GNU GPL? Here? Why that level of restriction?
-
I was in need of an implementation of the Sutherland-Hodgeman polygon clipping routine. I've found two good looking implementations on the web, however, both are under the GNU-GPL, which makes them completely useless to me, and I'm sure a lot of other small commercial developers working with closed source. Why such a restriction on an implementation of a bunch of old algorithms? Especially when they're simple enough that any one can implement them. These works could be helping save time and effort for many developers. Instead they're restricted to the "club" of developers that have the luxury of developing in open source. Anyway, I ended up implementing my own version of that clipping algorithm. To all developers that feel the need to restrict who can use their code, thanks for nothing.
-
I was in need of an implementation of the Sutherland-Hodgeman polygon clipping routine. I've found two good looking implementations on the web, however, both are under the GNU-GPL, which makes them completely useless to me, and I'm sure a lot of other small commercial developers working with closed source. Why such a restriction on an implementation of a bunch of old algorithms? Especially when they're simple enough that any one can implement them. These works could be helping save time and effort for many developers. Instead they're restricted to the "club" of developers that have the luxury of developing in open source. Anyway, I ended up implementing my own version of that clipping algorithm. To all developers that feel the need to restrict who can use their code, thanks for nothing.
Given that the GPL is viral and forces you to publish the source code for your application, it renders anything covered by it unusable in commercial software. For that reason, I never both even looking at code covered by the GPL. You're right, anyway. Sutherland-Hodgeman is pretty easy. I've got an implementation in PL/I around here some place ... :-O
Software Zen:
delete this; -
I was in need of an implementation of the Sutherland-Hodgeman polygon clipping routine. I've found two good looking implementations on the web, however, both are under the GNU-GPL, which makes them completely useless to me, and I'm sure a lot of other small commercial developers working with closed source. Why such a restriction on an implementation of a bunch of old algorithms? Especially when they're simple enough that any one can implement them. These works could be helping save time and effort for many developers. Instead they're restricted to the "club" of developers that have the luxury of developing in open source. Anyway, I ended up implementing my own version of that clipping algorithm. To all developers that feel the need to restrict who can use their code, thanks for nothing.
I actually work on both closed and open sourced projects. I have no issues with the GPL license; I just don't use it. It's simply a matter of choice.
Terence Russell wrote:
Anyway, I ended up implementing my own version of that clipping algorithm
So why the griping. Sutherland-Hodgeman is pretty simple and it probably only took you a day to implement and test it.
Terence Russell wrote:
To all developers that feel the need to restrict who can use their code, thanks for nothing.
So what? You are somehow entitled to use their code?
A human being should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, conn a ship, design a building, write a sonnet, balance accounts, build a wall, set a bone, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, analyze a new problem, pitch manure, program a computer, cook a tasty meal, fight efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects. - -Lazarus Long
modified on Friday, February 8, 2008 2:38 PM
-
I was in need of an implementation of the Sutherland-Hodgeman polygon clipping routine. I've found two good looking implementations on the web, however, both are under the GNU-GPL, which makes them completely useless to me, and I'm sure a lot of other small commercial developers working with closed source. Why such a restriction on an implementation of a bunch of old algorithms? Especially when they're simple enough that any one can implement them. These works could be helping save time and effort for many developers. Instead they're restricted to the "club" of developers that have the luxury of developing in open source. Anyway, I ended up implementing my own version of that clipping algorithm. To all developers that feel the need to restrict who can use their code, thanks for nothing.
Can I suggest you place your implementation into the open source community under the license of your choice? Btw, I hear you and have been in the same situation more than once. -Steve http://www.stevetrefethen.com/blog
-
I actually work on both closed and open sourced projects. I have no issues with the GPL license; I just don't use it. It's simply a matter of choice.
Terence Russell wrote:
Anyway, I ended up implementing my own version of that clipping algorithm
So why the griping. Sutherland-Hodgeman is pretty simple and it probably only took you a day to implement and test it.
Terence Russell wrote:
To all developers that feel the need to restrict who can use their code, thanks for nothing.
So what? You are somehow entitled to use their code?
A human being should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, conn a ship, design a building, write a sonnet, balance accounts, build a wall, set a bone, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, analyze a new problem, pitch manure, program a computer, cook a tasty meal, fight efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects. - -Lazarus Long
modified on Friday, February 8, 2008 2:38 PM
Chris Austin wrote:
So what? You are somehow entitled to use their code?
because it's supposedly "open" source. But with the viral GPL license it is essentially "closed" to those who don't want to make their whole application "open" simply because they use a snippet of "open" (GPL'd) source. the whole point of open source is to help one another, not hinder.
Silence is the voice of complicity. Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government. -- monty python Might I suggest that the universe was always the size of the cosmos. It is just that at one point the cosmos was the size of a marble. -- Colin Angus Mackay
-
I was in need of an implementation of the Sutherland-Hodgeman polygon clipping routine. I've found two good looking implementations on the web, however, both are under the GNU-GPL, which makes them completely useless to me, and I'm sure a lot of other small commercial developers working with closed source. Why such a restriction on an implementation of a bunch of old algorithms? Especially when they're simple enough that any one can implement them. These works could be helping save time and effort for many developers. Instead they're restricted to the "club" of developers that have the luxury of developing in open source. Anyway, I ended up implementing my own version of that clipping algorithm. To all developers that feel the need to restrict who can use their code, thanks for nothing.
Terence Russell wrote:
I ended up implementing my own version of that clipping algorithm.
You could post that as an article here in CodeProject with the license of your choice (perhaps LGPL?) and earn the claps of everyone here. :)
Stupidity is an International Association - Enrique Jardiel Poncela
-
Chris Austin wrote:
So what? You are somehow entitled to use their code?
because it's supposedly "open" source. But with the viral GPL license it is essentially "closed" to those who don't want to make their whole application "open" simply because they use a snippet of "open" (GPL'd) source. the whole point of open source is to help one another, not hinder.
Silence is the voice of complicity. Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government. -- monty python Might I suggest that the universe was always the size of the cosmos. It is just that at one point the cosmos was the size of a marble. -- Colin Angus Mackay
So, do you feel entitled to the works of others on your terms rather than theirs? People who choose the GPL do so based on their ideals, you don't like then don't use the code. No one is twisting your arm.
A human being should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, conn a ship, design a building, write a sonnet, balance accounts, build a wall, set a bone, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, analyze a new problem, pitch manure, program a computer, cook a tasty meal, fight efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects. - -Lazarus Long
-
Terence Russell wrote:
I ended up implementing my own version of that clipping algorithm.
You could post that as an article here in CodeProject with the license of your choice (perhaps LGPL?) and earn the claps of everyone here. :)
Stupidity is an International Association - Enrique Jardiel Poncela
-
I personally prefer the wtfpl[^].
A human being should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, conn a ship, design a building, write a sonnet, balance accounts, build a wall, set a bone, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, analyze a new problem, pitch manure, program a computer, cook a tasty meal, fight efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects. - -Lazarus Long
-
I was in need of an implementation of the Sutherland-Hodgeman polygon clipping routine. I've found two good looking implementations on the web, however, both are under the GNU-GPL, which makes them completely useless to me, and I'm sure a lot of other small commercial developers working with closed source. Why such a restriction on an implementation of a bunch of old algorithms? Especially when they're simple enough that any one can implement them. These works could be helping save time and effort for many developers. Instead they're restricted to the "club" of developers that have the luxury of developing in open source. Anyway, I ended up implementing my own version of that clipping algorithm. To all developers that feel the need to restrict who can use their code, thanks for nothing.
Part of the problem is that developers don't understand the GNU licence. Sometimes the problem is also that they are developing code in an application already covered by GNU so they bundle everything into the one licence. It would be great to start a movement to rewrite all GNU licenced stuff under a true use-it-whereever-you-want licence. Maybe like this one[^] :D
cheers, Chris Maunder
CodeProject.com : C++ MVP
-
I was in need of an implementation of the Sutherland-Hodgeman polygon clipping routine. I've found two good looking implementations on the web, however, both are under the GNU-GPL, which makes them completely useless to me, and I'm sure a lot of other small commercial developers working with closed source. Why such a restriction on an implementation of a bunch of old algorithms? Especially when they're simple enough that any one can implement them. These works could be helping save time and effort for many developers. Instead they're restricted to the "club" of developers that have the luxury of developing in open source. Anyway, I ended up implementing my own version of that clipping algorithm. To all developers that feel the need to restrict who can use their code, thanks for nothing.
GNU-GPL and it's ilk are a nice pipe dream but I think most people in the situation you encountered tend to take more of a *finders keepers* approach to the code they've come across. But hey, kudos for taking the high road and writing your own version. The few times I've been in a similar situation there was always somebody selling a more robust solution than the GNU one I encountered for a few hundred bucks. That's a lot cheaper than my own time to develop a solution and it puts most licensing back in my hands.
-
Part of the problem is that developers don't understand the GNU licence. Sometimes the problem is also that they are developing code in an application already covered by GNU so they bundle everything into the one licence. It would be great to start a movement to rewrite all GNU licenced stuff under a true use-it-whereever-you-want licence. Maybe like this one[^] :D
cheers, Chris Maunder
CodeProject.com : C++ MVP
Chris Maunder wrote:
It would be great to start a movement to rewrite all GNU licenced stuff under a true use-it-whereever-you-want licence. Maybe like this one[^]
speaking of which... thanks... I used a bit of your code recently. Full credit applied in source code, but it was only a small piece in a larger set of software, it is just nice to be able to pull in the pieces without loosing the whole. :-D
_________________________ Asu no koto o ieba, tenjo de nezumi ga warau. Talk about things of tomorrow and the mice in the ceiling laugh. (Japanese Proverb)
-
I was in need of an implementation of the Sutherland-Hodgeman polygon clipping routine. I've found two good looking implementations on the web, however, both are under the GNU-GPL, which makes them completely useless to me, and I'm sure a lot of other small commercial developers working with closed source. Why such a restriction on an implementation of a bunch of old algorithms? Especially when they're simple enough that any one can implement them. These works could be helping save time and effort for many developers. Instead they're restricted to the "club" of developers that have the luxury of developing in open source. Anyway, I ended up implementing my own version of that clipping algorithm. To all developers that feel the need to restrict who can use their code, thanks for nothing.
Terence Russell wrote:
Why such a restriction on an implementation of a bunch of old algorithms? Especially when they're simple enough that any one can implement them.
Someone took the time to implement them, and would rather that others wishing to benefit from the time he devoted also provide the same courtesy to others with the result of their time spent. If you disagree with this, you are free to re-implement it on your own time (as you did). GPL isn't a patent, it's a license for copyright material. As with any copyright material, if you want to use it then you play by the rules. You do realize that the vast bulk of copyright material in this world has far more onerous restrictions on its use than the GPL allows... right?
-
So, do you feel entitled to the works of others on your terms rather than theirs? People who choose the GPL do so based on their ideals, you don't like then don't use the code. No one is twisting your arm.
A human being should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, conn a ship, design a building, write a sonnet, balance accounts, build a wall, set a bone, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, analyze a new problem, pitch manure, program a computer, cook a tasty meal, fight efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects. - -Lazarus Long
What is the point of putting the extra effort into making a nice general implementation of a fairly simple algorithm, which would save a few hours of development time for many developers, and then restricting the number of developers that can benefit from it? That seems very inefficient to me.
-
What is the point of putting the extra effort into making a nice general implementation of a fairly simple algorithm, which would save a few hours of development time for many developers, and then restricting the number of developers that can benefit from it? That seems very inefficient to me.
Terence Russell wrote:
What is the point of putting the extra effort into making a nice general implementation of a fairly simple algorithm, which would save a few hours of development time for many developers, and then restricting the number of developers that can benefit
Personally, I don't see the point. But, I didn't write the code so it wasn't my choice it was the author's. Also, I look at it from the point of view that the original developer owes nothing to anybody if he/she produced the work themselves.
Terence Russell wrote:
That seems very inefficient to me.
To me as well. But, I wholeheartedly support the developers right to decide how their product will be licensed.
A human being should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, conn a ship, design a building, write a sonnet, balance accounts, build a wall, set a bone, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, analyze a new problem, pitch manure, program a computer, cook a tasty meal, fight efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects. - -Lazarus Long
-
So, do you feel entitled to the works of others on your terms rather than theirs? People who choose the GPL do so based on their ideals, you don't like then don't use the code. No one is twisting your arm.
A human being should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, conn a ship, design a building, write a sonnet, balance accounts, build a wall, set a bone, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, analyze a new problem, pitch manure, program a computer, cook a tasty meal, fight efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects. - -Lazarus Long
Chris Austin wrote:
you don't like then don't use the code. No one is twisting your arm.
of course. i was merely pointing out the hypocrisy of supposedly "open" source that isn't.
Silence is the voice of complicity. Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government. -- monty python Might I suggest that the universe was always the size of the cosmos. It is just that at one point the cosmos was the size of a marble. -- Colin Angus Mackay
-
Part of the problem is that developers don't understand the GNU licence. Sometimes the problem is also that they are developing code in an application already covered by GNU so they bundle everything into the one licence. It would be great to start a movement to rewrite all GNU licenced stuff under a true use-it-whereever-you-want licence. Maybe like this one[^] :D
cheers, Chris Maunder
CodeProject.com : C++ MVP
Chris Maunder wrote:
Part of the problem is that developers don't understand the GNU licence
Maybe so. I've tried reading the thing a couple of times. Without getting a lawyer, I can only interpret the thing in one way. The GPL requires that your source code be publicly available if your application includes any source code covered by the GPL. For me, that makes it a no-brainer when it comes to GPL-licensed code and commercial applications. You don't do it, since the license requires you to place your IP into the public domain.
Software Zen:
delete this;
Fold With Us![^] -
I was in need of an implementation of the Sutherland-Hodgeman polygon clipping routine. I've found two good looking implementations on the web, however, both are under the GNU-GPL, which makes them completely useless to me, and I'm sure a lot of other small commercial developers working with closed source. Why such a restriction on an implementation of a bunch of old algorithms? Especially when they're simple enough that any one can implement them. These works could be helping save time and effort for many developers. Instead they're restricted to the "club" of developers that have the luxury of developing in open source. Anyway, I ended up implementing my own version of that clipping algorithm. To all developers that feel the need to restrict who can use their code, thanks for nothing.
Terence Russell wrote:
Why such a restriction on an implementation of a bunch of old algorithms?
Because they might want to be payed for their work? (If you want it, you'd probably have to buy a different license from them) GPL is perfect to protect your own code, as long as you don't mix it with anyone else's GPL-code. See it as drug dealing: give out free samples, and hook them. Then, when they want more (i.e., put the stuff in their applications), you start to charge for it. See Qt/Trolltech. :)
-- Kein Mitleid Für Die Mehrheit
-
Chris Austin wrote:
So what? You are somehow entitled to use their code?
because it's supposedly "open" source. But with the viral GPL license it is essentially "closed" to those who don't want to make their whole application "open" simply because they use a snippet of "open" (GPL'd) source. the whole point of open source is to help one another, not hinder.
Silence is the voice of complicity. Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government. -- monty python Might I suggest that the universe was always the size of the cosmos. It is just that at one point the cosmos was the size of a marble. -- Colin Angus Mackay
No. GPL is not "open" source. It's "Free Software" (the Free meaning Freedom, not no cost, or as they say.. free as in speech, not free as in beer). The difference is one of political philosopy. Free software developers believe in requiring that all code be (in effect) non-commercial, though they'll argue otherwise with unrealistic scenarios. Open Source adherants believe in contributing their code to the betterment of all. The BSD license is an Open Source license. GPL is a Free Software License.
-- Where are we going? And why am I in this handbasket?