I Don't Get It Open Source ?
-
I've been trying to figure this one out for a long time. If i put a project out on an open source website such as sourceforge, then when it's done burn it to a disc and attempt to sell it, or allow for it to be downloaded for a price, as long as i provide the source code is this legal?? If not then what the hell is the point to using open source, other than creating and giving away free software?
-
I've been trying to figure this one out for a long time. If i put a project out on an open source website such as sourceforge, then when it's done burn it to a disc and attempt to sell it, or allow for it to be downloaded for a price, as long as i provide the source code is this legal?? If not then what the hell is the point to using open source, other than creating and giving away free software?
- I don't think you need to GPL your project when you put it on Sourceforge. 2) The OpenSource business model is: give the app for for free, but charge for maintenance. Not far from "Software as a Service", but much worse in respect to customer satisfaction. 3) Many people slap "GPL" on their software, feeling part of a movement, without understanding what they do. (That's serious: just look for some GPL'ed code and ask a quesiton that's not obvious flom the GPL)
Those who not hear the music think the dancers are mad. [sighist] [Agile Programming]
-
I've been trying to figure this one out for a long time. If i put a project out on an open source website such as sourceforge, then when it's done burn it to a disc and attempt to sell it, or allow for it to be downloaded for a price, as long as i provide the source code is this legal?? If not then what the hell is the point to using open source, other than creating and giving away free software?
Usually open source proponents and contributors don't care about the money. Their main impetus is to just develop something for free without the shackles of capitalism and corporate politics interfering with bringing their ideas to fruitation. Typically, they receive their gratification by the knowledge that their users are benefiting from their work. Most of them have full-time jobs and never get to work on projects that actually interest them, or they're high school / college students. Open source is a way to develop those projects in their spare time and makes it easy to find other developers to join them in their pursuits. If you're thinking about trying to find a revenue model from Open Source, the only one usually available depending on the type of license the code uses is to ask for money if they want support. RedHat uses this business model. I'm not sure how successful that is though. To me it seems that developing a pay-for-support biz model creates a conflict of interest between the users and the developers. The users want easy to setup and use software, while the developers want to increase their revenue. So how would the developers increase income from the support revenue stream? By making the software harder to use and to setup. That in turn will force people to pay for support if they want to use the software. I think this explains why most of the open source software out there using this type of business model has non user-friendly programs. IMHO, they're just setting themselves up to fail due to this conflict of interest.
-
I've been trying to figure this one out for a long time. If i put a project out on an open source website such as sourceforge, then when it's done burn it to a disc and attempt to sell it, or allow for it to be downloaded for a price, as long as i provide the source code is this legal?? If not then what the hell is the point to using open source, other than creating and giving away free software?
A lot depends on how you "license" it. GPL, LGPL, & BSD likely prohibit most "commercial" use. IBM's CPL allows the most freedom in commercial use AFAIK. nlecren wrote: If not then what the hell is the point to using open source, other than creating and giving away free software? For the most part, this seems to be the whole point (excepting the few CPL things like Eclipse that give specific permissions for commercial use). Most of the rest dissallow much more than a "nominal" charge for putting the whole ball of wax on a CD, and worse, they pass that prohibition on to any prigrams that use their stuff, or are "derived from" the stuff. Some ideas are so stupid that only an intellectual could have thought of them - George Orwell
-
A lot depends on how you "license" it. GPL, LGPL, & BSD likely prohibit most "commercial" use. IBM's CPL allows the most freedom in commercial use AFAIK. nlecren wrote: If not then what the hell is the point to using open source, other than creating and giving away free software? For the most part, this seems to be the whole point (excepting the few CPL things like Eclipse that give specific permissions for commercial use). Most of the rest dissallow much more than a "nominal" charge for putting the whole ball of wax on a CD, and worse, they pass that prohibition on to any prigrams that use their stuff, or are "derived from" the stuff. Some ideas are so stupid that only an intellectual could have thought of them - George Orwell
BSD doesn't prohibit commerical use. You just have to include the copyright notice in the source/binary you distribute and you cannot use the name of the owner/organization to endorse or promote your product. http://www.opensource.org/licenses/bsd-license.php[^]
-
BSD doesn't prohibit commerical use. You just have to include the copyright notice in the source/binary you distribute and you cannot use the name of the owner/organization to endorse or promote your product. http://www.opensource.org/licenses/bsd-license.php[^]
But you are required to distribute source, which is a bad idea, since it leaves you wide open to liability should someone use it (either modified or for an inappropriate purpose), and it does not clearly define liability aspects in a commercial use scenario. CPL at least makes a good try at that, and does not requie commercial users to distribute source (you have to include instructions for obtaining the source you used, but are expressly permitted to withold source for your "contribution" part of the commercial product). Some ideas are so stupid that only an intellectual could have thought of them - George Orwell
-
But you are required to distribute source, which is a bad idea, since it leaves you wide open to liability should someone use it (either modified or for an inappropriate purpose), and it does not clearly define liability aspects in a commercial use scenario. CPL at least makes a good try at that, and does not requie commercial users to distribute source (you have to include instructions for obtaining the source you used, but are expressly permitted to withold source for your "contribution" part of the commercial product). Some ideas are so stupid that only an intellectual could have thought of them - George Orwell
Rob Graham wrote: But you are required to distribute source No, you are not. Not with BSD license. :beer:
-
I've been trying to figure this one out for a long time. If i put a project out on an open source website such as sourceforge, then when it's done burn it to a disc and attempt to sell it, or allow for it to be downloaded for a price, as long as i provide the source code is this legal?? If not then what the hell is the point to using open source, other than creating and giving away free software?
First, if your interest is too have source code available for others to use, whether that be for educational, commercial, hobby, or whatever purposes, use a BSD license. This will have the least headaches for you, and for others in the long run. Using GPL locks you into what is at best a political/social statement, which you may or may not agree with, but will severely hamper what others may do with your source. That said, ANY of the common OSS licenses allow you to sell the binaries, and other files that go with your program. The only limit they MAY put on you is the availablitity of the source code. A GPL license REQUIREs that the source be freely (or even at some cost - I'm not sure about that part) available for you to be in compliance with the license. BSD does not. But if you use SourceForge (I do, they have a great service), you should be allowed to profit and sell your binaries. You may or may not be allowed to use their bandwidth to sell the software (i.e. you may have to use another site to host the commercial part). ¡El diablo está en mis pantalones! ¡Mire, mire! Real Mentats use only 100% pure, unfooled around with Sapho Juice(tm)!
-
First, if your interest is too have source code available for others to use, whether that be for educational, commercial, hobby, or whatever purposes, use a BSD license. This will have the least headaches for you, and for others in the long run. Using GPL locks you into what is at best a political/social statement, which you may or may not agree with, but will severely hamper what others may do with your source. That said, ANY of the common OSS licenses allow you to sell the binaries, and other files that go with your program. The only limit they MAY put on you is the availablitity of the source code. A GPL license REQUIREs that the source be freely (or even at some cost - I'm not sure about that part) available for you to be in compliance with the license. BSD does not. But if you use SourceForge (I do, they have a great service), you should be allowed to profit and sell your binaries. You may or may not be allowed to use their bandwidth to sell the software (i.e. you may have to use another site to host the commercial part). ¡El diablo está en mis pantalones! ¡Mire, mire! Real Mentats use only 100% pure, unfooled around with Sapho Juice(tm)!
Jim Crafton wrote: A GPL license REQUIREs that the source be freely (or even at some cost - I'm not sure about that part) It's the other way around. They view a distributed compiled binary as a service, and thus you can charge for it. This is to eliminate the "binary = $0, source = $1,000,000 abuses". Have you seen what the FSF charge for their CDroms with compiled binaries of the GNU tool collection? :) It makes Microsoft products look underpriced.. ;) -- There's a new game we like to play you see. A game with added reality. You treat me like a dog, get me down on my knees. We call it master and servant.
-
But you are required to distribute source, which is a bad idea, since it leaves you wide open to liability should someone use it (either modified or for an inappropriate purpose), and it does not clearly define liability aspects in a commercial use scenario. CPL at least makes a good try at that, and does not requie commercial users to distribute source (you have to include instructions for obtaining the source you used, but are expressly permitted to withold source for your "contribution" part of the commercial product). Some ideas are so stupid that only an intellectual could have thought of them - George Orwell
CPL looks like a lawyer modified and expanded the BSD license. Copyright (c) < YEAR >, < OWNER > All rights reserved. Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions are met: * Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer. * Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in the documentation and/or other materials provided with the distribution. *Neither the name of the < ORGANIZATION > nor the names of its contributors may be used to endorse or promote products derived from this software without specific prior written permission. THIS SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED BY THE COPYRIGHT HOLDERS AND CONTRIBUTORS "AS IS" AND ANY EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE ARE DISCLAIMED. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE COPYRIGHT OWNER OR CONTRIBUTORS BE LIABLE FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, EXEMPLARY, OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES (INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, PROCUREMENT OF SUBSTITUTE GOODS OR SERVICES; LOSS OF USE, DATA, OR PROFITS; OR BUSINESS INTERRUPTION) HOWEVER CAUSED AND ON ANY THEORY OF LIABILITY, WHETHER IN CONTRACT, STRICT LIABILITY, OR TORT (INCLUDING NEGLIGENCE OR OTHERWISE) ARISING IN ANY WAY OUT OF THE USE OF THIS SOFTWARE, EVEN IF ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGE.