circle
Date:
Message-ID: <ud534p4qt.fsf@agharta.de>
On Tue, 20 Mar 2007 19:15:32 +1100, Alain Picard <············@memetrics.com> wrote:
> Use of the GPL is a political decision, and I'd be very surprised
> indeed if there were a large number of people "using it blindly".
I know several cases where people weren't even aware that other
options existed. They thought that "open source" was pretty much the
same as GPL. I'd call that "using it blindly."
--
Lisp is not dead, it just smells funny.
Real email: (replace (subseq ·········@agharta.de" 5) "edi")
(message (Hello 'Alain)
(you :wrote :on '(Sun, 18 Mar 2007 18:35:21 +1100))
(
AP> Is he also supposed to hate the CEOs of all the commercial companies
AP> which make a suitable library, but which are too expensive for his
AP> company to buy for him? If not, how is that different?
typically companies allow to buy their software for some sane price.
with GPLed library typically there is no option for this -- making whole
software open source is no-option.
so, GPL libraries are equivalent (for commercial software developers) to
over-priced libraries.
AP> Sounds like that developer is very immature and has an over-inflated
AP> sense of entitlement.
i think most developers will say something like "oh, bastards.." when they
see some library that could help them, but is either unreasonable priced
(say some 1 000 000), or is GPLed :)
)
(With-best-regards '(Alex Mizrahi) :aka 'killer_storm)
"?? ???? ??????? ?????")
"Alex Mizrahi" <········@users.sourceforge.net> writes:
> (message (Hello 'Alain)
> (you :wrote :on '(Sun, 18 Mar 2007 18:35:21 +1100))
> (
>
> AP> Is he also supposed to hate the CEOs of all the commercial companies
> AP> which make a suitable library, but which are too expensive for his
> AP> company to buy for him? If not, how is that different?
>
> typically companies allow to buy their software for some sane price.
> with GPLed library typically there is no option for this -- making whole
> software open source is no-option.
> so, GPL libraries are equivalent (for commercial software developers) to
> over-priced libraries.
Perhaps not all, but a significant number of software is available
both under GPL (or even freer) and commercial licenses. Ghostscript
and Qt come to mind, other exists. Just ask the owner!
--
__Pascal Bourguignon__
http://www.informatimago.com
http://pjb.ogamita.org
From: Alain Picard
Subject: Re: learning Common Lisp ;; i came back Full-Circle
Date:
Message-ID: <87r6rktj8r.fsf@memetrics.com>
"Alex Mizrahi" <········@users.sourceforge.net> writes:
> typically companies allow to buy their software for some sane price.
> with GPLed library typically there is no option for this -- making whole
> software open source is no-option.
> so, GPL libraries are equivalent (for commercial software developers) to
> over-priced libraries.
Consider, as a real and practical example, Sleepycat's Berkeley DB.
Our company could not afford to open source our product, nor could it
affort the $40,000 USD fee for an unlimited redistribution license.
Whether or not that's "over priced" depends on what the market will
bear; I have no doubt that Sleepycat has many customers who have paid
their license fees. For many companies, that fee would be
totally "sane", but not for everybody, clearly.
The GPL simply has nothing to do with this.
"Alex Mizrahi" <········@users.sourceforge.net> writes:
> (message (Hello 'arnuld)
> (you :wrote :on '(16 Mar 2007 08:10:55 -0700))
> (
>
> a> less restrictive ?
>
> yes, try to think from point of view of normal commercial developer, who
> needs some library for particular purpose. when he finds one, but it's GPL,
> and he is not able to use it in a normal closed-source commercial product,
> he'll really HATE GPL and RMS personally for this when he'll have to write
> his ad-hoc bug-ridden replacement for functionality already present in the
> library. because actually he has no options -- he can't go and ask
> manager/CEO to release software with open-source license. and managers do
> not have choise -- if they release software open source, and it will be
> successful, competitors will just recompile software from sources..
Of course you have the choices. And the managers should realize the
putting their proprietary software under GPL is a good way to fight
against patents, IMO. The alternative, is to try to obtain patents
as soon as they release their software. (Otherwise, it could be
reverse engineered, and anybody else could do an equivalent software).
Well with GPL opensource, you get the advantage of patents, without
the inconvenients: you publish your sources (like in patents), but you
don't have to pay patent laywers and to fight patent litigations.
IMHO; IANAL.
> thus good people should release their source with less restrictive license,
Corporations are not good people. Why should good people catter to
the well being of corporations? As a good person, you can use GPL
software without any problem. (Since you are a good person, you will
be providing your sources anyways, so the GPL is not an impediment).
--
__Pascal Bourguignon__
http://www.informatimago.com
http://pjb.ogamita.org
On Mon, 19 Mar 2007 10:06:21 +0100, Pascal Bourguignon
<···@informatimago.com> wrote:
>And the managers should realize the
>putting their proprietary software under GPL is a good way to fight
>against patents, IMO. The alternative, is to try to obtain patents
>as soon as they release their software. (Otherwise, it could be
>reverse engineered, and anybody else could do an equivalent software).
This argument is dead wrong and frightenly misleading.
GPL doesn't stop reverse engineering (which is a legal right in WIPO
countries and simply not legislated in many others), nor is it a
deterrent to intellectual theft except among honest people. A
dishonest developer can just look at the GPL'd code and write her own
version based on it, but not directly copied.
If someone steals your GPL'd ideas without obviously copying your
code, you have little chance of stopping them through legal action.
GPL is a contract. Suits for breach of contract are hard to prove
under the best of circumstances because the plaintiff has to show
intent to breach, not just evidence of a breach.
Add to that significant evidentiary problems. In the case of GPL, to
prove the fact of a breach, you need to show inclusion of GPL'd code
in a marketed program. To prove inclusion, you need to show
essentially one-to-one correspondence of control flow between your
GPL'd code and the alleged copy. The court will usually make
allowances for variable names, data types, etc., but the control flow
is crucial. If the developer rewrote it differently enough, you won't
be able to prove even the fact of copying.
>Well with GPL opensource, you get the advantage of patents, without
>the inconvenients: you publish your sources (like in patents), but you
>don't have to pay patent laywers and to fight patent litigations.
A patent holder has a *much* better chance of winning a legal
challenge to unauthorized use.
The patent holder doesn't need to show copying of code but only that
the program uses essentially the same algorithm for essentially the
same purpose. While this also requires a forensic analysis of the
code, in general it is easier to demonstrate than "copying".
Similarly, the patent holder does not need to show intent, but only
the fact of infringement.
>IMHO; IANAL.
I am not a lawyer either so my opinion carries no more weight than
yours ...
... but if you Google me, you'll discover my father who is a well
known and respected IP attorney in the US. He's usually listed right
on the first result page. With some digging you can also find my
sister who practices IP corporately rather than for a law firm.
Association with them doesn't make me any more qualified than you to
answer a legal question, but I believe it probably makes me more
familiar with the law and it's processes.
Legal questions should be taken to lawyers - not to usenet groups. We
can discuss and debate a question to death, but anyone who takes
action based on the random opinions represented is an idiot. IMNSHO.
"Lawyers were invented to separate what is immoral and unethical from
what you can actually get in trouble for."
-- unattributed
George
--
for email reply remove "/" from address
From: Peder O. Klingenberg
Subject: Re: learning Common Lisp ;; i came back Full-Circle
Date:
Message-ID: <ksmz282vto.fsf@beto.netfonds.no>
George Neuner <·········@comcast.net> writes:
> GPL is a contract.
No it's not. It's a license. It says so right in the name, the
General Public License. See <http://www.groklaw.net/> for a lot of
well informed attempts at clearing up that confusion.
> Legal questions should be taken to lawyers - not to usenet groups.
Amen.
...Peder...
--
I wish a new life awaited _me_ in some off-world colony.
On Tue, 20 Mar 2007 08:55:15 +0100, ·····@news.klingenberg.no (Peder
O. Klingenberg) wrote:
>George Neuner <·········@comcast.net> writes:
>
>> GPL is a contract.
>
>No it's not. It's a license. It says so right in the name, the
>General Public License. See <http://www.groklaw.net/> for a lot of
>well informed attempts at clearing up that confusion.
A license IS a contract by definition.
>> Legal questions should be taken to lawyers - not to usenet groups.
>
>Amen.
>
>...Peder...
George
--
for email reply remove "/" from address
George Neuner <·········@comcast.net> writes:
> On Tue, 20 Mar 2007 08:55:15 +0100, ·····@news.klingenberg.no (Peder
> O. Klingenberg) wrote:
>
> >George Neuner <·········@comcast.net> writes:
> >
> >> GPL is a contract.
> >
> >No it's not. It's a license. It says so right in the name, the
> >General Public License. See <http://www.groklaw.net/> for a lot of
> >well informed attempts at clearing up that confusion.
>
> A license IS a contract by definition.
>
Not quite, although I admit it is hard to find a good definition.
A license is a permit, or you might say a contract going only one way.
If you break the license, you go beyond what you are permitted to, and
you are just as well off as you are with no license at all.
In a contract, both parties are bound, and if you break the contract
you might have to pay a compensation.
This also works where you have to pay to get the license, and the
license might expire when you stop paying. Still, you never have
to pay a recompense. If you agree to do that, you have entered
a contract.
On 21 Mar 2007 03:39:38 +0100, Johan Ur Riise <·····@riise-data.no>
wrote:
>George Neuner <·········@comcast.net> writes:
>
>> On Tue, 20 Mar 2007 08:55:15 +0100, ·····@news.klingenberg.no (Peder
>> O. Klingenberg) wrote:
>>
>> >George Neuner <·········@comcast.net> writes:
>> >
>> >> GPL is a contract.
>> >
>> >No it's not. It's a license. It says so right in the name, the
>> >General Public License. See <http://www.groklaw.net/> for a lot of
>> >well informed attempts at clearing up that confusion.
>>
>> A license IS a contract by definition.
>>
>Not quite, although I admit it is hard to find a good definition.
>
>A license is a permit, or you might say a contract going only one way.
>If you break the license, you go beyond what you are permitted to, and
>you are just as well off as you are with no license at all.
>
>In a contract, both parties are bound, and if you break the contract
>you might have to pay a compensation.
>
>This also works where you have to pay to get the license, and the
>license might expire when you stop paying. Still, you never have
>to pay a recompense. If you agree to do that, you have entered
>a contract.
In return for consignment of rights, the licensee agrees to abide by
certain requests of the licenser, such as to pay royalties, not to
transfer the rights to another party, not to disclose proprietary
information, etc. The licenser generally agrees not to arbitrarily
revoke the consigned rights without cause.
It _is_ a contract under the legal definition, even though the parties
to it are not necessarily equal in stature.
George
--
for email reply remove "/" from address
George Neuner <·········@comcast.net> writes:
> On 21 Mar 2007 03:39:38 +0100, Johan Ur Riise <·····@riise-data.no>
> wrote:
>
> >George Neuner <·········@comcast.net> writes:
> >
> >> On Tue, 20 Mar 2007 08:55:15 +0100, ·····@news.klingenberg.no (Peder
> >> O. Klingenberg) wrote:
> >>
> >> >George Neuner <·········@comcast.net> writes:
> >> >
> >> >> GPL is a contract.
> >> >
> >> >No it's not. It's a license. It says so right in the name, the
> >> >General Public License. See <http://www.groklaw.net/> for a lot of
> >> >well informed attempts at clearing up that confusion.
> >>
> >> A license IS a contract by definition.
> >>
> >Not quite, although I admit it is hard to find a good definition.
> >
> >A license is a permit, or you might say a contract going only one way.
> >If you break the license, you go beyond what you are permitted to, and
> >you are just as well off as you are with no license at all.
> >
> >In a contract, both parties are bound, and if you break the contract
> >you might have to pay a compensation.
> >
> >This also works where you have to pay to get the license, and the
> >license might expire when you stop paying. Still, you never have
> >to pay a recompense. If you agree to do that, you have entered
> >a contract.
>
> In return for consignment of rights, the licensee agrees to abide by
> certain requests of the licenser, such as to pay royalties, not to
> transfer the rights to another party, not to disclose proprietary
> information, etc. The licenser generally agrees not to arbitrarily
> revoke the consigned rights without cause.
>
> It _is_ a contract under the legal definition, even though the parties
> to it are not necessarily equal in stature.
>
The points you mention here does not cross my arguments, so what I
wrote still stands.
About paying, the relevant test is what can happen if you dont pay.
If it just terminates the permit to use the software, it is a license
(or a one way contract, (ok, therefore a contract)). If the licensor can
sue, you have gone in to a contract, which normally requires a signature.
Not to transfer to the rights - you did not have that possibility before.
Not do disclose proprietary information - a license does not forbid that,
if you signed that rigth off, you are in a contract.
The licenser agrees not to revoke - yes, but that is the other way in
the one way contract.
Johan Ur Riise <·····@riise-data.no> writes:
> George Neuner <·········@comcast.net> writes:
>
> > On 21 Mar 2007 03:39:38 +0100, Johan Ur Riise <·····@riise-data.no>
> > wrote:
> >
> > >George Neuner <·········@comcast.net> writes:
> > >
> > >> On Tue, 20 Mar 2007 08:55:15 +0100, ·····@news.klingenberg.no (Peder
> > >> O. Klingenberg) wrote:
> > >>
> > >> >George Neuner <·········@comcast.net> writes:
> > >> >
> > >> >> GPL is a contract.
> > >> >
> > >> >No it's not. It's a license. It says so right in the name, the
> > >> >General Public License. See <http://www.groklaw.net/> for a lot of
> > >> >well informed attempts at clearing up that confusion.
> > >>
> > >> A license IS a contract by definition.
> > >>
> > >Not quite, although I admit it is hard to find a good definition.
> > >
> > >A license is a permit, or you might say a contract going only one way.
> > >If you break the license, you go beyond what you are permitted to, and
> > >you are just as well off as you are with no license at all.
> > >
> > >In a contract, both parties are bound, and if you break the contract
> > >you might have to pay a compensation.
> > >
> > >This also works where you have to pay to get the license, and the
> > >license might expire when you stop paying. Still, you never have
> > >to pay a recompense. If you agree to do that, you have entered
> > >a contract.
> >
> > In return for consignment of rights, the licensee agrees to abide by
> > certain requests of the licenser, such as to pay royalties, not to
> > transfer the rights to another party, not to disclose proprietary
> > information, etc. The licenser generally agrees not to arbitrarily
> > revoke the consigned rights without cause.
> >
> > It _is_ a contract under the legal definition, even though the parties
> > to it are not necessarily equal in stature.
> >
> The points you mention here does not cross my arguments, so what I
> wrote still stands.
>
> About paying, the relevant test is what can happen if you dont pay.
> If it just terminates the permit to use the software, it is a license
> (or a one way contract, (ok, therefore a contract)). If the licensor can
> sue, you have gone in to a contract, which normally requires a signature.
>
> Not to transfer to the rights - you did not have that possibility before.
>
> Not do disclose proprietary information - a license does not forbid that,
> if you signed that rigth off, you are in a contract.
>
> The licenser agrees not to revoke - yes, but that is the other way in
> the one way contract.
>
>
That said, some players try to make everything a two way contract, even
if it really is a purchase of a copy.
On 21 Mar 2007 23:06:07 +0100, Johan Ur Riise <·····@riise-data.no>
wrote:
>George Neuner <·········@comcast.net> writes:
>
>> On 21 Mar 2007 03:39:38 +0100, Johan Ur Riise <·····@riise-data.no>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >George Neuner <·········@comcast.net> writes:
>> >
>> >> On Tue, 20 Mar 2007 08:55:15 +0100, ·····@news.klingenberg.no (Peder
>> >> O. Klingenberg) wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >George Neuner <·········@comcast.net> writes:
>> >> >
>> >> >> GPL is a contract.
>> >> >
>> >> >No it's not. It's a license. It says so right in the name, the
>> >> >General Public License. See <http://www.groklaw.net/> for a lot of
>> >> >well informed attempts at clearing up that confusion.
>> >>
>> >> A license IS a contract by definition.
>> >>
>> >Not quite, although I admit it is hard to find a good definition.
>> >
>> >A license is a permit, or you might say a contract going only one way.
>> >If you break the license, you go beyond what you are permitted to, and
>> >you are just as well off as you are with no license at all.
>> >
>> >In a contract, both parties are bound, and if you break the contract
>> >you might have to pay a compensation.
>> >
>> >This also works where you have to pay to get the license, and the
>> >license might expire when you stop paying. Still, you never have
>> >to pay a recompense. If you agree to do that, you have entered
>> >a contract.
>>
>> In return for consignment of rights, the licensee agrees to abide by
>> certain requests of the licenser, such as to pay royalties, not to
>> transfer the rights to another party, not to disclose proprietary
>> information, etc. The licenser generally agrees not to arbitrarily
>> revoke the consigned rights without cause.
>>
>> It _is_ a contract under the legal definition, even though the parties
>> to it are not necessarily equal in stature.
>>
>The points you mention here does not cross my arguments, so what I
>wrote still stands.
>
>About paying, the relevant test is what can happen if you dont pay.
>If it just terminates the permit to use the software, it is a license
>(or a one way contract, (ok, therefore a contract)). If the licensor can
>sue, you have gone in to a contract, which normally requires a signature.
Contracts do not require "payment" as in $$$ - they require
"consideration", which may be intangible.
Compensation for breach also does not require $$$ - it may be loss of
the breacher's consideration.
>Not to transfer to the rights - you did not have that possibility before.
I was not listing the elements of a license, I was demonstrating
possible terms that might be included.
>Not do disclose proprietary information - a license does not forbid that,
>if you signed that rigth off, you are in a contract.
A license may indeed forbid that because A LICENSE IS A CONTRACT.
>The licenser agrees not to revoke - yes, but that is the other way in
>the one way contract.
Sigh.
Black's law dictionary doesn't appear to be publicly accessible
(unless you have access to Lexis or WestLaw) so I refer you to the
following:
I hope these long URLs don't get mangled.
http://www.constitution.org/bouv/bouvier_c.htm
Excellent definitions of "contract" and "consideration" with
citations. Note how complex is the notion of consideration. Note
also that certain required elements of a contract may be implied by
context, and that consideration may, in fact, be only one way - see
part 23.-2d contracts of beneficence.
[This is a lot to absorb but please find the time to read through it
and think about how the definitions apply.]
http://dictionary.law.com/default2.asp?typed=contract&type=1&submit1.x=0&submit1.y=0&submit1=Look+up
A short but reasonably complete definition. Note that part d) under
"contract" specifies that consideration may be a promise. Also
realize that part e) may be left unspecified if the contract is in
perpetuity and that part g) is optional.
http://dictionary.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/results.pl?co=dictionary.lp.findlaw.com&topic=f7/f7ccc74f67d3190981bde08a84e76793
Simplified lay-person definitions.
George
--
for email reply remove "/" from address
George Neuner <·········@comcast.net> writes:
>
> Black's law dictionary doesn't appear to be publicly accessible
> (unless you have access to Lexis or WestLaw) so I refer you to the
> following:
>
> I hope these long URLs don't get mangled.
>
> http://www.constitution.org/bouv/bouvier_c.htm
> Excellent definitions of "contract" and "consideration" with
> citations. Note how complex is the notion of consideration. Note
> also that certain required elements of a contract may be implied by
> context, and that consideration may, in fact, be only one way - see
> part 23.-2d contracts of beneficence.
> [This is a lot to absorb but please find the time to read through it
> and think about how the definitions apply.]
>
> http://dictionary.law.com/default2.asp?typed=contract&type=1&submit1.x=0&submit1.y=0&submit1=Look+up
> A short but reasonably complete definition. Note that part d) under
> "contract" specifies that consideration may be a promise. Also
> realize that part e) may be left unspecified if the contract is in
> perpetuity and that part g) is optional.
>
> http://dictionary.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/results.pl?co=dictionary.lp.findlaw.com&topic=f7/f7ccc74f67d3190981bde08a84e76793
> Simplified lay-person definitions.
>
Interestingly, none of these definitions of contract ever mentions license. Using these
web-pages but replacing "contract" for "license" in the search criteria, i find
some defintions of license, but none of them mention the word contract. So from these
webpages at least, it is clear that license is not equal to contract.
George Neuner <·········@comcast.net> writes:
> On 21 Mar 2007 23:06:07 +0100, Johan Ur Riise <·····@riise-data.no>
> wrote:
>
> >George Neuner <·········@comcast.net> writes:
> >
> >> On 21 Mar 2007 03:39:38 +0100, Johan Ur Riise <·····@riise-data.no>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> >George Neuner <·········@comcast.net> writes:
> >> >
> >> >> On Tue, 20 Mar 2007 08:55:15 +0100, ·····@news.klingenberg.no (Peder
> >> >> O. Klingenberg) wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> >George Neuner <·········@comcast.net> writes:
> >> >> >
> >> >> >> GPL is a contract.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >No it's not. It's a license. It says so right in the name, the
> >> >> >General Public License. See <http://www.groklaw.net/> for a lot of
> >> >> >well informed attempts at clearing up that confusion.
> >> >>
> >> >> A license IS a contract by definition.
With your input, I try again to define licence in the context of
programs and contracts this way:
A license is a permit to use some program in ways otherwise reserved to
the author. The licensee is not bound, so you may view it as a one
way contract.
If you break the license, you go beyond what you are permitted to, and
you are just as well off as you are with no license at all.
In a contract, both parties are bound, and if you break the contract
you might have to pay a compensation. A contract can also be one way,
so you can view licenses as a subset of contracts, the one-way contracts.
For this to hold also where a license is granted for money, you have
to take on the view that there is a contract where one party supplies
money, the other party supplies the license, making the license the
object that the contract is about, but not the contract itself.
On the side, but useful to know:
With programs, as long as you have a legal copy (the copy is made
by someone who has the permission to make copies), you can do the
following without a license:
1) Copy the program onto a computer.
2) Run it, there is no time limitations.
3) Create backup copies, there is no backup count.
4) Modify the program when the purpose is to interface it to
other programs of yours.
If you want to do more than this, for example copy it in other ways
than mentioned above, or modify it in other ways than mentioned
above, you need a permit from someone who has the right to grant
you such permit. With GPL, you get a permit to modify, and a limited
permit make new copies when you obtain your first copy.
George Neuner <·········@comcast.net> writes:
> A license may indeed forbid that because A LICENSE IS A CONTRACT.
No, if the license says so, it is not a license, but a contract
and the licensee is not a licensee, but a contract party, and
he has to sign that document that is not a license, but a contract,
to make it binding.
George Neuner <·········@comcast.net> writes:
> On Mon, 19 Mar 2007 10:06:21 +0100, Pascal Bourguignon
> <···@informatimago.com> wrote:
>
>>And the managers should realize the
>>putting their proprietary software under GPL is a good way to fight
>>against patents, IMO. The alternative, is to try to obtain patents
>>as soon as they release their software. (Otherwise, it could be
>>reverse engineered, and anybody else could do an equivalent software).
>
> This argument is dead wrong and frightenly misleading.
>
> GPL doesn't stop reverse engineering (which is a legal right in WIPO
> countries and simply not legislated in many others), nor is it a
> deterrent to intellectual theft except among honest people. A
> dishonest developer can just look at the GPL'd code and write her own
> version based on it, but not directly copied.
>
> If someone steals your GPL'd ideas without obviously copying your
> code, you have little chance of stopping them through legal action.
> GPL is a contract. Suits for breach of contract are hard to prove
> under the best of circumstances because the plaintiff has to show
> intent to breach, not just evidence of a breach.
No, but the protection I have in mind, which is the protection
corporations seek with publishing their know-how into patents, is
that of being forbidden of doing what they've developed themselves by
other patent holders. My idea is that if you publish your know-how
however, for example as GPL'ed opensource software, it becomes
"previous art", so your competitors cannot patent it anymore, no more
than they could if you'd patented it, only it's cheaper.
That's what's evil in patents: corporations do patents to protect
themselves against patents, therefore increasing the problem.
> Add to that significant evidentiary problems. In the case of GPL, to
> prove the fact of a breach, you need to show inclusion of GPL'd code
> in a marketed program. To prove inclusion, you need to show
> essentially one-to-one correspondence of control flow between your
> GPL'd code and the alleged copy. The court will usually make
> allowances for variable names, data types, etc., but the control flow
> is crucial. If the developer rewrote it differently enough, you won't
> be able to prove even the fact of copying.
You'd have to have the sources of the proprietary software. Compilers
can change the control flow too...
> Legal questions should be taken to lawyers - not to usenet groups. We
> can discuss and debate a question to death, but anyone who takes
> action based on the random opinions represented is an idiot. IMNSHO.
Indeed.
--
__Pascal Bourguignon__
http://www.informatimago.com
http://pjb.ogamita.org
On Tue, 20 Mar 2007 09:14:39 +0100, Pascal Bourguignon
<···@informatimago.com> wrote:
>George Neuner <·········@comcast.net> writes:
>
>> On Mon, 19 Mar 2007 10:06:21 +0100, Pascal Bourguignon
>> <···@informatimago.com> wrote:
>>
>>>And the managers should realize the
>>>putting their proprietary software under GPL is a good way to fight
>>>against patents, IMO. The alternative, is to try to obtain patents
>>>as soon as they release their software. (Otherwise, it could be
>>>reverse engineered, and anybody else could do an equivalent software).
>>
>> This argument is dead wrong and frightenly misleading.
>>
>> GPL doesn't stop reverse engineering (which is a legal right in WIPO
>> countries and simply not legislated in many others), nor is it a
>> deterrent to intellectual theft except among honest people. A
>> dishonest developer can just look at the GPL'd code and write her own
>> version based on it, but not directly copied.
>>
>> If someone steals your GPL'd ideas without obviously copying your
>> code, you have little chance of stopping them through legal action.
>> GPL is a contract. Suits for breach of contract are hard to prove
>> under the best of circumstances because the plaintiff has to show
>> intent to breach, not just evidence of a breach.
>
>No, but the protection I have in mind, which is the protection
>corporations seek with publishing their know-how into patents, is
>that of being forbidden of doing what they've developed themselves by
>other patent holders. My idea is that if you publish your know-how
>however, for example as GPL'ed opensource software, it becomes
>"previous art", so your competitors cannot patent it anymore, no more
>than they could if you'd patented it, only it's cheaper.
You are correct that your publishings become prior art - but I don't
think you fully understand what "prior art" means.
Patents don't protect ideas - they protect "processes". What that
means exactly is that a patent protects "the _use_ of a particular
expression of an idea for a particular purpose". If someone can take
your idea, as published without modification, and somehow use it for
an innovative purpose, your existing use(s) will _not_ be considered
prior art and the new use may be patentable. Prior art is only
applicable to the stated use.
GPL is a form of copyright - it doesn't protect the ideas or any use
(in the patent sense) of those ideas. Copyrights protect only the
literal expression.
[Before somebody starts complaining again that GPL does restrict use,
understand that "use" in the context of patents has a different
meaning from "use" in the context of copyrights. Before you type in
anger, pay attention to which "use" is in use.]
>> Add to that significant evidentiary problems. In the case of GPL, to
>> prove the fact of a breach, you need to show inclusion of GPL'd code
>> in a marketed program. To prove inclusion, you need to show
>> essentially one-to-one correspondence of control flow between your
>> GPL'd code and the alleged copy. The court will usually make
>> allowances for variable names, data types, etc., but the control flow
>> is crucial. If the developer rewrote it differently enough, you won't
>> be able to prove even the fact of copying.
>
>You'd have to have the sources of the proprietary software. Compilers
>can change the control flow too...
That's true, but the source can be subpoenaed for a lawsuit. What is
different is that GPL, as a copyright protection, requires you to
prove "copying" whereas the patent, as a process protection, requires
only proof of congruent operation.
In general it's easier to show congruency than copying - the copier
can be counted on to make embellishments and changes which serve to
obfuscate the copy. It's much harder (for most people) to make
substantial modifications to the flow of an algorithm while preserving
its operations.
BTW: I don't believe software in and of itself should be patentable.
I can make a case for patenting a process for which software is a
component, but then the "use" of the software is what is being
patented - not the software itself. Algorithms are technically
mathematics which, by definition, are unpatentable. For whatever
reason, a decision was made to allow algorithmic patents despite the
contradiction of law and the result is that we as developers need to
understand patents and their implications.
George
--
for email reply remove "/" from address
"Alex Mizrahi" <········@users.sourceforge.net> writes:
>
> yes, try to think from point of view of normal commercial developer,
> who needs some library for particular purpose. when he finds one, but
> it's GPL, and he is not able to use it in a normal closed-source
> commercial product, he'll really HATE GPL and RMS personally for this
> when he'll have to write his ad-hoc bug-ridden replacement for
> functionality already present in the library.
This is no different from proprietary software: one cannot simply use a
proprietary library without meeting its license terms as well. One
either meets its terms, or write an ad-hoc, bug-ridden replacement.
> thus good people should release their source with less restrictive
> license, at least with LGPL, but better with MIT or BSD 'sans
> advertising' :) or even better release it to 'public domain'.
Because proprietary programmers want _everyone else_ to release their
software for free, but want to release their _own_ software under a
proprietary license? That boils down to, 'share with me, but I shan't
share with you.'
--
Robert Uhl <http://public.xdi.org/=ruhl>
Greenpeace has often claimed that humans are the only animals that go to war.
... The solution is simple, though: put another animal in the army! All it
takes is one monkey with a semi automatic, and those hippie bastards have to
shut the hell up. --seen on Uncyclopedia
Alexander Schmolck <··········@gmail.com> wrote:
> "arnuld" <···········@gmail.com> writes:
>
> > i tried the PCL but it is TOO advanced for me.
>
> Then defer learning lisp and learn python (or ruby) first. Seriously, I think
> you're wasting your time learning Common Lisp (or C++ for that matter) if PCL
> is too advanced conceptually. You will improve your programming skills faster
> and be able to tackle interesting problems much quicker in python (and python
> will be useful to know later on, too). Once you've actually written a few
> applications that do something useful in python go back to PCL.
>
That's why "A Gentle Introduction" can be a better intro text than PCL
-- AGI has "homework" problems, PCL doesn't. You can't learn a language
by reading. If you only have a little time here, a little time there,
to learn Lisp, then AGI is the way to go. PCL requires bigger bites.
On Fri, 16 Mar 2007 13:49:37 +0100, arnuld <···········@gmail.com> wrote:
> hai to all,
>
> one year ago i left Common Lisp just because i wanted to have a job
> and tried some other languages(namely C++) . now after 1 year, i
> found that in order to become successful at getting a job, one needs
> to become a good programmer by having a good understanding of data-
> structures, algorithms, OOD, modularity and software design. i tried
> many languages Ruby, Python, Haskell, C etc. but i always missed
> Common Lisp.
>
> so i came back to Lisp in order to become a good programmer(after 12
> months i reached at the same point where i started). i searched the
> Archives. i tried the PCL but it is TOO advanced for me. only *one*
> book is available in my country, Lisp 3/e by Winston and Horn, but
> that is AI based. :-(
>
> i want to start common Lisp and very soon want to get into building
> some GPL-ed softwares written using Common Lisp.
>
> i will appreciate any advice.
>
> thanks
>
David S. Touretzky "A gentle introduction to common lisp" might be more
your pace if you lack much programming experience.
Available online in pdf and PS form at:
http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~dst/LispBook/index.html
For other resources: www.cliki.net
--
Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/mail/
On Mar 16, 7:49 am, "arnuld" <···········@gmail.com> wrote:
> Archives. i tried the PCL but it is TOO advanced for me. only *one*
> book is available in my country, Lisp 3/e by Winston and Horn, but
> that is AI based. :-(
> i will appreciate any advice.
Try "Common LISPcraft" by Robert Wilensky. You can order it from:
http://www.amazon.com/Common-Lispcraft-Robert-Wilensky/dp/0393955443
I recommend the accompanying solutions manual also available from
Amazon.com. Wilensky is extremely enthusiastic. I also learnt LISP
from Horn's LISP 3rd edition myself. The AI doesn't start until
chapter 19, and I found the first 18 chapters do build a good
foundation, so don't be put off by the AI.
You may check out the list of books recommended by Bill Clementson at:
http://bc.tech.coop/blog/040520.html
At the top of his list, Clementson cites Peter Norvig's "Paradigms of
Artificial Intelligence Programming: Case Studies in Common
Lisp" (PAIP) as "a tremendous way to learn CL".
Good luck!