"Woody" <nomail@nomail> schreef in bericht 
news:web.4975c074390cc5e3aefa83390@news.povray.org...

> Forgive my ignorance, what program did you use to convert from 3ds. Is it
> free/open source I currently only know of one shareware program, and I am 
> not
> particularly keen on using it since it goes against my hippie philosophy 
> of
> promoting open source.
>
>

Poseray does the job  :-)

Thomas

Post a reply to this message

"Woody" <nomail@nomail> wrote:
> Forgive my ignorance, what program did you use to convert from 3ds. Is it
> free/open source I currently only know of one shareware program, and I am not
> particularly keen on using it since it goes against my hippie philosophy of
> promoting open source.

I guess you're not running Windows; otherwise I could recommend - without
thinking - two free tools that do both 3ds import and POV export: Wings 3D and
PoseRay.

For Linux, you may want to try the Wine / PoseRay combo. PoseRay claims to be
running perfectly fine on Wine. Cheers!

Post a reply to this message

On Tue, 20 Jan 2009 07:15:48 EST, "Woody" <nomail@nomail> wrote:

>
>Forgive my ignorance, what program did you use to convert from 3ds. Is it
>free/open source I currently only know of one shareware program, and I am not
>particularly keen on using it since it goes against my hippie philosophy of
>promoting open source.

That is three of us voting for PoseRay, which can be run under Wine, if you are
using Linux. There is no mention of a licence that I can find.

http://mysite.verizon.net/sfg0000/

And this old hippy wants to know what's wrong with "open source"?
-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

Stephen <mcavoysAT@aolDOTcom> wrote:
> And this old hippy wants to know what's wrong with "open source"?

I don't know whether this is actually the question you were intending to ask (as
of now there wasn't any mention of anything being wrong with open source, just
with shareware) - but I as a professional software developer could make some
points.

Most importantly, the "aggressive" type of open source, as pushed by the FSF and
their GPL, if it succeeded, would (put a little bit to extreme to emphasize the
point) deprive individuals of their freedom to devote their whole life to
developing software, and share it with others in exchange for pizza, computer
hardware, and a roof above the head.

Sure, the FSF promotes sharing one's software in exchange for... what? Other
free software? Well, I can't eat that, plug my keyboard into it, or take
shelter from the rain in it.

The FSF's "free software" Utopia is based on the assumption that software is
developed as a pastime, or as a "spin-off" of some other occupation. While this
may be commonplace in the academic world, some people would want to opt for a
more drastically software-development-centered lifestyle, and they need to eat.
Anything wrong with shareware here? Don't think so.


But I guess this may get us off-topic a bit...

Post a reply to this message

On Tue, 20 Jan 2009 08:57:51 EST, "clipka" <nomail@nomail> wrote:

>Stephen <mcavoysAT@aolDOTcom> wrote:
>> And this old hippy wants to know what's wrong with "open source"?
>
>I don't know whether this is actually the question you were intending to ask (as
>of now there wasn't any mention of anything being wrong with open source, just
>with shareware) - but I as a professional software developer could make some
>points.
>
[snip]

I understand that Christoph. But I would have thought that the "hippie
philosophy" would endorse "open source". Free love and all that.

>But I guess this may get us off-topic a bit...

True, but that has never stopped me ;)
-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

Woody escreveu:
> Forgive my ignorance, what program did you use to convert from 3ds. Is it
> free/open source I currently only know of one shareware program, and I am not
> particularly keen on using it since it goes against my hippie philosophy of
> promoting open source.

Blender does the job as well as Wings 3D, both run natively on Linux.

Post a reply to this message

"Stephen" <mcavoysAT@aolDOTcom> schreef in bericht 
news:crmbn457io812781v0vht4glfgca8hcdda@4ax.com...
> I understand that Christoph. But I would have thought that the "hippie
> philosophy" would endorse "open source". Free love and all that.

Indeed... Same question here. I use OpenOffice.org to (almost) full 
satisfaction, and without feeling guilty towards MS... ;-)

>>But I guess this may get us off-topic a bit...
>
> True, but that has never stopped me ;)

Neither does it me...

Post a reply to this message

clipka escreveu:
> with shareware) - but I as a professional software developer could make some
> points.

I'm a professional software developer too -- though most probably not 
talking as close to the metal as some of you guys here seem to -- and I 
believe I can make a few points as well. ;)

> Most importantly, the "aggressive" type of open source, as pushed by the FSF and
> their GPL, if it succeeded, would (put a little bit to extreme to emphasize the
> point) deprive individuals of their freedom to devote their whole life to
> developing software, and share it with others in exchange for pizza, computer
> hardware, and a roof above the head.

I don't think so.  Most enterprises either build their private systems 
in house or pay a third party to build it and even hand over the source 
code anyway.  Private enterprise commercial systems are hardly portable 
or fittable to other organization needs so there's really no point in 
open-sourcing a one-fits-all kind of system and even if there was they 
would still hire software developers to customize it.

I see open-source primarily as a great way of diminishing production 
costs by sharing such cost of development and maintanence with other 
interested parties:  everyone benefit from it and the more interested 
parties, the better.  It's a very good development model geared 
primarily for general purpose infrastructure software, but not so much 
for user applications which are meant to be specific.

Post a reply to this message

Thomas de Groot wrote:
> Indeed... Same question here. I use OpenOffice.org to (almost) full 
> satisfaction, and without feeling guilty towards MS... ;-)

It usually confuses matters to try to analyze "real" open source software 
(like the Linux kernel) with software that was created and given away as a 
competitive advantage to the creators. Some "open" software was originally 
created by a hardware company who wanted good software for their hardware 
that would compete with the software available for other hardware. Giving 
away the software made their hardware (where they made their actual money) 
more attractive.

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   Why is there a chainsaw in DOOM?
   There aren't any trees on Mars.

Post a reply to this message

clipka escribió:
> "Woody" <nomail@nomail> wrote:
>> Forgive my ignorance, what program did you use to convert from 3ds. Is it
>> free/open source I currently only know of one shareware program, and I am not
>> particularly keen on using it since it goes against my hippie philosophy of
>> promoting open source.
> 
> I guess you're not running Windows; otherwise I could recommend - without
> thinking - two free tools that do both 3ds import and POV export: Wings 3D and
> PoseRay.
> 
> For Linux, you may want to try the Wine / PoseRay combo. PoseRay claims to be
> running perfectly fine on Wine. Cheers!
> 
> 

   Wings3d works nicely on Linux too... and for me the current POV exporter 
does a good job on the geometry, although it could be more "edit-friendly".

--
Jaime

Post a reply to this message

On Tue, 20 Jan 2009 16:52:03 +0100, "Thomas de Groot"
<tDOTdegroot@interDOTnlANOTHERDOTnet> wrote:

>
>"Stephen" <mcavoysAT@aolDOTcom> schreef in bericht 
>news:crmbn457io812781v0vht4glfgca8hcdda@4ax.com...
>> I understand that Christoph. But I would have thought that the "hippie
>> philosophy" would endorse "open source". Free love and all that.
>
>Indeed... Same question here. I use OpenOffice.org to (almost) full 
>satisfaction, and without feeling guilty towards MS... ;-)
>

I don't feel guilty any more I'm even cured of distaste for "Big Blue".

I gave up using OpenOffice.org as I still use M$ at work and my fingers can only
remember so many shortcuts ;)

>>>But I guess this may get us off-topic a bit...
>>
>> True, but that has never stopped me ;)
>
>Neither does it me... 
>

Well OT gets a bit On Topic at times :)
-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On Tue, 20 Jan 2009 09:23:51 -0800, Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:

>Thomas de Groot wrote:
>> Indeed... Same question here. I use OpenOffice.org to (almost) full 
>> satisfaction, and without feeling guilty towards MS... ;-)
>
>It usually confuses matters to try to analyze "real" open source software 
>(like the Linux kernel) with software that was created and given away as a 
>competitive advantage to the creators. Some "open" software was originally 
>created by a hardware company who wanted good software for their hardware 
>that would compete with the software available for other hardware. Giving 
>away the software made their hardware (where they made their actual money) 
>more attractive.

Some capitalists are sneaky :)
-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

nemesis <nam### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
> I don't think so.  Most enterprises either build their private systems
> in house or pay a third party to build it and even hand over the source
> code anyway.  Private enterprise commercial systems are hardly portable
> or fittable to other organization needs so there's really no point in
> open-sourcing a one-fits-all kind of system and even if there was they
> would still hire software developers to customize it.

Okay, we're talking about two different worlds here (yet again): You're thinking
of custom-tailored corporate inhouse software; I'm thinking of stuff that is
typically distributed as shareware (say, for example, tools like UltraEdit).

Then again, there's companies like the one I currently happen to work for,
trying to do stuff with embedded Linux; it's an awful hassle, as we found out.
How can you build a Linux box that will be built into a car?

It basically requires you to (1) use GPL'ed software, because you can't write
*all* the stuff from scratch, nor can you buy it - there's no true commercial
alternatives out there; because of that it requires you to (2) release *all*
the source code of the final product under the GPL as well, and provide
interested users all necessary tools to - well, let's just call it by name -
basically "hack" the box and flash their own software into it; but at the same
time you must (3) keep the automotive company's confidential information (CAN
bus protocol details and such) secret, *and* make sure that nobody can convert
the car into rolling danger by "hacking" the box.

So it's no surprise the embedded Linux idea has not really reached full speed
yet.

While clearing away the "legal landmines" of software patents, the FSF is laying
their own "legal mines" in the territory gained, with the aggressive GPL'ization
of free software.

An old african proverb says, if elephants (here: big companies and the FSF)
fight, it is the grass (here: small developers) that suffers.


> I see open-source primarily as a great way of diminishing production
> costs by sharing such cost of development and maintanence with other
> interested parties:  everyone benefit from it and the more interested
> parties, the better.  It's a very good development model geared
> primarily for general purpose infrastructure software, but not so much
> for user applications which are meant to be specific.

The problem with it is that the FSF doesn't see it this way; their GPL is geared
towards making *ALL* user applications free. Including, by the way, web
applications custom-tailored for an individual website.

Their agenda leaves absolutely no doubt about it: Their aim is to make *every*
single piece of software "free" and open-sourced. They're just not going full
gear for strategic reasons (read for example their statements about when to use
the LGPL and the GPL to see for yourself).

Honestly, I'd liken this to communism or socialism: The basic ideas might have
been good ones, but they have been bred in academic brains a bit too far from
reality (e.g. too optimistic about the nature of man), then pushed by
enthusiastic masses too far from the academic ideas, to ultimately fail - after
having caused a great mess that will not be so easy to clean up.

Post a reply to this message

clipka escreveu:
> Okay, we're talking about two different worlds here (yet again): You're thinking
> of custom-tailored corporate inhouse software; I'm thinking of stuff that is
> typically distributed as shareware (say, for example, tools like UltraEdit).

Yes, most likely.

> Then again, there's companies like the one I currently happen to work for,
> trying to do stuff with embedded Linux; it's an awful hassle, as we found out.

Still, Google is doing it with the Linux-based GPLed android.

> How can you build a Linux box that will be built into a car?
> 
> It basically requires you to (1) use GPL'ed software, because you can't write
> *all* the stuff from scratch, nor can you buy it - there's no true commercial
> alternatives out there;

You could use BSD stuff or some other if you don't want/like GPL.  Or 
write from scratch. :)

> because of that it requires you to (2) release *all*
> the source code of the final product under the GPL as well,

That's the license terms for it.

> and provide
> interested users all necessary tools to - well, let's just call it by name -
> basically "hack" the box and flash their own software into it;

Ubuntu doesn't come with source code and used to not even provide gcc. 
They were in the software repositoires, though.

> but at the same
> time you must (3) keep the automotive company's confidential information (CAN
> bus protocol details and such) secret

Binary data?  Besides, how much of it is to be deep-linked with GPL 
software for it to be required to be released in source form?

>, *and* make sure that nobody can convert
> the car into rolling danger by "hacking" the box.

Anyone can convert the car into rolling danger purposefully, if they so 
want to and have a minimum knowledge of mechanics.  How many users of 
Android-powered cellphones will want to do it, though?

> While clearing away the "legal landmines" of software patents, the FSF is laying
> their own "legal mines" in the territory gained, with the aggressive GPL'ization
> of free software.

So the trouble is that one would like to freely use X software as basis 
for their own without having to comply with the terms of X's license?  I 
call that pirating.  Pirating is genuinely more annoying to me as 
software developer than any over-the-top FSF campaign.

> The problem with it is that the FSF doesn't see it this way; their GPL is geared
> towards making *ALL* user applications free. Including, by the way, web
> applications custom-tailored for an individual website.

Well, if they succeed like they succeeded with their HURD kernel, I'll 
be afraid.  I think it's just a moral stance though:  they know it's 
unrealistic but keep hitting on the ideal anyway.

Post a reply to this message

clipka wrote:

> read for example their statements about when to use
> the LGPL and the GPL to see for yourself

by chance, I happened to read it a few days ago. I was also
surprised by the attitude. It seems like they feel to be in
competition to commercial software, but why would you worry
about competition when you make free software anyway? If you
don't do it for fun, why bother? The only advantage to gain
is a broader user base and henceforth more fame, but for
that libs should be LGPL'ed in the first place ;)

Post a reply to this message

nemesis escreveu:
> Well, if they succeed like they succeeded with their HURD kernel, I'll 
> be afraid.

Actually, I won't be afraid at all if all there is only free software in 
the world, why should I?  As strange as it gets, free software is not 
put out by basement geeks in their spare time and all software needs 
tweaks and maintanence and that means jobs, only better as all 
infrastructure tools are free as well.

Can you really picture a manager somewhere saying:  "Bwahahaha, we don't 
need no stinking software developers anymore as all software is finally 
free!  Coffee lady, tweak those scripts to run in the server before 
lunch..."

Post a reply to this message

nemesis <nam### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
> > but at the same
> > time you must (3) keep the automotive company's confidential information (CAN
> > bus protocol details and such) secret
>
> Binary data?  Besides, how much of it is to be deep-linked with GPL
> software for it to be required to be released in source form?

But that's exactly the problem: With LGPL it wouldn't be that much of a hassle.
But GPL says: If your product has *any* GPLed code in it, *all* the product
software must be GPLed - every single byte of it. If you sell the thing, that
is.

Binary data? No way. Doesn't count as source code.

> >, *and* make sure that nobody can convert
> > the car into rolling danger by "hacking" the box.
>
> Anyone can convert the car into rolling danger purposefully, if they so
> want to and have a minimum knowledge of mechanics.  How many users of
> Android-powered cellphones will want to do it, though?

Yeah, if bad people want to do bad things, they do it... but then you as the
developer of that thing may be sued for not restricting access to it well
enough...


> > While clearing away the "legal landmines" of software patents, the FSF is laying
> > their own "legal mines" in the territory gained, with the aggressive GPL'ization
> > of free software.
>
> So the trouble is that one would like to freely use X software as basis
> for their own without having to comply with the terms of X's license?  I
> call that pirating.  Pirating is genuinely more annoying to me as
> software developer than any over-the-top FSF campaign.

Nay, we're not talking about software pirating - we're talking about the FSF
promoting a license scheme that some developers would possibly not opt for if
the FSF didn't tell them that it is the thing that will save the planet.

Take for example a ray tracing software. Say, I write my own raytracing software
from scratch - except for the PNG library, which I don't bother to code all by
myself. As far as my own code goes, I'd be happily willing to place it in the
public domain. I cannot, however, because I need to GPL it for the sake of the
PNG lib.

Now someone else needs a raytracer that outputs HDR. He doesn't really care
about PNG, but he takes that raytracing software I wrote (including the PNG lib
I didn't write), and replaces the PNG code with HDR code written by himself from
scratch. Let's for argument's sake assume that he, too, is perfectly fine with
his work to be placed in the PD.

So the product contains work from me, perfectly willing to place it in the
public domain, and work from that other guy, who added the HDR code, and also
perfectly willing to PD it. Nothing left of the PNG code which forced me to GPL
the software.

Nothing left? Hm... I had to release my code under the GPL. So if that other guy
wants to distribute his software, he has to GPL it, too.

THAT is what I consider nonsense and non-freedom: We have a piece of software
comprised solely of code contributed by people willing to place it in the PD -
but an author of some piece of code that isn't even in there gets his will
under which license the software is distributed. Everyone could do anything
with our work as they please - if it wasn't for the virulent nature of the GPL.


Granted, this might not be the typical case. But it does illustrate the
underlying problem: Even if some software is released under the GPL, this may
not be in line with code authors' intentions. It may actually be that *all*
people that have contributed to the final version would be perfectly fine with
a totally different license scheme - and yet the FSF has their say in it.


> > The problem with it is that the FSF doesn't see it this way; their GPL is geared
> > towards making *ALL* user applications free. Including, by the way, web
> > applications custom-tailored for an individual website.
>
> Well, if they succeed like they succeeded with their HURD kernel, I'll
> be afraid.  I think it's just a moral stance though:  they know it's
> unrealistic but keep hitting on the ideal anyway.

I do believe they believe in their ideals: Total domination of the "free
software" idea over all the software market. I haven't seen any statement to
the effect that they will be happy with anything less.

From what I see, it's not a moral stance, but a religious one, and that makes me
very uneasy about the FSF and GPL.

Post a reply to this message

Christian Froeschlin <chr### [at] chrfrde> wrote:
> > read for example their statements about when to use
> > the LGPL and the GPL to see for yourself
>
> by chance, I happened to read it a few days ago. I was also
> surprised by the attitude. It seems like they feel to be in
> competition to commercial software, but why would you worry
> about competition when you make free software anyway? If you
> don't do it for fun, why bother? The only advantage to gain
> is a broader user base and henceforth more fame, but for
> that libs should be LGPL'ed in the first place ;)

From what I gather, the main driving force behind this is the desire of some
software developers, who code for fun or as an aside, to be able to use and
modify other people's software for free as well (I'd call *that* a very
*sneaky* way of piracy, actually).

They are willing to give away their work for free - well, no problem with this,
thanks guys; but they're not willing to pay anything for what they get.

This wouldn't be a problem if they didn't enforce this principle with quite a
lot of success onto other parts of the software world. It is their publicly
declared(!) agenda to "flood" the software market with free software libraries
under the non-virulent LGPL to "drown" commercial alternatives, and then switch
over to the virulent GPL in order to force all software authors that make use of
to those libraries to make their software free as well - even those authors that
would be willing to pay for the functionality provided by the libraries, but
cannot because there are no commercial alternatives anymore.

Yes, I guess "a sneaky way of software piracy" quite hits the mark.


I think the worst about it is that when the FSF and GPL are criticized, the
broad public doesn't get the details of any side's messages, and naively
equates FSF = free software = open source = I don't have to pay for it = good,
and FSF-critics = anti-free-software = commercial = only want to have my money
= bad.

I also wonder how many people releasing their software under the GPL actually
know about the FSF's agenda. But then again, people are greedy, so "free
software for everyone!" sounds like a great message for all those who don't get
paid for their own software development work anyway.

Post a reply to this message

nemesis <nam### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
> Actually, I won't be afraid at all if all there is only free software in
> the world, why should I?  As strange as it gets, free software is not
> put out by basement geeks in their spare time and all software needs
> tweaks and maintanence and that means jobs, only better as all
> infrastructure tools are free as well.

The problem is that a free-software-only world will shift the software market,
and leave no room for "small developers".

Either you will work for a big company to adapt & extend existing software to
their needs (which then *may* happen to be released to the public for free as a
spin-off), or you will develop software as a hobby just for fun. No in-between
anymore.

No room for people writing comparatively small pieces of software for fun *and*
making a living on it.

Can you imagine anyone paying for shareware if it is not only *technically*
possible to circumvent trial periods and registration code checks (because the
source code must be made open), but also *morally* perfectly fine to do so
(because after all the author did release it under the GPL, i.e. as free
software, so actually he has no right to demand money for it from me, has he)?

Well, I can imagine people paying for such tools, but I guess their number will
drastically decrease, and the feeling that it's still right to pay for
shareware will erode over time even in those people who currently still have
that attitude.

Post a reply to this message

clipka wrote:
> The problem is that a free-software-only world will shift the software market,
> and leave no room for "small developers".

"Will"?

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   "Ouch ouch ouch!"
   "What's wrong? Noodles too hot?"
   "No, I have Chopstick Tunnel Syndrome."

Post a reply to this message

>
> Take for example a ray tracing software. Say, I write my own raytracing 
> software
> from scratch - except for the PNG library, which I don't bother to code 
> all by
> myself. As far as my own code goes, I'd be happily willing to place it in 
> the
> public domain. I cannot, however, because I need to GPL it for the sake of 
> the
> PNG lib.
>
> Now someone else needs a raytracer that outputs HDR. He doesn't really 
> care
> about PNG, but he takes that raytracing software I wrote (including the 
> PNG lib
> I didn't write), and replaces the PNG code with HDR code written by 
> himself from
> scratch. Let's for argument's sake assume that he, too, is perfectly fine 
> with
> his work to be placed in the PD.
>
> So the product contains work from me, perfectly willing to place it in the
> public domain, and work from that other guy, who added the HDR code, and 
> also
> perfectly willing to PD it. Nothing left of the PNG code which forced me 
> to GPL
> the software.
>
> Nothing left? Hm... I had to release my code under the GPL. So if that 
> other guy
> wants to distribute his software, he has to GPL it, too.
>
> THAT is what I consider nonsense and non-freedom: We have a piece of 
> software
> comprised solely of code contributed by people willing to place it in the 
> PD -
> but an author of some piece of code that isn't even in there gets his will
> under which license the software is distributed. Everyone could do 
> anything
> with our work as they please - if it wasn't for the virulent nature of the 
> GPL.
>
>
> Granted, this might not be the typical case. But it does illustrate the
> underlying problem: Even if some software is released under the GPL, this 
> may
> not be in line with code authors' intentions. It may actually be that 
> *all*
> people that have contributed to the final version would be perfectly fine 
> with
> a totally different license scheme - and yet the FSF has their say in it.
>

I think you're seriously mixing up Copyright and Licensing in this example.

IANAL, but my understanding is that you retain copyright to your own work 
when you release it under GPL V3, even when it is combined with other 
elements licensed under GPL V3. You are perfectly entitled to also release 
your own work (or work to which you hold sole copyright) as part of other 
distributions under a different free or commercial license of your choosing. 
You can also contact the copyright holder of other GPL works and seek a 
separate license from them for the redistribution of their work under other 
free or commercial licenses.

For the most part GPL doesn't remove your rights, as copyright holder, to do 
what you want with your work, rather it protects them. The main exception 
being that you obviously can't issue someone else with an 'exclusive' 
license to something you've already licensed in perpetuity under GPL.

> From what I see, it's not a moral stance, but a religious one, and that 
> makes me
> very uneasy about the FSF and GPL.

I see it more as an inevitable response to some vicious and sustained 
attacks by a small number of huge, disreputable commercial interests with 
very large and well funded legal teams against altruistic individuals and 
groups without the necessary financial backing to fight back. Over the years 
I've seen huge bodies of work, contributed freely for the benefit of 
everyone, wiped away or enveloped by commercial or legal trickery. It's sad 
that, having found that the open source community has evolved mechanisms to 
combat their legal departments, there now seems to be an intensifying focus 
on campaigns to confuse, discredit and divide the open source community.

Nevertheless. My experience is that legitimate commercial development has 
continued to evolve alongside open source development, with each benefiting 
greatly from the other. I've worked in various large organisations over the 
years that have both benefitted from and contributed to open source software 
and I don't really see that changing anytime soon. Nor, unfortunately, do I 
see the big legal battles stopping anytime soon.

Regards,
Chris B.

Post a reply to this message

"Chris B" <nom### [at] nomailcom> wrote:
> IANAL, but my understanding is that you retain copyright to your own work
> when you release it under GPL V3, even when it is combined with other
> elements licensed under GPL V3.

That is true, but...

> You are perfectly entitled to also release
> your own work (or work to which you hold sole copyright) as part of other
> distributions under a different free or commercial license of your choosing.
> You can also contact the copyright holder of other GPL works and seek a
> separate license from them for the redistribution of their work under other
> free or commercial licenses.

.... this may become quite a pain.


> I see it more as an inevitable response to some vicious and sustained
> attacks by a small number of huge, disreputable commercial interests with
> very large and well funded legal teams against altruistic individuals and
> groups without the necessary financial backing to fight back.

Nay. It may have started that way, but from what I see now, it has gone
overboard.

For the cause of protecting free software developers' rights against commercial
piracy, in the case of libraries I see no valid reason to require that *all*
parts of commercial software must be open sourced if they use that library -
except for "political" purposes.

If the goal is to defend against commercial products "wrapping" the library,
with the intention of hiding from their users the fact that the same
functionality is available for free, then it will perfectly suffice to require
that credit is given in a sufficiently prominent place, and source code of the
*library* is provided for free on demand. Or, alternatively, it should suffice
to disallow distribution of the library along with the product - but even
dynamic linkage with a library that needs to be obtained separately is an
option ruled out by the GPL.


> Over the years
> I've seen huge bodies of work, contributed freely for the benefit of
> everyone, wiped away or enveloped by commercial or legal trickery. It's sad
> that, having found that the open source community has evolved mechanisms to
> combat their legal departments, there now seems to be an intensifying focus
> on campaigns to confuse, discredit and divide the open source community.

I can assure you that I have not been the target of any such campaign (or if I
was, I didn't bother to listen to them). I thought quite favorably about the
ideals of free software - until I read some articles on the FSF's internet
site.

They're at war. And they're willing to sacrifice anything else for it. They're
no longer just fighting against big strong sneaky companies - they're fighting
against everyone who in all honesty tries to get monetary compensation for
their contribution to software. Unless it is designed specifically for a single
customer, but on these people the GPL will still backfire: They may sell their
work to the company, but they must allow the company to re-distribute any part
thereof to anyone they like.

That's nothing I took from Microsoft campaigns or whatever. That's what I took
from their own words.


> Nevertheless. My experience is that legitimate commercial development has
> continued to evolve alongside open source development, with each benefiting
> greatly from the other. I've worked in various large organisations over the
> years that have both benefitted from and contributed to open source software
> and I don't really see that changing anytime soon. Nor, unfortunately, do I
> see the big legal battles stopping anytime soon.

I do see a sense in the LGPL. I also do see a sense in the fight against
software patents (I think *any* patent is crap - if I happen to make the same
invention as someone else, without me knowing about that, then why should I not
be entitled to use the idea?). But the GPL is not a legal instrument but a
political paper, and I don't favor the way it is heading. And the zeal with
which it is promoted makes me uneasy.

Post a reply to this message

"Chris B" <nom### [at] nomailcom> wrote:
> >
> > Take for example a ray tracing software. Say, I write my own raytracing
> > software
> > from scratch - except for the PNG library, which I don't bother to code
> > all by
> > myself. As far as my own code goes, I'd be happily willing to place it in
> > the
> > public domain. I cannot, however, because I need to GPL it for the sake of
> > the
> > PNG lib.
> >
> > Now someone else needs a raytracer that outputs HDR. He doesn't really
> > care
> > about PNG, but he takes that raytracing software I wrote (including the
> > PNG lib
> > I didn't write), and replaces the PNG code with HDR code written by
> > himself from
> > scratch. Let's for argument's sake assume that he, too, is perfectly fine
> > with
> > his work to be placed in the PD.
> >
> > So the product contains work from me, perfectly willing to place it in the
> > public domain, and work from that other guy, who added the HDR code, and
> > also
> > perfectly willing to PD it. Nothing left of the PNG code which forced me
> > to GPL
> > the software.
> >
> > Nothing left? Hm... I had to release my code under the GPL. So if that
> > other guy
> > wants to distribute his software, he has to GPL it, too.
> >
> > THAT is what I consider nonsense and non-freedom: We have a piece of
> > software
> > comprised solely of code contributed by people willing to place it in the
> > PD -
> > but an author of some piece of code that isn't even in there gets his will
> > under which license the software is distributed. Everyone could do
> > anything
> > with our work as they please - if it wasn't for the virulent nature of the
> > GPL.
> >
> >
> > Granted, this might not be the typical case. But it does illustrate the
> > underlying problem: Even if some software is released under the GPL, this
> > may
> > not be in line with code authors' intentions. It may actually be that
> > *all*
> > people that have contributed to the final version would be perfectly fine
> > with
> > a totally different license scheme - and yet the FSF has their say in it.
> >
>
> I think you're seriously mixing up Copyright and Licensing in this example.
>
> IANAL, but my understanding is that you retain copyright to your own work
> when you release it under GPL V3, even when it is combined with other
> elements licensed under GPL V3. You are perfectly entitled to also release
> your own work (or work to which you hold sole copyright) as part of other
> distributions under a different free or commercial license of your choosing.
> You can also contact the copyright holder of other GPL works and seek a
> separate license from them for the redistribution of their work under other
> free or commercial licenses.
>
> For the most part GPL doesn't remove your rights, as copyright holder, to do
> what you want with your work, rather it protects them. The main exception
> being that you obviously can't issue someone else with an 'exclusive'
> license to something you've already licensed in perpetuity under GPL.
>
> > From what I see, it's not a moral stance, but a religious one, and that
> > makes me
> > very uneasy about the FSF and GPL.
>
> I see it more as an inevitable response to some vicious and sustained
> attacks by a small number of huge, disreputable commercial interests with
> very large and well funded legal teams against altruistic individuals and
> groups without the necessary financial backing to fight back. Over the years
> I've seen huge bodies of work, contributed freely for the benefit of
> everyone, wiped away or enveloped by commercial or legal trickery. It's sad
> that, having found that the open source community has evolved mechanisms to
> combat their legal departments, there now seems to be an intensifying focus
> on campaigns to confuse, discredit and divide the open source community.
>
> Nevertheless. My experience is that legitimate commercial development has
> continued to evolve alongside open source development, with each benefiting
> greatly from the other. I've worked in various large organisations over the
> years that have both benefitted from and contributed to open source software
> and I don't really see that changing anytime soon. Nor, unfortunately, do I
> see the big legal battles stopping anytime soon.
>
> Regards,
> Chris B.

I wouldn't put it any better. :)

Post a reply to this message

"clipka" <nomail@nomail> wrote:
> Either you will work for a big company to adapt & extend existing software to
> their needs (which then *may* happen to be released to the public for free as a
> spin-off), or you will develop software as a hobby just for fun. No in-between
> anymore.
>
> No room for people writing comparatively small pieces of software for fun *and*
> making a living on it.

Indeed.  "No pain, no gain" should be the tag line of every job. ;P

> Can you imagine anyone paying for shareware if it is not only *technically*
> possible to circumvent trial periods and registration code checks (because the
> source code must be made open),

or because the shareware is crippled and closed and there's similar open-source
software for free?

> Well, I can imagine people paying for such tools, but I guess their number will
> drastically decrease, and the feeling that it's still right to pay for
> shareware will erode over time even in those people who currently still have
> that attitude.

Funny you mention shareware indeed.  Shareware and freeware are two words I last
used on a 486 running DOS.  Ever since I got into Linux, free as in speech took
priority over free beer, even though it's gratuitous too.

Post a reply to this message

"clipka" <nomail@nomail> wrote:
> nemesis <nam### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
> But GPL says: If your product has *any* GPLed code in it, *all* the product
> software must be GPLed - every single byte of it. If you sell the thing, that
> is.

Not if you sell, if you distribute modified versions of it or software using it.
 It requires nothing from you if you code your whole software independently and
later calls optional GPL functionality from the outside, rather than as library
calls or code pasting.

More below.

> Take for example a ray tracing software. Say, I write my own raytracing software
> from scratch - except for the PNG library, which I don't bother to code all by
> myself. As far as my own code goes, I'd be happily willing to place it in the
> public domain. I cannot, however, because I need to GPL it for the sake of the
> PNG lib.
>
> Now someone else needs a raytracer that outputs HDR. He doesn't really care
> about PNG, but he takes that raytracing software I wrote (including the PNG lib
> I didn't write), and replaces the PNG code with HDR code written by himself from
> scratch. Let's for argument's sake assume that he, too, is perfectly fine with
> his work to be placed in the PD.
>
> So the product contains work from me, perfectly willing to place it in the
> public domain, and work from that other guy, who added the HDR code, and also
> perfectly willing to PD it. Nothing left of the PNG code which forced me to GPL
> the software.
>
> Nothing left? Hm... I had to release my code under the GPL. So if that other guy
> wants to distribute his software, he has to GPL it, too.

http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#CombinePublicDomainWithGPL

You can put your software in the PD and later combine it with GPL and if someone
later wants the non-GPL version, just take the PD with no png one.

If I were you, though, I'd instead simply not link with libpng (is it really GPL
rather than LGPL?).  I'd write my app without png support, have a command-line
switch or some graphical option to render/export png and call a separate
utility program to read/write the png, say, imagemagick or one short of my own
I'd be willing to put under the GPL for libpng access.

You could of course also write a non-GPL png library to counter the evil
advances of the FSF. :)

> I do believe they believe in their ideals: Total domination of the "free
> software" idea over all the software market. I haven't seen any statement to
> the effect that they will be happy with anything less.
>
> From what I see, it's not a moral stance, but a religious one, and that makes me
> very uneasy about the FSF and GPL.

No, you're really uneasy because you think there'll be no more jobs for software
developers in a world made out completely of free software, whereas I see that
as an immense oportunity for much customization and software services using
very good free tools.

I don't see the end of software developer's careers happening by FSF's utopic
hands though, but by some future AI that renders us obsolete and a curiosity of
the past like blacksmiths.  On a second thought, it'll also render mankind
obsolete and we'll have far more worrying problems than lack of jobs, like
running for life or finding food and hidden caves big enough for everyone...

Post a reply to this message

Interesting to see how this whole discussion derives from a simple query 
about the Buddha....

[wow, man! I mean, Peace!]   :-)


Thomas

Post a reply to this message

"clipka" <nomail@nomail> wrote in message 
news:web.49768f4f390cc5e3a8b1e7e60@news.povray.org...
> "Chris B" <nom### [at] nomailcom> wrote:
>> You are perfectly entitled to also release
>> your own work (or work to which you hold sole copyright) as part of other
>> distributions under a different free or commercial license of your 
>> choosing.
>
> .... this may become quite a pain.

Hmm! I think anytime you get into the complex issues of copyright and 
licensing you'd better be ready to endure pain :-)

Nevertheless, as the license issuer, the GPL protects your rights in a way 
that allows you considerable freedom for the future. For speed and economy 
you may choose to base your work on GPL libraries for your first release. If 
your application looks like a winner you may then investigate alternative 
licensing for those libraries or invest in replacement libraries under a 
commercial license. Sure, people will still be able to run your old code and 
derivative works distributed by others under their existing GPL license, but 
many may also choose to upgrade to your V2 code with whichever license you 
have chosen for it.

The aggressiveness of those advocating GPL is to try and protect you. Not to 
try and swindle you out of your own code (that role was already taken). 
Remember, you are not bound by the terms of use in the license that you 
issue. You have obligations as the license issuer, not as the recipient of 
the license.

>
>> I see it more as an inevitable response to some vicious and sustained
>> attacks by a small number of huge, disreputable commercial interests with
>> very large and well funded legal teams against altruistic individuals and
>> groups without the necessary financial backing to fight back.
>
> Nay. It may have started that way, but from what I see now, it has gone
> overboard.
>
> For the cause of protecting free software developers' rights against 
> commercial
> piracy, in the case of libraries I see no valid reason to require that 
> *all*
> parts of commercial software must be open sourced if they use that 
> library -
> except for "political" purposes.

Legally it's not piracy because big business mostly has the law on its side. 
Most of the copyright, licensing and piracy laws have been crafted by those 
sponsored by major commercial interests and forced into law by well-paid 
government lobyists. GPL and LGPL were crafted to try and use those very 
same laws to counter the lack of representation for the individual and for 
the open source community in those laws.

> If the goal is to defend against commercial products "wrapping" the 
> library,
> with the intention of hiding from their users the fact that the same
> functionality is available for free, then it will perfectly suffice to 
> require
> that credit is given in a sufficiently prominent place, and source code of 
> the
> *library* is provided for free on demand.

An example may serve here to illustrate:

Imagine you spend years on an ingenious open source project that develops 
some clever and complex algorithms and you don't give it the protection that 
the GPL affords. You're about to add a cool front-end when someone else 
embeds your code, adds their own commercial front-end and patents the notion 
of using your code through a GUI front-end. Your years of altruistic 
development have now been effectively blocked by someone who knocked up a 
quick and dirty 'wrapper' to your code and you can't even develop your own 
front-end without paying them royalties for their genious idea of using your 
software through a front-end. Their patent lasts for the rest of your life.

Or, an example from the other side of the coin:

Imagine you write an application to manipulate a mesh that you found with an 
open license which is not GPL or some other comparable license that has some 
tested legal foundation. You sell it at $5 a shot for a couple of years 
before a lawyer buys the company that released the mesh. He challenges and 
overturns the license and then sues you for loss of earnings claiming the 
mesh alone to be worth $500 a copy. You now have the choice of  A) 
negotiating to see if he'd be kind enough to take the $20K you'd earned and 
the rights to the software you wrote to get off your back or  B) hoping that 
someone who likes you dies leaving you $2M plus legal expenses in the next 
few days.

> Or, alternatively, it should suffice
> to disallow distribution of the library along with the product - but even
> dynamic linkage with a library that needs to be obtained separately is an
> option ruled out by the GPL.

I've watched the different clauses in the GPL build up over the years and 
the FSF has been careful to explain why each clause has had to be introduced 
to counter a new attack. I believe the clause you refer to was in response 
to organisations that burned two CD's and said that the library and code 
were therefore distributed 'separately', but you'd have to check back on the 
FSF site to be sure.

>> Over the years
>> I've seen huge bodies of work, contributed freely for the benefit of
>> everyone, wiped away or enveloped by commercial or legal trickery. It's 
>> sad
>> that, having found that the open source community has evolved mechanisms 
>> to
>> combat their legal departments, there now seems to be an intensifying 
>> focus
>> on campaigns to confuse, discredit and divide the open source community.
>
> I can assure you that I have not been the target of any such campaign (or 
> if I
> was, I didn't bother to listen to them).

:-) Sorry! I wasn't accusing you personally. The hired public relations 
hacks tend to just sow seeds of doubt and typically don't argue the case 
themselves. Their style is more to ask questions rather than make any actual 
statements for which their clients could be held in any way accountable.

> I thought quite favorably about the
> ideals of free software - until I read some articles on the FSF's internet
> site.
>
> They're at war. And they're willing to sacrifice anything else for it. 
> They're
> no longer just fighting against big strong sneaky companies - they're 
> fighting
> against everyone who in all honesty tries to get monetary compensation for
> their contribution to software. Unless it is designed specifically for a 
> single
> customer, but on these people the GPL will still backfire: They may sell 
> their
> work to the company, but they must allow the company to re-distribute any 
> part
> thereof to anyone they like.

I'm not aware of the precise text you're referring to, but I'm sure you're 
right that some people in the open source community use excessively colorful 
language that tends to inflame. Many of these people though are battle 
weary, having won small victories in the past only to have those victories 
undermined by lobbyists who have been sneaking new and more dastardly rules 
by the back door through the legislature on the quiet. I suspect it's also 
true that the less obsessive personalities on both sides of the argument 
tend to drop out as the bitterness deepens.

> That's nothing I took from Microsoft campaigns or whatever.

I would think not. Microsoft's public face is usually very benevolent 
towards the open source community. Particularly now that Mr Gates is getting 
older and is perhaps giving more thought to how his name will be written 
into the history books.

> I do see a sense in the LGPL. I also do see a sense in the fight against
> software patents (I think *any* patent is crap - if I happen to make the 
> same
> invention as someone else, without me knowing about that, then why should 
> I not
> be entitled to use the idea?).

I think the patent system is in need of serious review. It was developed to 
protect the intellectual capital of the small number of innovative 
individuals and companies that existed in the past. The last 50 years has 
seen a population explosion and a communications explosion that makes many 
of the patent restrictions non-sensical.  There are companies that lodge 
literally millions of patents each year with no intention of developing or 
even exploring those technologies. They simply keep their patents on file so 
that they can demand royalties from others who invent anything commercially 
viable and slightly similar in the future.

> But the GPL is not a legal instrument but a
> political paper, and I don't favor the way it is heading. And the zeal 
> with
> which it is promoted makes me uneasy.

It's important to distinguish between the GPL, which is a licensing 
agreement, and the expression of views by those promoting it (even if the 
views are from the people currently dedicated to maintaining and promoting 
the foundation). The license has evolved over many years to respond to legal 
challenges against your rights to write and distribute your own work. Each 
iteration of the license has been discussed at considerable length before 
being released and is the result of diligent and carefully thought-through 
arguments (even when universal agreement over clauses has not been 
possible). The reasons behind each decision affecting the evolution of the 
license have been disclosed and those reasons are still available for anyone 
to read.

I don't believe that the FSF is just another evil empire waiting in the 
wings.

Regards,
Chris B.

Post a reply to this message

>> I can assure you that I have not been the target of any such campaign (or 
>> if I
>> was, I didn't bother to listen to them).
>
> :-) Sorry! I wasn't accusing you personally. The hired public relations 
> hacks tend to just sow seeds of doubt and typically don't argue the case 
> themselves. Their style is more to ask questions rather than make any 
> actual statements for which their clients could be held in any way 
> accountable.

Just for the record I'm not accusing Woody either :-)

Post a reply to this message

"Thomas de Groot" <tDOTdegroot@interDOTnlANOTHERDOTnet> wrote in message 
news:4976e65c@news.povray.org...
>
> Interesting to see how this whole discussion derives from a simple query 
> about the Buddha....
>
> [wow, man! I mean, Peace!]   :-)
>

Well I was trying not to get drawn in. I'll just have to try harder the next 
time  :-)

Post a reply to this message

clipka wrote:
> Nay. It may have started that way,

It didn't. Read RMS's description of how it started. No need to speculate.

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   "Ouch ouch ouch!"
   "What's wrong? Noodles too hot?"
   "No, I have Chopstick Tunnel Syndrome."

Post a reply to this message

Darren New escreveu:
> clipka wrote:
>> Nay. It may have started that way,
> 
> It didn't. Read RMS's description of how it started. No need to speculate.

Like, the anecdote in which he was very angry at the new closed source 
printer driver by a vendor?  It was indeed a response to an advancing 
trend by big corps:  to close programs' sources.

Post a reply to this message

"Thomas de Groot" <tDOTdegroot@interDOTnlANOTHERDOTnet> wrote:
> Interesting to see how this whole discussion derives from a simple query
> about the Buddha....
>
> [wow, man! I mean, Peace!]   :-)

Yeah - I said it might get off-topic ;)

And anyway... Buddha... that's religion, so we're still not far from it =B)

Post a reply to this message

"Chris B" <nom### [at] nomailcom> wrote:
> The aggressiveness of those advocating GPL is to try and protect you. Not to
> try and swindle you out of your own code (that role was already taken).
> Remember, you are not bound by the terms of use in the license that you
> issue. You have obligations as the license issuer, not as the recipient of
> the license.

Whe I develop software that makes use of other software, I *am* also the
recipient of a license.

Maybe I'd be much more benevolent towards the GPL if it wasn't for the ghastly
aggressive undertone of the FSF, and that they don't seem to put much effort
into showing how to circumvent certain "collateral damage" the paragraphs of
the GPL do.

As for example how to use a GPL'ed library in a basically commercial software
project.

It dawns to me now that it can be done by writing a GPL'ed wrapper around the
library that provides some socket- or pipe-based access to the library,
distributing it as a project of its own, and writing that commercial piece of
software, which will require the user to install that wrapped library - which
I'd provide a link to - and drive it via that socket or pipe (or
what-have-you).

I can't see, however, what the legal advantage for the author of the library,
the free software community as a whole or even the FSF would be to allow such a
thing, but disallow straightforward dynamic linkage of a separately available
library.

With the described concept, could I not actually even write a wrapper for the
socket interface, to give me again an interface much alike the original
libray's?

All it does, as it seems to me, is unnecessarily consume computing power and
development time.

> Imagine you spend years on an ingenious open source project that develops
> some clever and complex algorithms and you don't give it the protection that
> the GPL affords. You're about to add a cool front-end when someone else
> embeds your code, adds their own commercial front-end and patents the notion
> of using your code through a GUI front-end. Your years of altruistic
> development have now been effectively blocked by someone who knocked up a
> quick and dirty 'wrapper' to your code and you can't even develop your own
> front-end without paying them royalties for their genious idea of using your
> software through a front-end. Their patent lasts for the rest of your life.

What prevents someone to do the same with the described socket- or pipe-based
wrapper interface?

They might not be able to patent this particular way of using exactly your code,
but with a somewhat more general patent claim it would do the same harm.

The real fight in this scenario is against software patents, which has not much
to do with the GPL as it seems to me.


> Imagine you write an application to manipulate a mesh that you found with an
> open license which is not GPL or some other comparable license that has some
> tested legal foundation. You sell it at $5 a shot for a couple of years
> before a lawyer buys the company that released the mesh. He challenges and
> overturns the license and then sues you for loss of earnings claiming the
> mesh alone to be worth $500 a copy. You now have the choice of  A)
> negotiating to see if he'd be kind enough to take the $20K you'd earned and
> the rights to the software you wrote to get off your back or  B) hoping that
> someone who likes you dies leaving you $2M plus legal expenses in the next
> few days.

You mean a non-GPL license covering the mesh? Or my application? (I don't
release that, do I?)

Here, we're not talking about a benefit of the GPL as such, but of proven,
tested licenses. They do not need to be as virulent as the GPL to be as
effective, I guess.


> > Or, alternatively, it should suffice
> > to disallow distribution of the library along with the product - but even
> > dynamic linkage with a library that needs to be obtained separately is an
> > option ruled out by the GPL.
>
> I've watched the different clauses in the GPL build up over the years and
> the FSF has been careful to explain why each clause has had to be introduced
> to counter a new attack. I believe the clause you refer to was in response
> to organisations that burned two CD's and said that the library and code
> were therefore distributed 'separately', but you'd have to check back on the
> FSF site to be sure.

See my elaboration above: The problems you describe here do not only apply to
dynamically linked libraries, but also to socket- or otherwise-based "plug-ins"
or however you'd call them. So the scenario you describe needs to be tackled in
a different manner than by forbidding dynamic linkage while still allowing
socket-/pipe-based dynamic "quasi-linkage".


> I suspect it's also
> true that the less obsessive personalities on both sides of the argument
> tend to drop out as the bitterness deepens.

Which makes my point, that the FSF is (maybe has become) too radical.

> I don't believe that the FSF is just another evil empire waiting in the
> wings.

I don't believe in evil empires anyway. But I believe in the potential in man to
overdo things because they think the direction to go that was right in the past
will always be the right direction to go.

If you are in the wild woods west of the path you should be on, go east - but
only until you're back on the path. Then check your position again and decide
whether you need to follow the path north or south.

Post a reply to this message

Stephen <mcavoysAT@aolDOTcom> wrote:
> On Tue, 20 Jan 2009 07:15:48 EST, "Woody" <nomail@nomail> wrote:
>
> >
> >Forgive my ignorance, what program did you use to convert from 3ds. Is it
> >free/open source I currently only know of one shareware program, and I am not
> >particularly keen on using it since it goes against my hippie philosophy of
> >promoting open source.
>
> That is three of us voting for PoseRay, which can be run under Wine, if you are
> using Linux. There is no mention of a licence that I can find.
>
> http://mysite.verizon.net/sfg0000/
>
> And this old hippy wants to know what's wrong with "open source"?
> --
>
> Regards
>      Stephen

Nothing is wrong with open source. I am a big believer in open source. I get a
lot of slack from my friends for using say gimp versus photo shop.

Anybody who's taken an economic course probably knows of Adam Smith who said
that economic market effiency is determined by everyone acting in their own
self interest, Way back in the 1700s. I however don't like this dog eat dog
perspecitive on life.

Not alot of people agree with Adam Smith's way of thinking. The fact that the
communist model failed, the strongest evidence to date that what he said is
true. I believe that open source is the most successful model that condradicts
Adam Smith.
Mainly I believe open source is proof that his views are not universal, and it
is possible for market effiency to happend with people working as a group
rather than against each other. I.e the more successful open source projects
(such as povray and openoffice) are successful because there are multiple
people involved in them, as oppose to projects that last about 6 months an only
has a single person.

Please, I did not mean any offense. I consider myself a hippie of "the next
generation"

Post a reply to this message

"Woody" <nomail@nomail> wrote:
> Anybody who's taken an economic course probably knows of Adam Smith who said
> that economic market effiency is determined by everyone acting in their own
> self interest, Way back in the 1700s. I however don't like this dog eat dog
> perspecitive on life.

I don't like this perspective either, but transitioning from it to a dog help
dog mentality is far from trivial. Too many aspects of life involved -
performing this transition only in a single area alone will create problems at
the interfaces.

Post a reply to this message

On Fri, 23 Jan 2009 07:30:31 EST, "Woody" <nomail@nomail> wrote:

>
>Nothing is wrong with open source. I am a big believer in open source. I get a
>lot of slack from my friends for using say gimp versus photo shop.
>

I misunderstood what you meant, then. Phew!

>Anybody who's taken an economic course probably knows of Adam Smith who said
>that economic market effiency is determined by everyone acting in their own
>self interest, Way back in the 1700s. I however don't like this dog eat dog
>perspecitive on life.
>

Adam Smith, he was from Kirkcaldy. A Fifer, they are all strange there.

>Please, I did not mean any offense. 
>

I don't think that anyone thought that you meant offence and it opened up an
interesting discussion.

>I consider myself a hippie of "the next generation"

A New Age Traveler? :P
-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

nemesis wrote:
> If I were you, though, I'd instead simply not link with libpng (is it
> really GPL rather than LGPL?).

I think libpng is essentially BSD-licensed.

Post a reply to this message

clipka wrote:
> But that's exactly the problem: With LGPL it wouldn't be that much of a
> hassle. But GPL says: If your product has *any* GPLed code in it, *all*
> the product software must be GPLed - every single byte of it. If you sell
> the thing, that is.

Incorrect. If your program links to GPL code, all of it has to be GPL or
compatible (you can make your program BSD-licensed and link it to GPL
libraries, for example).

Ubuntu has lots of GPL code. And also distributes stuff like unrar (source
available but you can't write the compression algorithm based on it),
povray (you know its terms; source avilable but definitely not
GPL-compatible), nvidia driver (binary only), etc.

Just because you distribute GPL software doesn't mean all the software in
your "product" has to be GPL.

If you use a Linux kernel and run your own proprietary car-controlling
application on it, you're fine. If you *modify* the kernel to... do
something to the car, you have to release those modifications. I'm not sure
where proprietary device drivers fall (I think Linux has a special
licensing exception for that).

If you compile your application with gcc, it doesn't have to be GPL, even
though gcc is GPL. gcc even necessarily links your application with some
GPL code (the standard C library!), but there is also a special exception
for that.

If your application links with a GPL library, your code has to be GPL or
compatible. If your application links with a LGPL library, your code can be
under any license, but you have to allow your users to modify that LGPL
library and relink your app with it. This can be done in three ways:
release your app's code, release your app's object files (compiled but not
linked yet), or link to the library dynamically.

Post a reply to this message

Nicolas Alvarez <nic### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
> Incorrect. If your program links to GPL code, all of it has to be GPL or
> compatible (you can make your program BSD-licensed and link it to GPL
> libraries, for example).

.... which, AIUI, means that I can combine code covered by any of the two
licenses - as long as I release the result under the GPL...

> Ubuntu has lots of GPL code. And also distributes stuff like unrar (source
> available but you can't write the compression algorithm based on it),
> povray (you know its terms; source avilable but definitely not
> GPL-compatible), nvidia driver (binary only), etc.

I bet the Ubuntu distribution qualifies as an "aggregate" in this respect, so
that's a whole different story.

Post a reply to this message

clipka wrote:
>> Ubuntu has lots of GPL code. And also distributes stuff like unrar
>> (source available but you can't write the compression algorithm based on
>> it), povray (you know its terms; source avilable but definitely not
>> GPL-compatible), nvidia driver (binary only), etc.
> 
> I bet the Ubuntu distribution qualifies as an "aggregate" in this respect,
> so that's a whole different story.

My point was that running a proprietary app on a GPL kernel can't possibly
be a violation.

Post a reply to this message

Nicolas Alvarez <nic### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
> My point was that running a proprietary app on a GPL kernel can't possibly
> be a violation.

My point, however, was about libs, not kernels. And I'm not talking about glibc.

Post a reply to this message

>
> > I see it more as an inevitable response to some vicious and sustained
> > attacks by a small number of huge, disreputable commercial interests with
> > very large and well funded legal teams against altruistic individuals and
> > groups without the necessary financial backing to fight back.
>
> Nay. It may have started that way, but from what I see now, it has gone
> overboard.
>
> For the cause of protecting free software developers' rights against commercial
> piracy, in the case of libraries I see no valid reason to require that *all*
> parts of commercial software must be open sourced if they use that library -
> except for "political" purposes.
>

What has been termed as viral marketing is a protection mechanism for
"transparency". In theory I have no problem with people charging for software
(although I personally perfer to support open source by using it solely).
However as people have pointed out piracy comes in many forms. When a
commercial entity uses an open source library, even if they they make available
the library, they are still benefiting monetarily off of the good intentioned
work of others. A less apparent method would involve changing around a few
lines of code in the library, at which point the commericial entity calls it
its own. At what point do you say that the commerical entity's version is no
longer a derived work? That's more difficult to say.

If I had no idea how PNG files were read and written, and then after using say a
GPL program that did this, I came up with completely different algorithms for
reading and writing in the PNG format. Even though the code is completely
different is it new? Because Its the difference between having a PNG library
and not having a PNG library should it be considered derived?

Also, let me put forth an argument that is not universal due to the fact that
not everybody has the same set of values and morals. Isn't closed source giving
commerical apps a free ride? Let me try to explain.

Put another way alot of people trade MP3s over the internet. I don't because its
wrong (not a universal attitude) and I could go to jail (still not universal but
alot more accepted). I purchase from say iTunes even though mp3s are available
for two additional reasons a) commerical formats sound better, b) I wish these
artist to produce more good songs.

Shouldn't (in a perfect world in which I know we do not live)  apps that are
commerical, not be paid for because they are proprietary, but because people
wish to support them, and possibly more relevantly they can do the job better
than the open source version? I feel as though making commercial apps closed
source is essentially giving them a free ride since they are not continually
forced to make revisions and enhancements that make them superior to theire
opensource alternatives?

One final thing I thought I would bring up, there will always be people that
leach off of open source. If you search on ebay for microsoft office you will
see a tone of people selling "alternatives to microsoft office" on cd. While
they only cost a penny, sellers make up for it with "shipping and handling". If
you look you will see that screenshots of these programs are actually those of
openoffice, but without any reference to that offical name. Viral licensing
could be though of as a way to decrease the leaching effect.

Post a reply to this message

"clipka" <nomail@nomail> wrote:
> "Woody" <nomail@nomail> wrote:
> > Anybody who's taken an economic course probably knows of Adam Smith who said
> > that economic market effiency is determined by everyone acting in their own
> > self interest, Way back in the 1700s. I however don't like this dog eat dog
> > perspecitive on life.
>
> I don't like this perspective either, but transitioning from it to a dog help
> dog mentality is far from trivial. Too many aspects of life involved -
> performing this transition only in a single area alone will create problems at
> the interfaces.


I prefer the "Dog Betters Dog" perspective.

Post a reply to this message

> >I consider myself a hippie of "the next generation"
>
> A New Age Traveler? :P

A traveler yes, "new age" maybe not. Just trying not to chase after money, and
follow "the way".

Post a reply to this message

"Woody" <nomail@nomail> wrote:
> I prefer the "Dog Betters Dog" perspective.

That don't work. Dog can't better dog. Dog can only better itself, and hope that
other dog will do likewise. That is, unless dog threaten to eat dog if they
refuse to be bettered - but then again that doesn't really better dog, but just
make dog afraid of dog, at best.

Dog can *help* dog to better themselves, though. If dog is willing to be helped.

Post a reply to this message

Woody wrote:
> At what point do you say that the commerical entity's version is no
> longer a derived work? That's more difficult to say.

That's pretty well-established in USA law. It's a derivative work if you 
copied the original and then changed it. It's not a derivative if you 
started without the original. Even if the two yield the same results.

> If I had no idea how PNG files were read and written, and then after using say a
> GPL program that did this, I came up with completely different algorithms for
> reading and writing in the PNG format. Even though the code is completely
> different is it new?

Yes, if you didn't base it on the code from the GPLed library.  Even if it's 
an instruction-for-instruction duplicate of the code in the GPLed library.
(That's one of the differences between copyrights and patents.)

IANAL.

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   "Ouch ouch ouch!"
   "What's wrong? Noodles too hot?"
   "No, I have Chopstick Tunnel Syndrome."

Post a reply to this message

On Sun, 25 Jan 2009 11:54:19 EST, "Woody" <nomail@nomail> wrote:

>
>> >I consider myself a hippie of "the next generation"
>>
>> A New Age Traveler? :P
>
>A traveler yes, 

That raises the question, "a fellow traveller"? :P

>"new age" maybe not. Just trying not to chase after money, and
>follow "the way".
>

Phew! :)
-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

Stephen <mcavoysAT@aolDOTcom> wrote:
> On Sun, 25 Jan 2009 11:54:19 EST, "Woody" <nomail@nomail> wrote:
>
> >
> >> >I consider myself a hippie of "the next generation"
> >>
> >> A New Age Traveler? :P
> >
> >A traveler yes,
>
> That raises the question, "a fellow traveller"? :P
>
> >"new age" maybe not. Just trying not to chase after money, and
> >follow "the way".
> >
>
> Phew! :)
> --
>
> Regards
>      Stephen

A fellow of what? A fellow of the society of actuaries? Not Yet. A traveller of
the cosmic journey?

Post a reply to this message

Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> Woody wrote:
> > At what point do you say that the commerical entity's version is no
> > longer a derived work? That's more difficult to say.
>
> That's pretty well-established in USA law. It's a derivative work if you
> copied the original and then changed it. It's not a derivative if you
> started without the original. Even if the two yield the same results.
>
> > If I had no idea how PNG files were read and written, and then after using say a
> > GPL program that did this, I came up with completely different algorithms for
> > reading and writing in the PNG format. Even though the code is completely
> > different is it new?
>
> Yes, if you didn't base it on the code from the GPLed library.  Even if it's
> an instruction-for-instruction duplicate of the code in the GPLed library.
> (That's one of the differences between copyrights and patents.)
>
> IANAL.
>
> --
>    Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
>    "Ouch ouch ouch!"
>    "What's wrong? Noodles too hot?"
>    "No, I have Chopstick Tunnel Syndrome."

Thank you for clarifying. The only thing I know about copyright law is never use
any software that requires a license key unless you pay for it (from the
software maker that is). TO keep it simple I just don't use any software that
requires a license key.

Post a reply to this message

On Sun,  1 Feb 2009 20:03:15 EST, "Woody" <nomail@nomail> wrote:

>
>A fellow of what? A fellow of the society of actuaries? Not Yet. A traveller of
>the cosmic journey?

Maybe it is best forgotten :)
In certain times and places it was no complement to some.

-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message