On Sun, Aug 21, 2005 at 08:34:56AM -0400, Olin Lathrop wrote:
> Byron A Jeff wrote:
> >You certainly can prevent distribution of those copies. I cannot take
> >a piece of code that you have written and redistribute it without your
> >permission.
>
> You are referring to "may not" when I was talking about "can not". Yes you
> can put all sorts of licenses on open source, but it's nearly impossible to
> police since parts of the code can find themselves in applications with no
> way to identify the original code from the outside. In the end, you have to
> assume that making source available is essentially giving away the software.
At the end of the day it's no different than closed source software in terms
of distribution. People make illegal copies of propietary software and
redistribute/sell it all the time.
It's all wrong. It's all subject to copyright violations, which has
significant penalties attached for infringement. The problem with both is
finding the infringers.
BTW my original open source point referred specifically to software that is
being freely distributed, such as MPLAB. I can certainly appreciate the
desire to keep intellectual property that is designed to make a living for
the developers locked up. But we can both agree that unfortunately pretty
much any software out there, both closed and open course, is probably going
to get illegally redistributed.
>
> >>and experience has shown that's exactly what will happen.
> >
> >That's terrible. I'm a firm believer that your code is your code and I
> >am obligated to follow your rules.
>
> You may be, but many many people aren't. C'mon Byron, you seriously don't
> see rampant software stealing all around you? It's just too easy.
Of course I see it. The thing I've never figured out is that the same people
who would never ever consider taking even a stick of gum out of a store have
absolutely no problem with making a redistributing illegal copies of
copyrighted material. I think that it's coupled to the flawed belief that when
you purchase intellectual property of some media, that you obtain ownership
of the property. When you buy gum, it's your gum. So when you buy a CD, it's
your CD. Totally wrong of course. The physical CD may actually be yours. However
the intellectual content is only licensed, and generally not with any redistribution.
> Some
> people think it's their right, others justify it by saying the license price
> was too high, some may mean to buy additional licenses but don't get around
> to it. I bet you've heard all these before and even know people close to
> you that do this.
True. And I call them on it. Of course I suggest Open Source software as an
alternative. Usually the notion is met with derision.
The interesting question is what's going to happen when the inevitable hammer
falls and all digital intellectual property falls under Digital Rights Management?
What's going to happen when OSes and software can only be loaded on one machine? When
you have true pay per use for audio, video, images, and possibly software.
Will people switch to Open Source? Will they pay? Will they rebel?
> The PIC code I make freely available at http://www.embedinc.com/pic is
> specifically licenses to let anyone do basically anything with it, including
> using it in a commercial product. All I ask (require, actually) is that my
> copyright header be kept at the top of the module. I know of at least one
> case where this got stripped off for use in a commercial product. So even
> when it's free, some people will still steal it instead of the tiny
> remaining "payment" that would make it all legal.
Why? Why perform an illegal action? To save face?
The GPL has much more stringent requirements than yours. I see developers continually
try to circumvent the license so that they can get something for nothing. You're
giving that. And then to get dissed like that. Incomprehensible.
{Quote hidden}>
> >I've on occasion thought of licensing models where DIY developers gain
> >a cut of the profits based on the amount of their contributions to the
> >project. Almost like a co-op. I know it can create a situation where
> >one developer doesn't have to shoulder the entire development,
> >distribution, and support roles for a project. OTOH it can create
> >opportunities for individuals to get some compensation for
> >contributions to the project.
>
> Interesting idea, but I suspect you'll get into fights about what percentage
> each developer should get.
Right. That's why I haven't actually attempted to implement it yet.
> Most people overestimate their relative
> importance to a group project. The other problem I personally would have
> with this is that most people write crappy code. Even if they don't, I
> doubt they'd want to follow my style and I certainly don't want to follow
> anyone else's. With only a single exception that I can think of,
> integrating other people's "free" code into my own has been more trouble
> than it was worth.
That's a struggle that most Open Source projects has. The Linux kernel for example
has pretty stringent insertion control by a small handful of developers. It uses
the weight of the reputation of the standard kernel to get folks to meet the
requirements.
Wouldn't work with a small project with no clout.
>
> By the way, the exception I can think of was the JPEG image file I/O code
> from the Independent JPEG Group. Maybe that's because it was a relatively
> complex subsystem with small interconnects and basically worked out of the
> box as documented. I wrote all the image format drivers for my image file
> I/O library except the JPEG driver, but everything works together
> seamlessly.
Cool.
BAJ
BY
:
Byron A Jeff email (remove spam text)