Banning GPL articles
-
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
No. We use GPL code in our applications. (Though to be fair we are in a different world to most of the Microsoft users on CP.)
regards, Paul Watson Ireland & South Africa
Andy Brummer wrote:
Watson's law: As an online discussion of cars grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving the Bugatti Veyron approaches one.
-
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 also think that the GPL kinda misses the objective of this website. I understand that when you're building a system, you don't want to put those tens of thousands of lines of code and coffee cups in the public domain, but for a small article in a site intended to share code with other people, the GPL is too much. Those articles should default to Public Domain or some other permissive Creative Commons license. Some articles however aren't explaining just detailing a couple classes, they're actually explaining a larger framework or library, and for such complex frameworks, a license could be more carefully chosen. How about LGPL? If I recall correctly, you're allowed to use LGPL code in your project without tainting the rest of the project, right?
"Computer Science is no more about computers than astronomy is about telescopes." - Edsger Dijkstra
-
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
-
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?
The author who wrote the code owns it. Even if he publishes the code, you may not use it unless he gives you the permission to do so. Remember that a license is an agreement between the author and the user. The user is free to not accept this agreement (e.g. if he does not like restrictions specified in the license), but then he is left with no license; and no license means no right to use the code.
Wikipedia on copyright:
Copyright is a set of exclusive rights that regulate the use of a particular expression of an idea or information.
Remember that copyright was invented for book printers. The author has the exclusive rights on the work; no one else may make copies of it (in the software world: copy=use) unless he receives/buys a license from the author.
-
-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'?
:(It takes time to rewrite an implementation. For example, if I found this great article about yet another ORM framework, wouldn't it defeat the purpose if I went to write my own ORM framework based on the ideas of that article?:doh: I understand it's an exercice with some academic value,:^) but when you're being paid 12€ per hour, or when you have an actual application to finish in time,:rose: it's so much more convenient to download the source code and add it to your project: instead of spending a couple days to a couple weeks coding something, I just spend three hours reading the article and the example project to understand how I'm going to use that code.:rolleyes: Of course, some people are actually going to write their own ORM framework, and those people will read the code, take inspiration, and write their own implementation.:-D I too think that developpers releasing code samples under GPL don't know what GPL is. They probably think that since every open source app is released under GPL, he should the same so his source code can be used by everyone!:~
"Computer Science is no more about computers than astronomy is about telescopes." - Edsger Dijkstra
-
:(It takes time to rewrite an implementation. For example, if I found this great article about yet another ORM framework, wouldn't it defeat the purpose if I went to write my own ORM framework based on the ideas of that article?:doh: I understand it's an exercice with some academic value,:^) but when you're being paid 12€ per hour, or when you have an actual application to finish in time,:rose: it's so much more convenient to download the source code and add it to your project: instead of spending a couple days to a couple weeks coding something, I just spend three hours reading the article and the example project to understand how I'm going to use that code.:rolleyes: Of course, some people are actually going to write their own ORM framework, and those people will read the code, take inspiration, and write their own implementation.:-D I too think that developpers releasing code samples under GPL don't know what GPL is. They probably think that since every open source app is released under GPL, he should the same so his source code can be used by everyone!:~
"Computer Science is no more about computers than astronomy is about telescopes." - Edsger Dijkstra
Well as a developer working in a team of 3 developers who have to support a large client base and develop our product at the same time I would suggest that the time it would take to re-implement the code, if required, would only be about the same as trying to write your own. I personally would love to know how many Proprietary windows based applications are actually infringing on the GPL. Funny how the windows movers and shakers are always shouting about how linux and OSS infringes it's patents but they would ignore a call to audit their code for GPL code!! Unfortunatley the developer culture of today is to copy and paste a solution instead of writing one. Perhaps instead of banning code or articles released under GPL Code project could run an article on non-proprietry license's to educate the windows based developer world! -- modified at 6:36 Thursday 22nd November, 2007
Oh, uh, good question. Now technically speaking, uhh, let's say, put me down as a... 'Whatever'?
-
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 good idea or put thm in a special section
-
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
The main reason I found, joined, and contributed to this site is for the purpose of sharing code and ideas. The viral nature of the GPL restricts code sharing, which riles against the very purpose of this site! I think the BSD license is the best choice to meet the goals of this site. The basic premise is that anyone can use the code for anything, as long as due credit is given. One possible solution would be to introduce license selection when submitting an article. The two choices would be a "CP" license that is based on BSD, or the GPL for those who insist on using it. Then provide a filter that flags GPL articles with a different color (preferably red) or with an icon (similar to the "new" icon) so that people have a priori knowledge and cannot complain later that they "didn't know".
-- Paul
-
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'm in - but only if we follow through with the plan: acquire world dominance, so we can ban it forever and everywhere. ;) Seriosuly: GPL would be ok IF people understood what it stands for. I'd prefer a general guideline rather than singleing out one specifc crap of a licence. However, in legal, general isn't simple. Do you see an option of "education"? E.g. if you are using a drop-down box for the most common licences, don't include GPL, but have a link "why is GPL not included?" OTOH, banning GPL is simpler, and will amount to the same. There will be a FAQ, and that's it. What do you think about LGPL?
We are a big screwed up dysfunctional psychotic happy family - some more screwed up, others more happy, but everybody's psychotic joint venture definition of CP
My first real C# project | Linkify!|FoldWithUs! | sighist -
No text - nothing to see here, move on....
-- Jeff Dickey jdickey@seven-sigma.com Seven Sigma Software and Services Phone/SMS: +65 9360 1820 FOAF: http://www.seven-sigma.com/foaf.rdf Yahoo! IM: jeff_dickey ICQ: 8053918 Tencent QQ: 30302349 -- If you can't reach me by any of these, one of us may be permanently offline -- I use and recommend GNU Privacy Guard to authenticate and secure email messages! Public key: Download from public servers - Key ID EBCCBD6C Fingerprint: Fingerprint: EC0A A53B 3FF3 043B 9C11 7006 55A6
We want an explanation, Mr. Dickney :suss:
We are a big screwed up dysfunctional psychotic happy family - some more screwed up, others more happy, but everybody's psychotic joint venture definition of CP
My first real C# project | Linkify!|FoldWithUs! | sighist -
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.
In my experience, the licencer often doesn't understand what GPL means. They heard it stands for "free software", think "it's cool, I want to do this, too", slap "GPL" on their code, and done they are. It hurts the community, because it prevents reuse of otherwise good code that was intended to be reused. We have to educate them one by one, after the fact - I've done that a few times here on CP.* And it hurts the author, because more people will simply ignore his code. *) Worse, I've downloaded samples that simply said "free" in the article, only to find it's GPLed after a lengthy hunt on the authors web site for a more definite answer.
We are a big screwed up dysfunctional psychotic happy family - some more screwed up, others more happy, but everybody's psychotic joint venture definition of CP
My first real C# project | Linkify!|FoldWithUs! | sighist -
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.
Thanks for posting exactly my opinion.
____________________________________ Please vote for my article
-
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
Copyright: Nobody is allowed to use the code. Every reader who wants to copy parts of it has to contact the author and ask him "May I copy your code, please?". People who need samples quickly don't have a chance to use it, though it is right there. GPL: The author of GPL licensed code still keeps his copyright. That means, if a reader would ask him, he could allow this specific person to use the code in a closed-source project. People who don't have the time to write and wait for an answer can try the code and - in worst case - wait for their personal allowance until their project is finished. Develoeprs of other GPL projects don't have to ask at all. => GPL licensed code makes life easier. We should rather ban articles that don't have any license.
____________________________________ Please vote for my article
-
The author who wrote the code owns it. Even if he publishes the code, you may not use it unless he gives you the permission to do so. Remember that a license is an agreement between the author and the user. The user is free to not accept this agreement (e.g. if he does not like restrictions specified in the license), but then he is left with no license; and no license means no right to use the code.
Wikipedia on copyright:
Copyright is a set of exclusive rights that regulate the use of a particular expression of an idea or information.
Remember that copyright was invented for book printers. The author has the exclusive rights on the work; no one else may make copies of it (in the software world: copy=use) unless he receives/buys a license from the author.
Hmmm yeah that sounds right. I wonder if that's ever enforced in practicality though? I mean, it seems sort of unreasonable to expect that if you're sharing your code on a site about sharing code, and you don't take the time to reserve any rights.
-
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.
Maybe just a requirement for GPL code submissions to put GPL in the title of the submission and in the first paragraph of the article. Plus in the description on how to submit, a paragraph mentioning that most code here is likely to be used by others as part of a bigger piece of software. Thus GPL is likely inappropriate (submissions are usually not complete standalone software applications). The closest licenses with similar, but useful requirements is LGPL. (improvements need to be made available, but integration is unrestricted).
-
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 dont think banning GPL would be the solution.... however i think better notification could be of the license could be employed e.g. set the listing areas, to have a ajax based update after you click 'ok' or 'accept'. similar to how many sites protect adult/mature content, by having a 3 dropdown lists for year month and date, the user must use to access the content. At least then the cargo cultist's out there would realise that there was something different about the license, and there just idiots if they ignore something between a <h1> which says something to this 'GPL code, do not use with proprietary code bases' just my 2p's worth
-
++ 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 it's important to keep the code supplied in CodeProject articles free to use for whatever means. There should be a disclaimer on publishing articles to this effect, and explicitly state that it overrides any claims of licensing stated in the article. CodeProject is all about free use. When I write an article to submit to the CodeProject, I'm not thinking "how can I limit/restrict this article's code", it's implicit that it be freely usable! That's how I see it...
{o,o}.oO( Did somebody say “mouse”? ) |)””’) -”-”-
-
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 disagree. Code Project is about FREE use of code an the free sharing of ideas. If we allow authors to attach their own arbitrary license to articles, it just becomes a (much less valuable) posting board than the resource that it is now. Just count the articles you see written that are introduced as some form of "here is my way of making my contribution for all the free articles that have been of help to me." Frankly, I think CodeProject should have its OWN license that applies to ALL articles, and that authors must agree to this before submitting an article. That would make things a lot easier for everyone (except those trying to restrict the use of their code). If it's not free, don't post it.
{o,o}.oO( Did somebody say “mouse”? ) |)””’) -”-”-
-
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:
Do you really think CP is the only place they steal code from?
No. On a related note, anyone ever bother to read the license agreement for MSDN? At least the one for VS 2003 (yes I realize we are living in the stone age, but we are a non-profit) it goes on and on. Essentially the gist is, "If you use MSDN code your code belongs to us, unless you've added primary functionality." Ie. if you cut and paste code to connect to a DB with a OdbcConnection object into a method, I don't think that would qualify, as the primary functionality is the DB connection, and that is what you copied. But since the MSDN is so large and ships with VS, how do you prove you didn't cut and paste half of you functionality and then just rename variables? Another nice tidbit, not only will you have to absolve MS of any wrong doing if the code you copy is flawed and you get sued, you also have to pay for MS's court costs if anyone decides to sue them, good stuff. I think any software that is under a license should ship with that license being the most obvious part of the package. IMHO people assume that code that is on a discussion form, blog or whatever, is free to use, after all the writter gave it away when he published it, if that isn't the case, the article should begin with the license agreement, burying it on some obscure link somewhere is onerous at best. Yes the onus is on the person borrowing the code, but how paranoid can a "reasonable person" be expected to be before they assume that publically available source code is in fact public/free? How much do you worry about the candy jar on the receptionists counter not being free? The assumption is if she didn't want to share it would be in her desk not on the counter. Similar thing goes for code IMHO, if you show it, you give it unless you preface it with what your willing to let the person do with 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
Is the goal of CP to provide reusable code, or is it something wider, like sharing knowledge? Good idea in the first case, bad idea in the second one.
When they kick at your front door How you gonna come? With your hands on your head Or on the trigger of your gun?