Banning GPL articles
-
Shog9 wrote:
But if you ever want to make this a nicer place for on-going projects, GPL is a must.
Saying that the "GPL is a must" does not follow from making this a "nicer place for on-going projects". Why is GPL a must in that situation? Why must it be GPL? Why not some other licence?
Upcoming FREE developer events: * Developer! Developer! Developer! 6 * Developer Day Scotland My website
Colin Angus Mackay wrote:
Why is GPL a must in that situation? Why must it be GPL? Why not some other licence?
Why not GPL? :) Surely you can understand the desire of someone who has invested considerable time and effort in a project to keep others from taking their work and making it inaccessible to others? I'll agree that it's not a good fit for a lot of the code here - trying to force anyone using your gradient clipping snippet (or whatever) to open up their entire codebase isn't friendly or practical. But consider a project like ZedGraph[^] (one of my favorite CP-connected projects): it doesn't really do much good to allow someone to take and release this as a closed-source graphing library; requiring that enhanced versions be released with source allows everyone to benefit from it. IMHO, right now CodeProject is sort of a code dumping-ground. A great place to post an article, but a pretty poor host for evolving projects with multiple developers / changing developers. There's some history there as well - i know of at least a couple of promising projects that started out here and then... disappeared when their authors decided to close up the source and turn them into commercial projects. I think that's fine, as long as there aren't any misconceptions. If that's what we're gonna be, then we should go with the most permissive license possible and leave any ongoing development to whatever other sites support a given author's preference.
----
...the wind blows over it and it is gone, and its place remembers it no more...
-
This is exactly what I'm thinking. The GPL is often used by developers who have little or no understanding of what it entails. A ban would force developers to think long and hard about which licence they did actually want to use. However, there may be legitimate reasons a person may wish to use the GPL. I just can't think of one at the moment.
cheers, Chris Maunder
CodeProject.com : C++ MVP
-
dan neely wrote:
To protect Joe Q Coder from accidentally tainting his companies code base because he copy/pasted without reading the whole article to see the GPL tag.
I can imagine that happening a lot, especially given the number of cargo cult programmers that I see in the programming forums that don't understand how something works that they've ripped from some article and now need help to get it working. If they don't understand the code then I hardly think they'll understand the license.
Upcoming FREE developer events: * Developer! Developer! Developer! 6 * Developer Day Scotland My website
Colin Angus Mackay wrote:
I can imagine that happening a lot, especially given the number of cargo cult programmers that I see in the programming forums that don't understand how something works that they've ripped from some article and now need help to get it working.
These would be the same folks that strip copyright headers and comments from article code, throw in one line of project-specific code, and then check it in with their consulting company's banner. Do you really think CP is the only place they steal code from? :rolleyes:
----
...the wind blows over it and it is gone, and its place remembers it no more...
-
How would you all feel if we banned GPL licenced code on The Code Project? 1 = bad idea, 5 = good idea
cheers, Chris Maunder
CodeProject.com : C++ MVP
What does it say in CP's vision statement ? Is CP first and foremost an educational resource, or is it intended to be a repository of free source-code. If an educational resource, then any and all source should be allowed. If a repository, then put whatever restrictions on submissions as fit your religious views. Personally, i see CP as an educational resource. Since i don't use the site to get source code to use in my apps, i don't really care what license the author puts the code under. I am gratefull to anyone who is willing to take the time to write and post an article w/ or w/o source.
...cmk The idea that I can be presented with a problem, set out to logically solve it with the tools at hand, and wind up with a program that could not be legally used because someone else followed the same logical steps some years ago and filed for a patent on it is horrifying. - John Carmack
-
How would you all feel if we banned GPL licenced code on The Code Project? 1 = bad idea, 5 = good idea
cheers, Chris Maunder
CodeProject.com : C++ MVP
That would prevent articles detailing how to use GPL'd code. I believe the lame encoder is GPL'd and it is definitely deservant of articles. A less restrictive community is always better than a more restrictive community, imho.
Need a C# Consultant? I'm available.
Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know. -- Ernest Hemingway -
Colin Angus Mackay wrote:
I can imagine that happening a lot, especially given the number of cargo cult programmers that I see in the programming forums that don't understand how something works that they've ripped from some article and now need help to get it working.
These would be the same folks that strip copyright headers and comments from article code, throw in one line of project-specific code, and then check it in with their consulting company's banner. Do you really think CP is the only place they steal code from? :rolleyes:
----
...the wind blows over it and it is gone, and its place remembers it no more...
Shog9 wrote:
These would be the same folks that strip copyright headers and comments from article code, throw in one line of project-specific code, and then check it in with their consulting company's banner. Do you really think CP is the only place they steal code from?
No. I expect they'll still steal the code. That's why I like to make the world a weirder place starting with my eBay Feedback[^] Code Project articles. I put in little odd quirks here and there that I've seen people blindly pick up. Nothing that stops the code working, but just that little bit nuts that any ordinary person would correct and cargo cult programmers don't detect.
Upcoming FREE developer events: * Developer! Developer! Developer! 6 * Developer Day Scotland My website
-
The Undefeated wrote:
You mean only have code that comes with no license at all?
Code without a licence would default to only permitting the creator (or copyright holder if it has been reassigned) to use the code.
Upcoming FREE developer events: * Developer! Developer! Developer! 6 * Developer Day Scotland My website
You know what i mean :|
My current favourite word is: PIE! Good ol' pie, it's been a while.
-
How would you all feel if we banned GPL licenced code on The Code Project? 1 = bad idea, 5 = good idea
cheers, Chris Maunder
CodeProject.com : C++ MVP
WTFPL anyone? Most of the articles here present a concept an idea, so WTFPL license would be most appropriate. One should be recognized as an author but you can't force people to share or open code just because they used your source to implement something more complex. Or maybe I'm totally wrong.
Network integrated solutions | Flickr A practical use of the MVC pattern
-
Colin Angus Mackay wrote:
Why is GPL a must in that situation? Why must it be GPL? Why not some other licence?
Why not GPL? :) Surely you can understand the desire of someone who has invested considerable time and effort in a project to keep others from taking their work and making it inaccessible to others? I'll agree that it's not a good fit for a lot of the code here - trying to force anyone using your gradient clipping snippet (or whatever) to open up their entire codebase isn't friendly or practical. But consider a project like ZedGraph[^] (one of my favorite CP-connected projects): it doesn't really do much good to allow someone to take and release this as a closed-source graphing library; requiring that enhanced versions be released with source allows everyone to benefit from it. IMHO, right now CodeProject is sort of a code dumping-ground. A great place to post an article, but a pretty poor host for evolving projects with multiple developers / changing developers. There's some history there as well - i know of at least a couple of promising projects that started out here and then... disappeared when their authors decided to close up the source and turn them into commercial projects. I think that's fine, as long as there aren't any misconceptions. If that's what we're gonna be, then we should go with the most permissive license possible and leave any ongoing development to whatever other sites support a given author's preference.
----
...the wind blows over it and it is gone, and its place remembers it no more...
Shog9 wrote:
Surely you can understand the desire of someone who has invested considerable time and effort in a project to keep others from taking their work and making it inaccessible to others?
Yes, I can understand that. But if that is your fear then open sourcing it wouldn't be on my list of things to do with the source.
Upcoming FREE developer events: * Developer! Developer! Developer! 6 * Developer Day Scotland My website
-
Shog9 wrote:
Surely you can understand the desire of someone who has invested considerable time and effort in a project to keep others from taking their work and making it inaccessible to others?
Yes, I can understand that. But if that is your fear then open sourcing it wouldn't be on my list of things to do with the source.
Upcoming FREE developer events: * Developer! Developer! Developer! 6 * Developer Day Scotland My website
Colin Angus Mackay wrote:
But if that is your fear then open sourcing it wouldn't be on my list of things to do with the source.
"I'm afraid someone will close it, therefore i'll not open it"? :~ I'm not necessarily talking about the originator of a project here. Keep in mind, my original reply was centered around the question of whether or not improving the collaborative aspects of this site are under discussion. Are you honestly saying you're ok with testing/critiquing/patching a piece of software, expecting that other users will benefit from your contributions as you benefit from theirs, only to find the improvements rolled over into a future, off-site, closed release? IMHO, you're looking at the GPL as sort of a baited trap situation, where someone draws you in with this awesome code and then comes looking for your soul as payment. That's not really the scenario i'm talking about though; far more projects start out as relatively crappy code. The question in my mind is, is every user responsible for tracking down and fixing every bug, maybe submitting the fixes and hoping that the author is willing and able to update the article... or are we looking to encourage an environment where articles can evolve, take on new management, continue to accumulate fixes and enhancements long after the original author has moved on. Because if it's the latter, GPL has something to offer. If it's the former... then we're in agreement.
----
...the wind blows over it and it is gone, and its place remembers it no more...
-
Shog9 wrote:
These would be the same folks that strip copyright headers and comments from article code, throw in one line of project-specific code, and then check it in with their consulting company's banner. Do you really think CP is the only place they steal code from?
No. I expect they'll still steal the code. That's why I like to make the world a weirder place starting with my eBay Feedback[^] Code Project articles. I put in little odd quirks here and there that I've seen people blindly pick up. Nothing that stops the code working, but just that little bit nuts that any ordinary person would correct and cargo cult programmers don't detect.
Upcoming FREE developer events: * Developer! Developer! Developer! 6 * Developer Day Scotland My website
-
How would you all feel if we banned GPL licenced code on The Code Project? 1 = bad idea, 5 = good idea
cheers, Chris Maunder
CodeProject.com : C++ MVP
I don't understand why one would want to ban them? GPL only "hurts" those who want to blindly copy/use the code in an article. I have used this site for a few good years and I can think of only a few times that I have ever taken any code from here and "just used" it in one of my projects. 99% of the time I read the articles to learn new techniques and approaches, and then use these to solve my problem at hand. The few times I did "just use" the code was because it was available completely free, and there was no point of rewriting it. I still had to take the time to understand it, otherwise I wouldn't add it to my project anyway. If it had a licence that prevented me from using it directly, I still wouldn't lose the understanding part. And once you understand something you can do it yourself. So, in conclusion, I can see how a library that is GPL'd would prevent me from "just using" it in my non GPL projects, but what's the big deal? I just won't use it. I can still look at it and see what approach was taken to solving a given problem.
-
I don't understand why one would want to ban them? GPL only "hurts" those who want to blindly copy/use the code in an article. I have used this site for a few good years and I can think of only a few times that I have ever taken any code from here and "just used" it in one of my projects. 99% of the time I read the articles to learn new techniques and approaches, and then use these to solve my problem at hand. The few times I did "just use" the code was because it was available completely free, and there was no point of rewriting it. I still had to take the time to understand it, otherwise I wouldn't add it to my project anyway. If it had a licence that prevented me from using it directly, I still wouldn't lose the understanding part. And once you understand something you can do it yourself. So, in conclusion, I can see how a library that is GPL'd would prevent me from "just using" it in my non GPL projects, but what's the big deal? I just won't use it. I can still look at it and see what approach was taken to solving a given problem.
-
Just out of curiosity... Are you differentiating between GPL and LGPL?
----
...the wind blows over it and it is gone, and its place remembers it no more...
Considering that the author of the LGPL has asked people not to use it[^] it's kind of a moot point.
cheers, Chris Maunder
CodeProject.com : C++ MVP
-
Colin Angus Mackay wrote:
But if that is your fear then open sourcing it wouldn't be on my list of things to do with the source.
"I'm afraid someone will close it, therefore i'll not open it"? :~ I'm not necessarily talking about the originator of a project here. Keep in mind, my original reply was centered around the question of whether or not improving the collaborative aspects of this site are under discussion. Are you honestly saying you're ok with testing/critiquing/patching a piece of software, expecting that other users will benefit from your contributions as you benefit from theirs, only to find the improvements rolled over into a future, off-site, closed release? IMHO, you're looking at the GPL as sort of a baited trap situation, where someone draws you in with this awesome code and then comes looking for your soul as payment. That's not really the scenario i'm talking about though; far more projects start out as relatively crappy code. The question in my mind is, is every user responsible for tracking down and fixing every bug, maybe submitting the fixes and hoping that the author is willing and able to update the article... or are we looking to encourage an environment where articles can evolve, take on new management, continue to accumulate fixes and enhancements long after the original author has moved on. Because if it's the latter, GPL has something to offer. If it's the former... then we're in agreement.
----
...the wind blows over it and it is gone, and its place remembers it no more...
Shog9 wrote:
Are you honestly saying you're ok with testing/critiquing/patching a piece of software, expecting that other users will benefit from your contributions as you benefit from theirs, only to find the improvements rolled over into a future, off-site, closed release?
I didn't say I was okay with it. I just said that I didn't like GPL as an open source license because of its virus like nature. It makes unreasonable demands in my opinion.
Upcoming FREE developer events: * Developer! Developer! Developer! 6 * Developer Day Scotland My website
-
Considering that the author of the LGPL has asked people not to use it[^] it's kind of a moot point.
cheers, Chris Maunder
CodeProject.com : C++ MVP
I don't think so.
From the link:
Using the ordinary GPL is not advantageous for every library. There are reasons that can make it better to use the Lesser GPL in certain cases. The most common case is when a free library's features are readily available for proprietary software through other alternative libraries. In that case, the library cannot give free software any particular advantage, so it is better to use the Lesser GPL for that library.
IMHO, that covers a lot of what goes up on CP. Don't get me wrong - i think there is value in both licenses. And i think, in many cases at least, there is good reason to avoid both. But i'm not so quick to dismiss the popularity factor - if you can release a library with the intention of capturing enhancements and fixes while still allowing producers of otherwise-proprietary software to aid in producing said fixes and enhancements, LGPL provides a means of doing so.
----
...the wind blows over it and it is gone, and its place remembers it no more...
-
Shog9 wrote:
Are you honestly saying you're ok with testing/critiquing/patching a piece of software, expecting that other users will benefit from your contributions as you benefit from theirs, only to find the improvements rolled over into a future, off-site, closed release?
I didn't say I was okay with it. I just said that I didn't like GPL as an open source license because of its virus like nature. It makes unreasonable demands in my opinion.
Upcoming FREE developer events: * Developer! Developer! Developer! 6 * Developer Day Scotland My website
Colin Angus Mackay wrote:
It makes unreasonable demands in my opinion.
Heh, well, you have your opinion and i have mine and i suppose we both have different things we'd consider unreasonable for a given time and place. Personally, i'm far more against licenses that prevent you from using them in commercial software outright, or prevent you from releasing any modifications under any conditions. If CP bans GPL along with these, then so be it...
----
...the wind blows over it and it is gone, and its place remembers it no more...
-
How would you all feel if we banned GPL licenced code on The Code Project? 1 = bad idea, 5 = good idea
cheers, Chris Maunder
CodeProject.com : C++ MVP
I've read this thread from the start and Colin & Shog9 seem to have a better understanding of what the GPL license means. I'm no expert, but its my understanding that GPL license is considered viral in nature because it requires all other software that incorporates whatever had been licensed as GPL to be GPL as well. I can understand having something with a much more permissive license like the FreeBSD license or the MIT license be used on CP. Shog9 pointed out that some projects started off here but then moved on to other pastures. Personally, I'll sit the fence on this one. If CP is to evolve into something like a breeding ground of continuously improved projects spawned out of some great article(s) then a more restrictive license IMO seems crucial, simply to maintain the openness of the code. On the other hand, GPL can be a real pita. Have you considered a CP license? I vote 4
"Programming today is a race between software engineers striving to build bigger and better idiot-proof programs, and the Universe trying to produce bigger and better idiots. So far, the Universe is winning." - Rick Cook "There is no wealth like knowledge, no poverty like ignorance." Ali ibn Abi Talib "Animadvertistine, ubicumque stes, fumum recta in faciem ferri?"
-
How would you all feel if we banned GPL licenced code on The Code Project? 1 = bad idea, 5 = good idea
cheers, Chris Maunder
CodeProject.com : C++ MVP
Ban them, and then form a posse to hunt down Richard Stalman, tie him up with Christmas lights and spank him until he admits he's wrong.
Deja View - the feeling that you've seen this post before.
-
How would you all feel if we banned GPL licenced code on The Code Project? 1 = bad idea, 5 = good idea
cheers, Chris Maunder
CodeProject.com : C++ MVP
Every article should be forced to specify a license - if the article does not specify a license and the author cannot be contacted anymore, then no one has the right to use that code. The employer of the author can later decide to start suing people who are using the article's code. I think this is a much more serious problem than GPL code (which at least clearly says that you can use it only under specific conditions).