On Tue, 25 Aug 2009 11:10:38 -0700, Darren New wrote:

> Jim Henderson wrote:
>> Perhaps, though I might debate "consult" - sometimes consulting is
>> brought in not because of ease-of-use issues but because of manpower
>> issues.
> 
> That and expertise, yes.

Yup.

>>>>> Indeed, that's the usual answer to "well, how do programmers make a
>>>>> living if all software is free?"
>>>> Consulting, custom programming, etc.
>>> I.e., not via software, but via services. That's my point.
>> 
>> The same holds true for non-OSS in that case, so I'm not sure what your
>> point is....?
> 
> Sorry? I can charge for non-OSS software, is what I mean. I can sell it
> twice and make twice as much money as selling it once. I.e., I don't
> have to do work every single time I make some money, so I can afford to
> make something that no one single person would pay for.

I can charge for OSS software as well.  I can sell it twice and make 
twice as much money selling it once.

There is in fact OSS software that's dual licensed to support just that - 
though it doesn't have to be dual licensed.  MySQL is available in a GPL 
version and a non-GPL version.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

Isn't that true of a lot of commercial software these days including 
another operating system
  that's a pane. ;)

David

Darren New wrote:

> Commercial distributions of Linux?  That doesn't count. The more broken 
> it is, the more money they make.
>

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson schrieb:
> Or support it, or consult on it, or train on it....there is a whole 
> services model around software that's more than just charging to fix it.

They're all based on the user being unable to deal with the software 
efficiently all by himself though - obviously.

You want to make money out of a GPL'd product? Then it /must not/ be 
user-friendly, intuitive and bug-free.


> Besides, under the GPL, if you fix it and distribute the fix, you have to 
> distribute the code freely as well, so you can't really charge to fix it, 
> even.

But you can fix it on behalf of someone else. If you're hacking the code 
right into some company's copy of the source code, you're not 
distributing the code, are you?

Post a reply to this message

On Wed, 26 Aug 2009 01:20:21 +0200, clipka wrote:

> Jim Henderson schrieb:
>> Or support it, or consult on it, or train on it....there is a whole
>> services model around software that's more than just charging to fix
>> it.
> 
> They're all based on the user being unable to deal with the software
> efficiently all by himself though - obviously.
> 
> You want to make money out of a GPL'd product? Then it /must not/ be
> user-friendly, intuitive and bug-free.

I disagree.  Given that I work for a company that does work to make (for 
example) the Linux desktop user-friendly, intuitive, and bug-free, it's 
fair to say that I do know a little bit about what I'm talking about.

At the same time, I do agree to an extent, but that's not the exclusive 
area of GPL'ed software.  You make more money out of a software product 
by keeping people on the "upgrade treadmill", and the way you do that is 
by not fixing bugs in the current version, but fixing them in the future 
version and requiring a paid upgrade.  Microsoft are the masters of 
this....

>> Besides, under the GPL, if you fix it and distribute the fix, you have
>> to distribute the code freely as well, so you can't really charge to
>> fix it, even.
> 
> But you can fix it on behalf of someone else. If you're hacking the code
> right into some company's copy of the source code, you're not
> distributing the code, are you?

Technically, I believe you are, if you're fixing it "on behalf of someone 
else", then you are required on the GPL to distribute that fix with your 
fixed code.  Now, if you submit the patch upstream and it's rejected, 
that doesn't mean you can't use the patch any more.  But your code 
becomes a derivative work and as such has to be provided to anyone you 
provide the binary to.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

nemesis <nam### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
> Darren New escreveu:
> > When a project, no matter how well known, is still at 0.xxx after six
> > years, it's probably because it really does actually still suck to the
> > point where you don't want to try to use it in a professional setting.
>
> FOSS version numbers usually grow at snail pace.  Emacs is still at 23.1
> ever since the Paleolithic.  The Linux kernel is still 2.6!!

It's hardly relevant to bring it up here, but this is already off-topic, so
what's the harm?

I'm a huge fan of the TeX numbering system.  It's currently at version
3.1415926.  According to the Wikipedia page,

"TeX developer Donald Knuth has stated that the 'absolutely final change (to be
made after my death)' will be to change the version number to pi, at which
point all remaining bugs will become permanent features."

Seems a change bumping it up to pi violates the whole idea, but I love the idea
of convergence on an ideal rather than never-ending expansion.

 - Ricky

Post a reply to this message

David H. Burns wrote:
> Isn't that true of a lot of commercial software these days including 
> another operating system
>  that's a pane. ;)

No. They make money whether it's broken or not.

Indeed, if you look at Vista, they obviously made much less money because of 
how broken it was.

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   Understanding the structure of the universe
    via religion is like understanding the
     structure of computers via Tron.

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson schrieb:
>>> Besides, under the GPL, if you fix it and distribute the fix, you have
>>> to distribute the code freely as well, so you can't really charge to
>>> fix it, even.
>> But you can fix it on behalf of someone else. If you're hacking the code
>> right into some company's copy of the source code, you're not
>> distributing the code, are you?
> 
> Technically, I believe you are, if you're fixing it "on behalf of someone 
> else", then you are required on the GPL to distribute that fix with your 
> fixed code.

What if I'm not distributing anything I fixed? What if I only distribute 
/the fix/?

What if all I do is sit at a terminal on that company's premises, 
hacking at the keyboard to remove some code from the original source and 
add some other instead?

Technically, if it does constitute any distribution of code at all, then 
I'd say what I distribute is purely my own work, containing no part of 
the stuff I'm patching.

(Note that I'm not talking about what the company then does with that 
code; I'm assuming for now that they're using the software in-house.)

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson schrieb:
>> You want to make money out of a GPL'd product? Then it /must not/ be
>> user-friendly, intuitive and bug-free.
> 
> I disagree.  Given that I work for a company that does work to make (for 
> example) the Linux desktop user-friendly, intuitive, and bug-free, it's 
> fair to say that I do know a little bit about what I'm talking about.

I do confess that I'm exaggerating a good deal here, and not mentioning 
the closed-source software side.

But I think given the hype of GPL, it's worth pointing out flaws in the 
FSF's oh-so-glorious "we promote free open source software and still 
allow anyone to make money from it, thus bettering the world" point of view.

Post a reply to this message

triple_r schrieb:
> "TeX developer Donald Knuth has stated that the 'absolutely final change (to be
> made after my death)' will be to change the version number to pi, at which
> point all remaining bugs will become permanent features."
> 
> Seems a change bumping it up to pi violates the whole idea, but I love the idea
> of convergence on an ideal rather than never-ending expansion.

That's why he presumably chose pi: Try to actually bump up the version 
number to that...

Post a reply to this message

clipka <ano### [at] anonymousorg> wrote:
> That's why he presumably chose pi: Try to actually bump up the version
> number to that...

I guess the last change is just all the leftover.  Like the pi mile run (aka 5k)
that has two finish lines: a lower and an upper bound.

 - Ricky

Post a reply to this message

On Wed, 26 Aug 2009 03:08:39 +0200, clipka wrote:

> Jim Henderson schrieb:
>>> You want to make money out of a GPL'd product? Then it /must not/ be
>>> user-friendly, intuitive and bug-free.
>> 
>> I disagree.  Given that I work for a company that does work to make
>> (for example) the Linux desktop user-friendly, intuitive, and bug-free,
>> it's fair to say that I do know a little bit about what I'm talking
>> about.
> 
> I do confess that I'm exaggerating a good deal here, and not mentioning
> the closed-source software side.
> 
> But I think given the hype of GPL, it's worth pointing out flaws in the
> FSF's oh-so-glorious "we promote free open source software and still
> allow anyone to make money from it, thus bettering the world" point of
> view.

Without recognising the flaws, they cannot be addressed. :-)

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Wed, 26 Aug 2009 03:04:36 +0200, clipka wrote:

> What if I'm not distributing anything I fixed? What if I only distribute
> /the fix/?

You mean like distributing a patch?  Sure, since the code that's being 
patched is available, it's all the same.

> What if all I do is sit at a terminal on that company's premises,
> hacking at the keyboard to remove some code from the original source and
> add some other instead?

You have to make the source available to at least the people you 
distribute it to.

> Technically, if it does constitute any distribution of code at all, then
> I'd say what I distribute is purely my own work, containing no part of
> the stuff I'm patching.
> 
> (Note that I'm not talking about what the company then does with that
> code; I'm assuming for now that they're using the software in-house.)

See above. :-)

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Tue, 25 Aug 2009 18:00:16 -0700, Darren New wrote:

> David H. Burns wrote:
>> Isn't that true of a lot of commercial software these days including
>> another operating system
>>  that's a pane. ;)
> 
> No. They make money whether it's broken or not.
> 
> Indeed, if you look at Vista, they obviously made much less money
> because of how broken it was.

They'll make up for it with the upgrades to Windows 7.  You don't think 
they're going to give all Vista customers Windows 7 for free, do you? ;-)

It's the old upgrade treadmill.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson wrote:
> They'll make up for it with the upgrades to Windows 7.  You don't think 
> they're going to give all Vista customers Windows 7 for free, do you? ;-)

Of course. It's also incorrect to imply that W7 is merely bugfixes on Vista. 
But I was saying that MS doesn't make money when stuff is broken. They've 
had several notable failures, including Vista. People just didn't upgrade to 
Vista like one might expect.

> It's the old upgrade treadmill.

You don't have to upgrade if you don't need to.

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   Understanding the structure of the universe
    via religion is like understanding the
     structure of computers via Tron.

Post a reply to this message

On Tue, 25 Aug 2009 19:05:38 -0700, Darren New wrote:

> Jim Henderson wrote:
>> They'll make up for it with the upgrades to Windows 7.  You don't think
>> they're going to give all Vista customers Windows 7 for free, do you?
>> ;-)
> 
> Of course. It's also incorrect to imply that W7 is merely bugfixes on
> Vista. But I was saying that MS doesn't make money when stuff is broken.
> They've had several notable failures, including Vista. People just
> didn't upgrade to Vista like one might expect.

I'm not implying that W7 is just bugfixes, but they are going to make 
money getting people to upgrade.  Is it as much as if they'd done a good 
job with Vista?  Probably not.  But they'll make it worth *their* while.

>> It's the old upgrade treadmill.
> 
> You don't have to upgrade if you don't need to.

Except, of course, that the nature of the beast is such that if you want 
to run the newest software (games in particular) or have particular bugs 
fixed, an upgrade is ultimately going to be required.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

triple_r wrote:
> I'm a huge fan of the TeX numbering system.  It's currently at version
> 3.1415926.  According to the Wikipedia page,
> 
> "TeX developer Donald Knuth has stated that the 'absolutely final change (to be
> made after my death)' will be to change the version number to pi, at which
> point all remaining bugs will become permanent features."

awesome!  The man is a legend! ^_^

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson schrieb:
>> What if all I do is sit at a terminal on that company's premises,
>> hacking at the keyboard to remove some code from the original source and
>> add some other instead?
> 
> You have to make the source available to at least the people you 
> distribute it to.

So as all I do is just modify the GPL'ed code and not distribute it (it 
stays on their machines all the times, right?), just providing that 
company with some additional (non-GPL'ed) code of my own design, I fail 
to see the problem.

And after all, it's not much of a difference to a regular employee of 
that company adapting the GPL'ed code to the company's needs.

Post a reply to this message

On Wed, 26 Aug 2009 04:25:40 +0200, clipka wrote:

> Jim Henderson schrieb:
>>> What if all I do is sit at a terminal on that company's premises,
>>> hacking at the keyboard to remove some code from the original source
>>> and add some other instead?
>> 
>> You have to make the source available to at least the people you
>> distribute it to.
> 
> So as all I do is just modify the GPL'ed code and not distribute it (it
> stays on their machines all the times, right?), just providing that
> company with some additional (non-GPL'ed) code of my own design, I fail
> to see the problem.

Your code, by definition, is required to be under the GPL because it is 
incorporated in a GPL'ed program.  That doesn't mean you have to 
distribute it publicly, but you do legally (by the GPL license) have to 
provide the company with the code.

> And after all, it's not much of a difference to a regular employee of
> that company adapting the GPL'ed code to the company's needs.

Well, it is a little different, in that the employee doing the work is 
generally going to be required to turn ownership over to their employer.  
As a contractor, though, you'd be required by the GPL to do the same.

But if you were to be doing that as a matter of practice, you should 
consult with a laywer who specializes specifically in the GPL.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson wrote:
> I'm not implying that W7 is just bugfixes, but they are going to make 
> money getting people to upgrade. 

Well, sure.  I think I've lost track of why we're discussing it. :-)

> Except, of course, that the nature of the beast is such that if you want 
> to run the newest software (games in particular) or have particular bugs 
> fixed, an upgrade is ultimately going to be required.

Yup. But if you're happy with the system as is, you don't need to upgrade. 
You're only on an upgrade treadmill if you want a different product.


-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   Understanding the structure of the universe
    via religion is like understanding the
     structure of computers via Tron.

Post a reply to this message

On Tue, 25 Aug 2009 21:11:42 -0700, Darren New wrote:

> Jim Henderson wrote:
>> I'm not implying that W7 is just bugfixes, but they are going to make
>> money getting people to upgrade.
> 
> Well, sure.  I think I've lost track of why we're discussing it. :-)

Same here. :-)

>> Except, of course, that the nature of the beast is such that if you
>> want to run the newest software (games in particular) or have
>> particular bugs fixed, an upgrade is ultimately going to be required.
> 
> Yup. But if you're happy with the system as is, you don't need to
> upgrade. You're only on an upgrade treadmill if you want a different
> product.

For which Microsoft will be happy to provide you with many, many reasons 
- ultimately pushing the existing product out of support.  (To MS' 
credit, they don't do this very quickly and it seems to be set early in 
the cycle).

Want DX10 on XP?  They laugh at you (from what I recall, though some 
enterprising individual figured out a workaround IIRC).

Jim

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson schrieb:
>> So as all I do is just modify the GPL'ed code and not distribute it (it
>> stays on their machines all the times, right?), just providing that
>> company with some additional (non-GPL'ed) code of my own design, I fail
>> to see the problem.
> 
> Your code, by definition, is required to be under the GPL because it is 
> incorporated in a GPL'ed program.  That doesn't mean you have to 
> distribute it publicly, but you do legally (by the GPL license) have to 
> provide the company with the code.

(1) Code incorporated into a GPL'd program does /not/ need to be GPL'd, 
unless the whole smash is to be distributed.

(2) In that hypothetical example, I /am/ hacking the code into the 
company's copy of the source files anyway - how closer can I possibly 
get to providing them with the source code?? :-P


But after reading the GPL again, I guess you're right insofar as in 
order to circumvent having to GPL the changes, I'd have to grant the 
company any rights to the modifications I make - including the right to 
redistribute them (which they'd have to do under the GPL).

Did I mention before that I think the GPL sucks...?

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson wrote:
> For which Microsoft will be happy to provide you with many, many reasons 

Unless you're using it as a router in the corner or something, yeah. That's 
more the sort of thing I'm talking about. If you're the kind of person who 
has a computer so you can once a month check your email and occasionally 
maybe print out a nice photo you took with your digital snapshot camera, 
chances are you never need to upgrade. If you have a non-networked computer 
running a piece of lab equipment, you're probably not going to upgrade until 
you change the lab equipment.

If you use your computer regularly in a desktop environment, yah, you'll 
likely be upgrading it regularly. :-)

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   Understanding the structure of the universe
    via religion is like understanding the
     structure of computers via Tron.

Post a reply to this message

>> I'm a huge fan of the TeX numbering system.  It's currently at version
>> 3.1415926.  According to the Wikipedia page,
>>
>> "TeX developer Donald Knuth has stated that the 'absolutely final 
>> change (to be
>> made after my death)' will be to change the version number to pi, at 
>> which
>> point all remaining bugs will become permanent features."
> 
> awesome!  The man is a legend! ^_^

FWIW, MetaFont is converging to Epsilon, the base of natural logarithms.

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message

Orchid XP v8 schrieb:
> FWIW, MetaFont is converging to Epsilon, the base of natural logarithms.

That's actually not greek epsilon, but ordinary latin small e ("Euler's 
number").

Post a reply to this message

Darren New wrote:
> When a project, no matter how well known, is still at 0.xxx after six 
> years, it's probably because it really does actually still suck to the 
> point where you don't want to try to use it in a professional setting.
> 

OpenOffice is at version 3.1. I've encountered data corrupting bugs in 
every version I've tried including the most recent.

-Mike

Post a reply to this message

SharkD wrote:

> OpenOffice is at version 3.1. I've encountered data corrupting bugs in 
> every version I've tried including the most recent.

Really? That's interesting... I often use OpenOffice to *fix* data 
corruption bugs caused by MS Word.

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson wrote:
> 
> LOL, I've always said (particularly with regard to NetWare) that the 
> software was *too* stable. :-)
> 
> Jim

Indeed. As I more than once remarked to PFYs it wasn't the easiest
system to configure but once you'd got it right, it was so easy to
maintain that it could be delegated to them with no particular worries -
thus leaving me with plenty of time for more important tasks like lunch :-)

John
-- 
"Eppur si muove" - Galileo Galilei

Post a reply to this message

Invisible wrote:
> SharkD wrote:
> 
>> OpenOffice is at version 3.1. I've encountered data corrupting bugs in 
>> every version I've tried including the most recent.
> 
> Really? That's interesting... I often use OpenOffice to *fix* data 
> corruption bugs caused by MS Word.

But we're already aware of the statistically uncanny failure rate of MS 
Office in your vicinity.  Something about your magnetronic 
electrochemical oscillations is off.

In other words, you're giving off bad vibes, man, and Office don't like 
it! ;)

...Chambers

Post a reply to this message

On Tue, 25 Aug 2009 23:32:23 -0700, Darren New wrote:

> Jim Henderson wrote:
>> For which Microsoft will be happy to provide you with many, many
>> reasons
> 
> Unless you're using it as a router in the corner or something, yeah.

Well, if you're using it as a router in the corner and can't patch the 
latest network vulnerability, the machine could be compromised.  More 
likely, though, that a box running as a router in the corner is running a 
BSD or Linux variant than Windows.  Why put a paid-for OS on such a box 
when you can license software that does the job for free?

> That's more the sort of thing I'm talking about. If you're the kind of
> person who has a computer so you can once a month check your email and
> occasionally maybe print out a nice photo you took with your digital
> snapshot camera, chances are you never need to upgrade. If you have a
> non-networked computer running a piece of lab equipment, you're probably
> not going to upgrade until you change the lab equipment.
> 
> If you use your computer regularly in a desktop environment, yah, you'll
> likely be upgrading it regularly. :-)

That's the use case I'm thinking of. :-)

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Wed, 26 Aug 2009 11:56:53 +0100, Doctor John wrote:

> Jim Henderson wrote:
>> 
>> LOL, I've always said (particularly with regard to NetWare) that the
>> software was *too* stable. :-)
>> 
>> Jim
> 
> Indeed. As I more than once remarked to PFYs it wasn't the easiest
> system to configure but once you'd got it right, it was so easy to
> maintain that it could be delegated to them with no particular worries -
> thus leaving me with plenty of time for more important tasks like lunch
> :-)

Yup.  Consequently, NetWare servers tended to not be noticed.  Back in 
the 3.x days when Novell added the "Novell NetWare" banner to the 
LOGIN.EXE program, it was an attempt to make the server more visible.  
Caused all sorts of headaches for system admins because batch files that 
displayed information broke.  They had to add a switch to disable the 
banner.

But the idea was good because often users didn't have any idea that they 
were using a NW box.

I've just completed (as of yesterday) updating my Open Enterprise Server 
2 system here at home - it's a Linux box, but the eDirectory tree started 
on a NetWare 4.01 system back in the early 90's.  I definitely am a geek, 
running NetWare at home. :-)

The NW system had been upgraded to 4.11, and later to 5 and 6 - and then 
I moved it into a VMware instance (it was handling printing for my home 
network), but the host system lost power and when it came back up, the 
vmdk file was corrupted. :-(

So now printing is handled by that host system instead.  Time to move the 
printer to the server, I think. :-)

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Wed, 26 Aug 2009 07:46:59 +0200, clipka wrote:

> Jim Henderson schrieb:
>>> So as all I do is just modify the GPL'ed code and not distribute it
>>> (it stays on their machines all the times, right?), just providing
>>> that company with some additional (non-GPL'ed) code of my own design,
>>> I fail to see the problem.
>> 
>> Your code, by definition, is required to be under the GPL because it is
>> incorporated in a GPL'ed program.  That doesn't mean you have to
>> distribute it publicly, but you do legally (by the GPL license) have to
>> provide the company with the code.
> 
> (1) Code incorporated into a GPL'd program does /not/ need to be GPL'd,
> unless the whole smash is to be distributed.

If you give the binary to your customer, then you've just distributed it, 
making it necessary to GPL the code.

> (2) In that hypothetical example, I /am/ hacking the code into the
> company's copy of the source files anyway - how closer can I possibly
> get to providing them with the source code?? :-P
> 
> 
> But after reading the GPL again, I guess you're right insofar as in
> order to circumvent having to GPL the changes, I'd have to grant the
> company any rights to the modifications I make - including the right to
> redistribute them (which they'd have to do under the GPL).
> 
> Did I mention before that I think the GPL sucks...?

You are entitled to that opinion.  If you don't want to release your 
code, base your product on code licensed under BSD, or link in if it's 
LGPL.

But if you want to modify someone else's program which is released under 
the GPL, their express wish is that modifications must be distributed and 
that their code needs to continue to be distributed.  Just look at all 
the lawsuits over BusyBox.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Wed, 26 Aug 2009 06:41:30 -0400, SharkD wrote:

> Darren New wrote:
>> When a project, no matter how well known, is still at 0.xxx after six
>> years, it's probably because it really does actually still suck to the
>> point where you don't want to try to use it in a professional setting.
>> 
>> 
> OpenOffice is at version 3.1. I've encountered data corrupting bugs in
> every version I've tried including the most recent.

That's impressive, because I use OpenOffice 3.1 (and have used version 
2.x and 3.0 as well as even the 1.x versions), and I've never had data be 
corrupted in it.  Ever.  Even when the application crashes, if the files 
were saved, the data isn't corrupted.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

SharkD wrote:
> OpenOffice is at version 3.1. I've encountered data corrupting bugs in 
> every version I've tried including the most recent.

I never said it goes the other direction. ;-) And of course MS it doesn't 
matter what the version number is if you haven't gotten a SP yet.

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   Understanding the structure of the universe
    via religion is like understanding the
     structure of computers via Tron.

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson schrieb:
>> (1) Code incorporated into a GPL'd program does /not/ need to be GPL'd,
>> unless the whole smash is to be distributed.
> 
> If you give the binary to your customer, then you've just distributed it, 
> making it necessary to GPL the code.

If the customer compiles the binary himself, then obviously I have /not/ 
given him the binary. Even if I am the one to press the button starting 
the compile on his system with his tools, I don't think I have.

> But if you want to modify someone else's program which is released under 
> the GPL, their express wish is that modifications must be distributed and 
> that their code needs to continue to be distributed.  Just look at all 
> the lawsuits over BusyBox.

No, their /express/ wish is only that modifications /not/ staying 
inhouse must be distributed with the rights and means to modify, 
recompile, and redistribute.

It is actually also their /express/ wish that nobody is /forced/ to 
distribute any modifications they make to the software to adapt it to 
their own needs.

The BusyBox fuss, on the other hand, wasn't about such inhouse mods, but 
about software distributed as part of an appliance. Which obviously 
doesn't normally come with the means to modify and recompile.

Post a reply to this message

On Wed, 26 Aug 2009 23:28:02 +0200, clipka wrote:

> Jim Henderson schrieb:
>>> (1) Code incorporated into a GPL'd program does /not/ need to be
>>> GPL'd, unless the whole smash is to be distributed.
>> 
>> If you give the binary to your customer, then you've just distributed
>> it, making it necessary to GPL the code.
> 
> If the customer compiles the binary himself, then obviously I have /not/
> given him the binary. Even if I am the one to press the button starting
> the compile on his system with his tools, I don't think I have.

If you haven't given them the binary, then you have distributed the code 
which then makes it compliant with the GPL.

>> But if you want to modify someone else's program which is released
>> under the GPL, their express wish is that modifications must be
>> distributed and that their code needs to continue to be distributed. 
>> Just look at all the lawsuits over BusyBox.
> 
> No, their /express/ wish is only that modifications /not/ staying
> inhouse must be distributed with the rights and means to modify,
> recompile, and redistribute.

Their express wish is that if you modify their code and distribute it in 
binary form, you have to distribute the modified code.  Period, end of 
story.

> It is actually also their /express/ wish that nobody is /forced/ to
> distribute any modifications they make to the software to adapt it to
> their own needs.

So long as they don't distribute the modified binary, yes.  If I make 
modifications to pan for my own use, I'm not required to do anything.  
But if I share the binary with someone else (say, I package it as an RPM 
and make it available for download or give it to a friend), then the GPL 
*requires* that I make the source available.

> The BusyBox fuss, on the other hand, wasn't about such inhouse mods, but
> about software distributed as part of an appliance. Which obviously
> doesn't normally come with the means to modify and recompile.

True, but  it's about distributing it.  They distributed the busybox 
binary and didn't distribute the code.  That's a no-no under the GPL.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson schrieb:
>> No, their /express/ wish is only that modifications /not/ staying
>> inhouse must be distributed with the rights and means to modify,
>> recompile, and redistribute.
> 
> Their express wish is that if you modify their code and distribute it in 
> binary form, you have to distribute the modified code.  Period, end of 
> story.

Apparently we have very diverging interpretations of what constitutes 
"distribution" vs. "modifying for your own purposes", when "you" denotes 
a company.

>> The BusyBox fuss, on the other hand, wasn't about such inhouse mods, but
>> about software distributed as part of an appliance. Which obviously
>> doesn't normally come with the means to modify and recompile.
> 
> True, but  it's about distributing it.  They distributed the busybox 
> binary and didn't distribute the code.  That's a no-no under the GPL.

I don't think we need to fuss about /that/.

My point is that in the case I described, to my understanding any act of 
distribution [of GPL'ed software] isn't even happening in the first 
place, so the question of what form it must be distributed in (which the 
GPL happens to answer quite unambiguously) is perfectly moot.

Post a reply to this message

On Thu, 27 Aug 2009 01:20:09 +0200, clipka wrote:

> Jim Henderson schrieb:
>>> No, their /express/ wish is only that modifications /not/ staying
>>> inhouse must be distributed with the rights and means to modify,
>>> recompile, and redistribute.
>> 
>> Their express wish is that if you modify their code and distribute it
>> in binary form, you have to distribute the modified code.  Period, end
>> of story.
> 
> Apparently we have very diverging interpretations of what constitutes
> "distribution" vs. "modifying for your own purposes", when "you" denotes
> a company.

Well, I'm basing it on the FSF's definition of what constitutes 
distribution, and since it's their license, their definition is the only 
one that matters. :-)

If you (as a contractor) modify code for a client (the company) and the 
base code is GPL code, you (the contractor) are required under the GPL to 
provide the source to the client (the company) because giving them a 
binary copy of the program is distribution.

If you (as an employee) modify code for your employer, the code stays 
with the employer either way.  You can't quit the job and take "your" 
code with you; most employers will claim the work you've done for them as 
an employee belongs to them regardless of the license for the code.

So either way, the company is entitled to the source code you've produced.

>>> The BusyBox fuss, on the other hand, wasn't about such inhouse mods,
>>> but about software distributed as part of an appliance. Which
>>> obviously doesn't normally come with the means to modify and
>>> recompile.
>> 
>> True, but  it's about distributing it.  They distributed the busybox
>> binary and didn't distribute the code.  That's a no-no under the GPL.
> 
> I don't think we need to fuss about /that/.

It seems to be similar to what you're discussing.  Maybe I'm 
misunderstanding.

> My point is that in the case I described, to my understanding any act of
> distribution [of GPL'ed software] isn't even happening in the first
> place, so the question of what form it must be distributed in (which the
> GPL happens to answer quite unambiguously) is perfectly moot.

See above.  Maybe we're in violent agreement. :-)

Jim

Post a reply to this message

Darren New wrote:
> When a project, no matter how well known, is still at 0.xxx after six
> years, it's probably because it really does actually still suck to the
> point where you don't want to try to use it in a professional setting.
> 

What about Wine?

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson schrieb:
> If you (as a contractor) modify code for a client (the company) and the 
> base code is GPL code, you (the contractor) are required under the GPL to 
> provide the source to the client (the company) because giving them a 
> binary copy of the program is distribution.
> 
> If you (as an employee) modify code for your employer, the code stays 
> with the employer either way.  You can't quit the job and take "your" 
> code with you; most employers will claim the work you've done for them as 
> an employee belongs to them regardless of the license for the code.

So that basically boils down to what I was saying earlier:

If I as a contractor am not hired to /provide/ them with a /modified/ 
work, but to /perform/ modifications to /their/ copy of the work, then I 
see the role as equal to that of the employee - and yes, I'm probably 
only allowed to carry out such modifications to the GPL'ed code if my 
contract with the company states that the changes are theirs.

Still, I do /not/ distribute code nor binaries, and therefore am /not/ 
obliged to GPL those changes myself. It's up to the company to decide 
whether they want to do that or not.

I must confess that this distinction is apparently moot in practice, but 
still - *I DO NOT GPL IT, DAMN!* :-P

> See above.  Maybe we're in violent agreement. :-)

Only for practical purposes, not in theory ;-)

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson wrote:
> I've just completed (as of yesterday) updating my Open Enterprise Server 
> 2 system here at home - it's a Linux box, but the eDirectory tree started 
> on a NetWare 4.01 system back in the early 90's.  I definitely am a geek, 
> running NetWare at home. :-)
> 
> The NW system had been upgraded to 4.11, and later to 5 and 6 - and then 
> I moved it into a VMware instance (it was handling printing for my home 
> network), but the host system lost power and when it came back up, the 
> vmdk file was corrupted. :-(
> 
> So now printing is handled by that host system instead.  Time to move the 
> printer to the server, I think. :-)
> 

Just how many machines and/or users have you got on your system? The
word overkill comes to mind ;-) Seems a little like using Maxima to
balance your cheque book to me :-) I stand in awe but ...
*Walks away shaking head, but still impressed*

John
-- 
"Eppur si muove" - Galileo Galilei

Post a reply to this message

Nicolas Alvarez wrote:
> Darren New wrote:
>> When a project, no matter how well known, is still at 0.xxx after six
>> years, it's probably because it really does actually still suck to the
>> point where you don't want to try to use it in a professional setting.
>>
> 
> What about Wine?

There's a reason they named it what they did.

...Chambers

Post a reply to this message

On Thu, 27 Aug 2009 01:34:40 +0100, Doctor John wrote:

> Just how many machines and/or users have you got on your system? The
> word overkill comes to mind ;-) Seems a little like using Maxima to
> balance your cheque book to me :-) I stand in awe but ... *Walks away
> shaking head, but still impressed*

Three users (the cats can't use computers - yet).  But I work in the 
networking industry, and prior to my current role, much of what I have 
here was set up as a lab.

Technically, there are other users, but not who use the printer - I host 
a photo repository for an online community as well.

Here at my desk (in my home office), I have 5 computers, including one 
laptop.  My wife and stepson each have a laptop, and my stepson has a 
gaming PC as well.  I also have a laptop sitting on a desk in my office 
in Provo (which I use remotely from time to time). :-)

Yeah, perhaps a little overkill, but I enjoy keeping my hand in the 
technical side of things. :-)

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Thu, 27 Aug 2009 07:45:18 +0200, clipka wrote:

> Jim Henderson schrieb:
>> If you (as a contractor) modify code for a client (the company) and the
>> base code is GPL code, you (the contractor) are required under the GPL
>> to provide the source to the client (the company) because giving them a
>> binary copy of the program is distribution.
>> 
>> If you (as an employee) modify code for your employer, the code stays
>> with the employer either way.  You can't quit the job and take "your"
>> code with you; most employers will claim the work you've done for them
>> as an employee belongs to them regardless of the license for the code.
> 
> So that basically boils down to what I was saying earlier:
> 
> If I as a contractor am not hired to /provide/ them with a /modified/
> work, but to /perform/ modifications to /their/ copy of the work, then I
> see the role as equal to that of the employee - and yes, I'm probably
> only allowed to carry out such modifications to the GPL'ed code if my
> contract with the company states that the changes are theirs.
> 
> Still, I do /not/ distribute code nor binaries, and therefore am /not/
> obliged to GPL those changes myself. It's up to the company to decide
> whether they want to do that or not.
> 
> I must confess that this distinction is apparently moot in practice, but
> still - *I DO NOT GPL IT, DAMN!* :-P

Potato, potato, in other words.  (Damn, that sounds better than it reads 
<g>)

>> See above.  Maybe we're in violent agreement. :-)
> 
> Only for practical purposes, not in theory ;-)

Well, if the company you've done the work for distributes it, they also 
are required to distribute the code.... :-)

Jim

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson schrieb:
> Well, if the company you've done the work for distributes it, they also 
> are required to distribute the code.... :-)

Yeah. And still - */I/ DO NOT....!* :-)

Post a reply to this message

On Fri, 28 Aug 2009 01:56:06 +0200, clipka wrote:

> Jim Henderson schrieb:
>> Well, if the company you've done the work for distributes it, they also
>> are required to distribute the code.... :-)
> 
> Yeah. And still - */I/ DO NOT....!* :-)

I don't think, actually, that you're permitted to restrict them from 
distributing the changes, because the base code is GPL.  But you'd have 
to ask an expert in the GPL about that.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson schrieb:
>>> Well, if the company you've done the work for distributes it, they also
>>> are required to distribute the code.... :-)
>> Yeah. And still - */I/ DO NOT....!* :-)

> I don't think, actually, that you're permitted to restrict them from 
> distributing the changes, because the base code is GPL.  But you'd have 
> to ask an expert in the GPL about that.

What I meant was, again, "*/I/ DO NOT GPL IT!*" - as in, "no matter what 
the company does with the code (and they'd probably have all the rights 
to do it) - */I/ WILL NOT BE THE ONE TO OFFICIALLY PUT IT UNDER THE 
GPL!*" :-)

It's a matter of pride :-)

Post a reply to this message

On Fri, 28 Aug 2009 03:11:39 +0200, clipka wrote:

> Jim Henderson schrieb:
>>>> Well, if the company you've done the work for distributes it, they
>>>> also are required to distribute the code.... :-)
>>> Yeah. And still - */I/ DO NOT....!* :-)
> 
>> I don't think, actually, that you're permitted to restrict them from
>> distributing the changes, because the base code is GPL.  But you'd have
>> to ask an expert in the GPL about that.
> 
> What I meant was, again, "*/I/ DO NOT GPL IT!*" - as in, "no matter what
> the company does with the code (and they'd probably have all the rights
> to do it) - */I/ WILL NOT BE THE ONE TO OFFICIALLY PUT IT UNDER THE
> GPL!*" :-)
> 
> It's a matter of pride :-)

But technically your code ends up being GPL'ed. :-)

(Yes, I'm engaging in a little "let's see how much I can wind clipka up" 
here. ;-) )

Jim

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
> On Fri, 28 Aug 2009 03:11:39 +0200, clipka wrote:
>
> > Jim Henderson schrieb:
> >>>> Well, if the company you've done the work for distributes it, they
> >>>> also are required to distribute the code.... :-)
> >>> Yeah. And still - */I/ DO NOT....!* :-)
> >
> >> I don't think, actually, that you're permitted to restrict them from
> >> distributing the changes, because the base code is GPL.  But you'd have
> >> to ask an expert in the GPL about that.
> >
> > What I meant was, again, "*/I/ DO NOT GPL IT!*" - as in, "no matter what
> > the company does with the code (and they'd probably have all the rights
> > to do it) - */I/ WILL NOT BE THE ONE TO OFFICIALLY PUT IT UNDER THE
> > GPL!*" :-)
> >
> > It's a matter of pride :-)
>
> But technically your code ends up being GPL'ed. :-)
>
> (Yes, I'm engaging in a little "let's see how much I can wind clipka up"
> here. ;-) )

I believe as long as he's just the "ghost writer" for the company, he's ok with
it... ;)

Post a reply to this message

nemesis schrieb:
>> (Yes, I'm engaging in a little "let's see how much I can wind clipka up"
>> here. ;-) )
> 
> I believe as long as he's just the "ghost writer" for the company, he's ok with
> it... ;)

Hey, what are *you* doing in our thread? :-P

Post a reply to this message

On Thu, 27 Aug 2009 23:11:12 -0400, nemesis wrote:

>> (Yes, I'm engaging in a little "let's see how much I can wind clipka
>> up" here. ;-) )
> 
> I believe as long as he's just the "ghost writer" for the company, he's
> ok with it... ;)

Heheheehhe

Jim

Post a reply to this message