Banning GPL articles
-
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).
-
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
-
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
Are we a code sharing site or are we a license preference site? Knowing you and your very hands off approach to things I'm shocked to see you asking this. I'd say to leave things as they are and let the issue moderate itself which is what you do on a lot of things and what seems to work. Do I like the GPL? No. Do I agree with the yam-heads who think GPL has a purpose? No, not at all. It's either free or it isn't. Should CP make that decision? No. The guy on the end who is using the code has to make that decision. If he doesn't like the GPL stigma he can always write the author and take his chances. But to broad brush remove it. Nope. No way.
-
I'd love it if everything had a public domain license on it with a standard disclaimer. i.e. do what you like with it but if anything goes wrong it's nothing to do with us.
Yeah Buddy, BSD all the way! Edit: this post actually belongs under originSH's post above.. That CP bug X|
Rocky <>< Blog Post: Updating VS 2008 B2 Websites to RTM Tech Blog Post: Cheap Biofuels and Synthetics coming soon?
-
As a compromise, should one be desirable, you might make the liscense a category for the posts, allowing people to search for code by license type. This would allow people to filter out GPL should they so desire, while keeping the articles available should others want to view them for tutorial purposes (or be willing to adhere to the terms of the GPL).
Christopher Duncan Author of The Career Programmer and Unite the Tribes Coming soon: Got a career question? Ask the Attack Chihuahua! www.PracticalUSA.com
Well, as long as the filter was something you could set on your member profile so that you never have to see article listings on the site or receive them in the newsletter. I do not want to have to set a filter every day I wish to search for an article.
Rocky <>< Blog Post: Updating VS 2008 B2 Websites to RTM Tech Blog Post: Cheap Biofuels and Synthetics coming soon?
-
I can already see the Slashdot headline:
Top Windows Developer Site Bans GPL Code Rumors have it that site owner is sleeping with Bill Gates. Also, he is the spawn of Satan. Bribery suspected. Stallman and Moglen planning legal action.
Tech, life, family, faith: Give me a visit. I'm currently blogging about: The Lord Is So Good The apostle Paul, modernly speaking: Epistles of Paul Judah Himango
:laugh: Edit: Again, this post should be under the Judah Himango post above about slashdot.. Come on, this CP bug is getting bad, two posts in a row..
Rocky <>< Blog Post: Updating VS 2008 B2 Websites to RTM Tech Blog Post: Cheap Biofuels and Synthetics coming soon?
-
Are we a code sharing site or are we a license preference site? Knowing you and your very hands off approach to things I'm shocked to see you asking this. I'd say to leave things as they are and let the issue moderate itself which is what you do on a lot of things and what seems to work. Do I like the GPL? No. Do I agree with the yam-heads who think GPL has a purpose? No, not at all. It's either free or it isn't. Should CP make that decision? No. The guy on the end who is using the code has to make that decision. If he doesn't like the GPL stigma he can always write the author and take his chances. But to broad brush remove it. Nope. No way.
code-frog wrote:
I'm shocked to see you asking this
Really? You shouldn't be. I don't run this community as a dictatorship. I like to ask for opinions. And that's all I'm doin' ;) (OK, maybe I like to stir up the hornet's nest every so often too ;))
cheers, Chris Maunder
CodeProject.com : C++ MVP
-
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
But, why should be banned? And why anyone is using those licences?
Jwalant Natvarlal Soneji
BE IT, India -
code-frog wrote:
I'm shocked to see you asking this
Really? You shouldn't be. I don't run this community as a dictatorship. I like to ask for opinions. And that's all I'm doin' ;) (OK, maybe I like to stir up the hornet's nest every so often too ;))
cheers, Chris Maunder
CodeProject.com : C++ MVP
Sometimes I wish you could see my fat little face in my replies. The shot of it grinning away with a little bit of mirth in my replies. What I'm really wondering is what prompted the question from you to begin with?:badger:
-
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 HemingwayWe'll be banning IMHO next so be careful!:-D
-
:shrug: ok then. I think you'll agree, it's not really useful to pick a license based on the needs of people who will ignore any license anyway.
----
...the wind blows over it and it is gone, and its place remembers it no more...
++ I tend to like GPL, or Creative Commons or whatever, and I see a great deal of ugly feedback coming if a ban is made. Unless it is made very clear that all code submitted to code project is to be used in any possible way. Banning a single license seems strange.
-
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
5. Rhetorical political actions like these are a necessary evil sometimes. GPL doesn't fit CP's ideals. It would be a nice controversial PR stunt in showing that GPL != open source or "Free" software. It'll probably get Slashdotted, and they'll come up with some awesome conspiracy theory about how Microsoft forced CP to do it. Which will lead some more level-headed people (the people that matter) to conclude that Slashdot's being stupid and that GPL is in fact not necessarily the cure to cancer. By the way, my project (MiniHttpd[^]) is also on SourceForge under LGPL. The version on here is outdated, but it's licensed under CC. What would happen in this case if it were GPL instead of LGPL?
-
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).
If no license is specified I think it's safe to default to the "found it on the Internet" license and let the applicable regional laws do their thing.