Banning GPL articles
-
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.
-
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 HemingwayRestricting restrictively unrestrictive licenses might encourage a less restrictive community.
-
I would say we shouldn't host any GPL code at CodeProject, since it is clearly not compatible with the spirit of this community. However, if there is an article with a link to GPL code hosted i.e. at SourceForge, I say let's allow it. Many articles are useful without the code.
Yeah, I'm pretty sure that's what Chris means. At least I hope so.
-
++ 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.
I think the ugly feedback will be counterbalanced by long-term overall realization that GPL isn't an all-embracing or all-embraced silver bullet. It'll get people thinking "maybe GPL wasn't made by God".
-
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
-
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.
-- Help Stamp Out and Abolish Redundancy The preceding is courtesy of the Department of Unnecessarily Redundant Repetition Department.
It seems a laudable motivation but banning posts might be a bit harsh. If it's an issue you're seeing messages about could you make it more obvious to the reader when an article may contained licenced works such as using a different colour for the article or a pop-up window that informs the user of any potential risks?
-
++ 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.
I like GPL and use it with LGPL, too. I think it's not a good idea to ban a single license. It should be better to clearly underline the license of the code in every article everyone provide. I think that if you publish your code it's your own business to decide which license should apply to your code and the user (me for example) is forced to use the license you choose. Stefano
-
I think the ugly feedback will be counterbalanced by long-term overall realization that GPL isn't an all-embracing or all-embraced silver bullet. It'll get people thinking "maybe GPL wasn't made by God".
It's not CodeProject's purpose, nor in CodeProject's interests to prove that GPL wasn't made by God. The question is whether protecting ignorant programmers outweighs the negative feedback.
-
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.
In the US and many other countries, software is copyrighted by default. Without a license, you have no right to use it.
-
It's not CodeProject's purpose, nor in CodeProject's interests to prove that GPL wasn't made by God. The question is whether protecting ignorant programmers outweighs the negative feedback.
Maybe not, but it's certainly something to consider in regards to the concern about negative feedback. The question then becomes whether protecting ignorant programmers outweighs the risk of negative feedback outweighing positive feedback. Keeping in mind that GPL's arguably malevolent viral nature is the reason CP would be killing GPL articles, anyone who isn't blinded by GPL's promises of freedom should recognize the justification.
-
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
-10!! :mad: I think that if a developer is too stupid to read the article in full and see that the code is released under the GPL then that is their or their company’s problem. Sounds to me like you’re trying to create a "Nanny" website. GPL code doesn't have to be copied. God forbid that a developer could actually read some code and not write their own implementation of it instead of getting through their career copying and pasting code. Although it has to be asked why developers are releasing code samples (I'm not talking about full apps) under GPL. This also shows ignorance that they could have picked BSD which I would have thought is a much better license for code samples.
Oh, uh, good question. Now technically speaking, uhh, let's say, put me down as a... 'Whatever'?
-
In the US and many other countries, software is copyrighted by default. Without a license, you have no right to use it.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't a copyright just say that you're not allowed to claim ownership; not that you're not allowed to use it?
-
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
