Open source and my rights...
-
I have spent an enormous amount of time over the last year working on my project: Programmers Notepad. I released this project as Open Source about 18 months ago and I was pleased with the decision to do so. The code is currently licensed under a very promiscuous MIT style license - do what you will. This hadn't bothered me for a long time, until recently when I've been approached a couple of times by people checking that it's ok to use the code to create a commercial product. If I were creating a library, I wouldn't have a problem with this - it seems different when you're only providing some functionality for a product to when you're effectively providing the product itself. It just seems like I'd have put lots of work into something in order to have someone else profit from it - surely this isn't right? What should I do? Some would say that I should change the code license to GPL - that way nobody can profit from it without at least releasing their changes to the public. I may (in the future) wish to capitalise on my own work (surely fair enough?). How does my license choice affect this I wonder? I'm currently leaning towards GPL. What I'd really like is some form of licensing that would allow people to use any of the code I release freely, but not for the purposes of creating a general-purpose text editor. But I suppose that's a bit much really. Any comments? Thanks for giving me the chance to rant. I thought doing so would help me decide. Unfortunately, it doesn't seem to have. -- Simon Steele Programmers Notepad - http://www.pnotepad.org/
Simon Steele wrote: I'm currently leaning towards GPL. What I'd really like is some form of licensing that would allow people to use any of the code I release freely, but not for the purposes of creating a general-purpose text editor. But I suppose that's a bit much really. Any comments? I think the following from your help file kind of decides for you: _You may not use the GExperts source code to develop a proprietary commercial or shareware product; this includes the creation of proprietary plugins and libraries for commercial products. You may use the GExperts source code in a non-proprietary (Open Source) project, under the terms listed below. All works derived from GExperts must be distributed under a license compatible with this license and the official Open Source Definition, which can be obtained from http://www.opensource.org/._ If they were to use it then they would have to remove all your regex features. James.
-
I made programmers notepad an open source product for a number of reasons. 1. I wanted to give back to the community - I know this sounds lame but I use a lot of free and open source software, and I wanted to contribute something of my own. 2. I don't really want to charge for PN, and I wanted to provide top-class features. With an open source product, others can develop those features and PN can benefit. 3. I'm sure some ego-tastic part of my subconcious was hoping for recognition. :) and probably a few more... Rohit Sinha wrote: For every person who asks for your permission before using it in a commercial app, there will be 10 more who will use it without your permission. Whatever the style of license - GPL, BSD, whatever. That I'm aware of, but somehow it's different if they're doing it illegally. There is at least potential for recourse over the misuse. I think at the time I licensed the code originally, I was having a utopian vision of enormous proportions. Or maybe in a day or two I'll just settle back down and decide that maybe everyone should be able to use the code. It's OK to feel bad about others making money over your hard work, so change the license in your next release IMO. Thanks, I think I probably will, but we'll see. -- Simon Steele Programmers Notepad - http://www.pnotepad.org/
Simon Steele wrote: With an open source product, others can develop those features and PN can benefit. If you want others to develop features for PN, you can release an API. The features or addons that others develop can be sold by them if they want or released freely, depending on them. This will encourage more people to develop for PN IMO. This way you can let others develop for PN while keeping the source with you.
Regards,Rohit Sinha
Character is like a tree, and reputation like its shadow. The shadow is what we think of it; the tree is the real thing.
- Abraham LincolnThe whole world steps aside for the man who knows where he is going.
- Anonymous -
I have spent an enormous amount of time over the last year working on my project: Programmers Notepad. I released this project as Open Source about 18 months ago and I was pleased with the decision to do so. The code is currently licensed under a very promiscuous MIT style license - do what you will. This hadn't bothered me for a long time, until recently when I've been approached a couple of times by people checking that it's ok to use the code to create a commercial product. If I were creating a library, I wouldn't have a problem with this - it seems different when you're only providing some functionality for a product to when you're effectively providing the product itself. It just seems like I'd have put lots of work into something in order to have someone else profit from it - surely this isn't right? What should I do? Some would say that I should change the code license to GPL - that way nobody can profit from it without at least releasing their changes to the public. I may (in the future) wish to capitalise on my own work (surely fair enough?). How does my license choice affect this I wonder? I'm currently leaning towards GPL. What I'd really like is some form of licensing that would allow people to use any of the code I release freely, but not for the purposes of creating a general-purpose text editor. But I suppose that's a bit much really. Any comments? Thanks for giving me the chance to rant. I thought doing so would help me decide. Unfortunately, it doesn't seem to have. -- Simon Steele Programmers Notepad - http://www.pnotepad.org/
Why not start capitalizing here - allow free use for free tools, and charge for commercial tools. (Of course it's hard to say what to charge..) I wouldn't recomment GPL, if you ever want to commercialize on it. These two things just don't mix well. In general, a transition from free to commercial, esp. one from OpenSource to commercial, can give you worse press than your product can ever make up again. And if you ever incorporate a bug fix sent to you by an OpenSourcee, you get into a bad moral (and probably legal) situation.
If you go to war, you will destroy a great country a stoned greek chick to the richest man of the world
[sighist] | [Agile Programming] [doxygen] -
I have spent an enormous amount of time over the last year working on my project: Programmers Notepad. I released this project as Open Source about 18 months ago and I was pleased with the decision to do so. The code is currently licensed under a very promiscuous MIT style license - do what you will. This hadn't bothered me for a long time, until recently when I've been approached a couple of times by people checking that it's ok to use the code to create a commercial product. If I were creating a library, I wouldn't have a problem with this - it seems different when you're only providing some functionality for a product to when you're effectively providing the product itself. It just seems like I'd have put lots of work into something in order to have someone else profit from it - surely this isn't right? What should I do? Some would say that I should change the code license to GPL - that way nobody can profit from it without at least releasing their changes to the public. I may (in the future) wish to capitalise on my own work (surely fair enough?). How does my license choice affect this I wonder? I'm currently leaning towards GPL. What I'd really like is some form of licensing that would allow people to use any of the code I release freely, but not for the purposes of creating a general-purpose text editor. But I suppose that's a bit much really. Any comments? Thanks for giving me the chance to rant. I thought doing so would help me decide. Unfortunately, it doesn't seem to have. -- Simon Steele Programmers Notepad - http://www.pnotepad.org/
While I wouldn't go as far as Popeye here, I do agree with him on some level. The GPL won't prevent people from making money off your product. Look at Red Hat, SuSE, etc.. they charge you for free software, and they charge you for supporting it. Honestly, if you're concerned that you aren't making a profit on your own code while other people might, why not just do like Microsoft does with MFC. Provide source code to anyone that buys your product, but forbid them from making their own product without significant change? The source code is there for people that buy your product to make modifications for their own use and nothing more. You can even do so for a free product you give away. Just include the source and a license which prohibits them from using it in any other way. I see *WAY* too many people that try to use the GPL for something other than what it is intended for. The GPL is a political license, designed to meet the goals of the Free Software Foundation, which is to make software a marginalized commodity that is impossible to make money off of directly, but rather to make money off supporting the product. Further, the GPL has never been tested in court, and it's impossible to know if it's legally binding until it is. The GPL won't stop someone determined to use your code. You just won't know about it. For instance, there was a recent article about a company using GPL'd software in their application, and their response to demands for release of the source code? Hide the interfaces which gave them away. http://lkml.org/archive/2003/2/7/55/index.html[^] You should think long and hard about using the GPL as your license. Think about all the potential consequences of doing so, and what you *REALLY* want people to do with the source. -- Where are we going? And why am I in this handbasket?
-
Simon Steele wrote: I'm currently leaning towards GPL. What I'd really like is some form of licensing that would allow people to use any of the code I release freely, but not for the purposes of creating a general-purpose text editor. But I suppose that's a bit much really. Any comments? I think the following from your help file kind of decides for you: _You may not use the GExperts source code to develop a proprietary commercial or shareware product; this includes the creation of proprietary plugins and libraries for commercial products. You may use the GExperts source code in a non-proprietary (Open Source) project, under the terms listed below. All works derived from GExperts must be distributed under a license compatible with this license and the official Open Source Definition, which can be obtained from http://www.opensource.org/._ If they were to use it then they would have to remove all your regex features. James.
This is for the version 1 of programmers notepad. Version 2 doesn't contain any GExperts code and that doesn't apply any more. -- Simon Steele Programmers Notepad - http://www.pnotepad.org/
-
I have spent an enormous amount of time over the last year working on my project: Programmers Notepad. I released this project as Open Source about 18 months ago and I was pleased with the decision to do so. The code is currently licensed under a very promiscuous MIT style license - do what you will. This hadn't bothered me for a long time, until recently when I've been approached a couple of times by people checking that it's ok to use the code to create a commercial product. If I were creating a library, I wouldn't have a problem with this - it seems different when you're only providing some functionality for a product to when you're effectively providing the product itself. It just seems like I'd have put lots of work into something in order to have someone else profit from it - surely this isn't right? What should I do? Some would say that I should change the code license to GPL - that way nobody can profit from it without at least releasing their changes to the public. I may (in the future) wish to capitalise on my own work (surely fair enough?). How does my license choice affect this I wonder? I'm currently leaning towards GPL. What I'd really like is some form of licensing that would allow people to use any of the code I release freely, but not for the purposes of creating a general-purpose text editor. But I suppose that's a bit much really. Any comments? Thanks for giving me the chance to rant. I thought doing so would help me decide. Unfortunately, it doesn't seem to have. -- Simon Steele Programmers Notepad - http://www.pnotepad.org/
IMHO, if you want to share your work with others for free, keep the license you have. If you don't, close the code and try to sell it. GPL is the worst possible solution: it won't give you any money, and it is too restrictive for most users.
-
There have been some honorable replies thus far, and I agree with all those opinions. If it were my application and source, an honorable mention in the documentation and application credits would be a nice boost. It would also make a nice addition to a growing portfolio for future clients to see. :-D - Nitron
"Those that say a task is impossible shouldn't interrupt the ones who are doing it." - Chinese Proverb
I think this kind of thing perhaps makes the most sense and is part of what I was (I guess) originally trying to achieve with this work. The comments of others on GPL etc. have been particularly useful. Ultimately, with open source, it seems that people can profit from your work - whether honestly or not. My response to those who believe that I should stop moaning and let others use my work for free is to suggest to them that they try releasing the source to a major application and see how they feel when someone sells it for their own profit. I think I may simply change the license to one including an attribution clause. That way I remain some kind of credit trail with the work - it cannot be claimed as the work of another party. Thanks for all your comments. -- Simon Steele Programmers Notepad - http://www.pnotepad.org/
-
IMHO, if you want to share your work with others for free, keep the license you have. If you don't, close the code and try to sell it. GPL is the worst possible solution: it won't give you any money, and it is too restrictive for most users.
I ought to clarify that I don't really want to make money from it myself. I just found the idea of others capitalising on my work to be a bit of a hurdle. I believe that you are most probably right, and that it's just a bit of a shock to the system to face this kind of issue. -- Simon Steele Programmers Notepad - http://www.pnotepad.org/
-
I ought to clarify that I don't really want to make money from it myself. I just found the idea of others capitalising on my work to be a bit of a hurdle. I believe that you are most probably right, and that it's just a bit of a shock to the system to face this kind of issue. -- Simon Steele Programmers Notepad - http://www.pnotepad.org/
Simon Steele wrote: I just found the idea of others capitalising on my work to be a bit of a hurdle. If you use GPL, others will capitalise on your work as well. The only ones who can not capitalise on GPL software are the programmers who make (or improve) it.
-
I have spent an enormous amount of time over the last year working on my project: Programmers Notepad. I released this project as Open Source about 18 months ago and I was pleased with the decision to do so. The code is currently licensed under a very promiscuous MIT style license - do what you will. This hadn't bothered me for a long time, until recently when I've been approached a couple of times by people checking that it's ok to use the code to create a commercial product. If I were creating a library, I wouldn't have a problem with this - it seems different when you're only providing some functionality for a product to when you're effectively providing the product itself. It just seems like I'd have put lots of work into something in order to have someone else profit from it - surely this isn't right? What should I do? Some would say that I should change the code license to GPL - that way nobody can profit from it without at least releasing their changes to the public. I may (in the future) wish to capitalise on my own work (surely fair enough?). How does my license choice affect this I wonder? I'm currently leaning towards GPL. What I'd really like is some form of licensing that would allow people to use any of the code I release freely, but not for the purposes of creating a general-purpose text editor. But I suppose that's a bit much really. Any comments? Thanks for giving me the chance to rant. I thought doing so would help me decide. Unfortunately, it doesn't seem to have. -- Simon Steele Programmers Notepad - http://www.pnotepad.org/
This strikes at the core at what I find objectionable about the whole open-source phenom. I've time and again where a project starts out as open source, then hundreds or thousands of developers contribute to it, and them some monster company comes along and makes a product out of it. Or in other cases, someone decides: "Well that's enuf of that open source non-sense, now let's close up the source and make a product out of it." What recourse do the 'open source contributors' have in this kind of situation. Likely little to none. And it turns out that those that contributed to the source while it was open are just sol. Even so, I think that programmers the world over do benefit from open source. I'd be a clown to think otherwise. And in the end, then the world stands to benefit from the philanthropic (?)intentions of those developers. Even so, there is nothing that will realistically stop any company from using open source in any way they see fit. And if challenged will come up with a legally defensible strategy. In a way the whole thing smacks of the old socialism vs. capitalism approaches to society (yes, I know I am kicking the hornets' nest here), and we all know how that ended up. right? For what its worth, if you gave it away, you gave it away.....That is water under the bridge. Take some pride that someone saw the worth of your efforts to make use of it in ways that you may not have envisioned. "That vision" is what they are expecting to make money from. That being said, there is nothing to prevent you know from making your own product out of your work and entering the marketplace as well.....well, perhaps the cost of launching a product is a big rock to move out of the way, but even big obstacles do not have to be permanant impediments to your progress.. So, in closing. Thank you for contributing your efforts to the rest of the world as you have. Every small contribution makes the world a better place. And best of luck in resolving this issue in a way that gives you some benefit. Just trying to keep the forces of entropy at bay
-
I have spent an enormous amount of time over the last year working on my project: Programmers Notepad. I released this project as Open Source about 18 months ago and I was pleased with the decision to do so. The code is currently licensed under a very promiscuous MIT style license - do what you will. This hadn't bothered me for a long time, until recently when I've been approached a couple of times by people checking that it's ok to use the code to create a commercial product. If I were creating a library, I wouldn't have a problem with this - it seems different when you're only providing some functionality for a product to when you're effectively providing the product itself. It just seems like I'd have put lots of work into something in order to have someone else profit from it - surely this isn't right? What should I do? Some would say that I should change the code license to GPL - that way nobody can profit from it without at least releasing their changes to the public. I may (in the future) wish to capitalise on my own work (surely fair enough?). How does my license choice affect this I wonder? I'm currently leaning towards GPL. What I'd really like is some form of licensing that would allow people to use any of the code I release freely, but not for the purposes of creating a general-purpose text editor. But I suppose that's a bit much really. Any comments? Thanks for giving me the chance to rant. I thought doing so would help me decide. Unfortunately, it doesn't seem to have. -- Simon Steele Programmers Notepad - http://www.pnotepad.org/
Hmm. Methinks that when you make source open, it becomes open. I'm no expert on open source licensing, but here's your dilemma. You released a bunch of source under a given license. After releasing the source, someone has indicated they want to create a commercial product. If they're not in violation of the license, they may do so. I don't think you can re-release the source under a NEW license and retroactively change the terms under which other people acquired your source code originally released under the prior license. My personal feeling is that if you ever write software you want or strongly believe you're going to capitalize on later, you don't want to release it to open source. Others may disagree, and may have good arguments for doing so. I believe it's better to be safe than sorry. Paul