Banning GPL articles
-
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?
-
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 about, instead of banning GPL articles, you have a mandatory "License" section at the top of each article? Not sure how articles are submitted, but you could make it part of the web form, or require it via email submission. Ross
-
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.
originSH wrote:
I'd love it if everything had a public domain license on it with a standard disclaimer.
I agree.
____________________________________________________________________________ "Space is big. You just won't believe how vastly, hugely, mind- bogglingly big it is. I mean, you may think it's a long way down the road to the chemist's, but that's just peanuts to space." -- Douglas Adams -- Shohom67
-
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
Amazing how few people even read this article enough to provide the asked for rating number ;) I think that's a clear indication that people only read what they want to. I say 3, medium good/bad idea. However, here is my take on it. Given that CP's purpose is to share code for any purpose, it wouldn't be unreasonable to require that all articles that include GPL code have a big red warning at the top that says something like "Notice: The code in this article is licensed under non-permissive license. Please read the license terms carefully to determine if you can legally use this code within your project, and what responsibilities you may have to meet the terms of the license" Please also note that this doesn't just apply to the GPL, but also to other licenses (even Microsoft licenses). Frankly, while I don't like the GPL license, I am not going to dictate to anyone that they can or cannot use any given license for their work as a whole. Having said that, I think there is a huge difference between licensing an entire application under the GPL and licensing a few snippets of code. I think non-permissive licenses should be strongly discouraged in the article submission process, but if there is no other option, then the big red banner should be employed.
-- Where are we going? And why am I in this handbasket?
-
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 tempted to say yes just because I hate GPL. But, at the same time, I'm not sure I'd restrict anything that is technically free. GPL is just a nuisance. But I also have to consider the fact that if it's not on CP, there's a greater chance I won't know it even exists. ;)
Try code model generation tools at BoneSoft.com.
-
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
Corinna John wrote:
That means, if a reader would ask him, he could allow this specific person to use the code in a closed-source project
I don't think that is correct. The GPL is pretty specific about how the code can be used and distributed. As an example, the Coco/R project specifically added a clause to their GPL license that allows it to be used as a plugin to non GPL projects. Without the added condition the GPL does not allow that scenario. From what I understand, once you place the GPL on a project, you as the author can't say that user X can do something outside of the license. But then again, I don't know who's responsible for enforcing the conditions of the license.
Corinna John wrote:
GPL licensed code makes life easier
Only if you like putting everything you do under GPL.
Corinna John wrote:
We should rather ban articles that don't have any license
Now that's just crazy talk. Nothing is easier than no license. And think of all the great articles that we wouldn't have access to if non-licensed content was banned. And forcing everybody that submits to find or write a license is pretty restrictive.
Try code model generation tools at BoneSoft.com.
-
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.
I think ripping code is a bad idea. The closest I ever get to it is studying the code, and then writing my own from scratch. I find that ripped code happens to be difficult to maintain because of different styles.
ROFLOLMFAO
-
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 HemingwayNo, LAME is LGPL and I use it in my own (commercial) software. But I agree with the general point you make - anything that promotes code sharing is a good idea in my view. And one can always approach the authors of GPL code for 'special dispensation'. Mind you, I tried this with FFTW and was informed that a commercial use license was $7000! Looked in my piggy bank but could not raise that much cash :)
Paul Sanders http://www.alpinesoft.co.uk
-
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
Slight correction: "Rumors have it that site owner is sleeping with Bill Gates. Stallman throws a fit in a jealous rage."
Software Zen:
delete this; -
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:
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
My impression of the GPL is that its intent is exactly the opposite. The purpose of the GPL is to make it impossible for you to protect your work by making it a requirement that you give away the source code. On top of that, the GPL is viral. Any product developed using even the smallest piece of GPL-licensed software becomes bound by the GPL as well. In my opinion, anyone who uses GPL-licensed code in a commercial application is foolish, especially in light of today's IP litigation feeding frenzy.
Software Zen:
delete this;