GPL code on CP?
-
I was under the impression that code on CP was intended to be free for any usage.. or rather, that CP is supposed to be a place where programmers freel yshare their code and knowledge. I just came across an article whose code is supposedly GPL'd. Is this kosher?
Jim A. Johnson wrote: I just came across an article whose code is supposedly GPL'd. Is this kosher? While not being able to speak for Code Project, I do remember this being covered before. If you put it up it must be available for all to use freely. Code Project states this on here somewhere though the author retains copyright. I wouldn't be surprised if this article is pulled. Michael Martin Australia mjm68@tpg.com.au "I personally love it because I can get as down and dirty as I want on the backend, while also being able to dabble with fun scripting and presentation games on the front end." - Chris Maunder 15/07/2002
-
I was under the impression that code on CP was intended to be free for any usage.. or rather, that CP is supposed to be a place where programmers freel yshare their code and knowledge. I just came across an article whose code is supposedly GPL'd. Is this kosher?
there aren't just one but quite a few of them. I guess this is totally up to the authors themselves. Afterall, they are the author of the article. But frankly speaking, some TOO COMMON stuffs do not deserve a GPL for sure. Degrading the level of GPL. Imagine Linux OS source code a GPL but some...:wtf:
-
I was under the impression that code on CP was intended to be free for any usage.. or rather, that CP is supposed to be a place where programmers freel yshare their code and knowledge. I just came across an article whose code is supposedly GPL'd. Is this kosher?
If I were Chris, I would remove all GPL stuff from Code Project. CP is about sharing code and ideas among professionals - not about fulfilling somebody's sick political ideas - and GPL is exactly that.
-
I was under the impression that code on CP was intended to be free for any usage.. or rather, that CP is supposed to be a place where programmers freel yshare their code and knowledge. I just came across an article whose code is supposedly GPL'd. Is this kosher?
Well, almost all non-GPL'ed code that I see around here has some form of copyright like 'binary distribution ok, source distribution not', or 'contact author if you want to use code' or something like that. At least GPL'ing code will make sure that nobody goes off selling your hard work (which was written to educate others) as their own. It's ridiculous (as suggested by another poster) to prohibit GPL code - it should be encouraged!
-
I was under the impression that code on CP was intended to be free for any usage.. or rather, that CP is supposed to be a place where programmers freel yshare their code and knowledge. I just came across an article whose code is supposedly GPL'd. Is this kosher?
Personally I don't care if the code is GPL if the article is good. I rather do my own implementation anyway, I just want some quick info on things to watch out for (and keywords to lookup in the docs). On the other hand, I haven't read the article submission rules, I guess they tell you what's ok and what's not. "was wir auch tun, wohin wir gehen die illuminaten sind im system sie kontrollieren überall und 23 ist ihre zahl!" 23, welle: erdball
-
If I were Chris, I would remove all GPL stuff from Code Project. CP is about sharing code and ideas among professionals - not about fulfilling somebody's sick political ideas - and GPL is exactly that.
Nemanja Trifunovic wrote: sick political ideas WTF? Please elaborate.
Bruce Duncan, CP#9088, CPUA 0xA1EE, Sonork 100.10030
Blackadder: Baldrick, have you no idea what irony is?
Baldrick: Yeah, it's like goldy and bronzy only it's made of iron. -
Well, almost all non-GPL'ed code that I see around here has some form of copyright like 'binary distribution ok, source distribution not', or 'contact author if you want to use code' or something like that. At least GPL'ing code will make sure that nobody goes off selling your hard work (which was written to educate others) as their own. It's ridiculous (as suggested by another poster) to prohibit GPL code - it should be encouraged!
What is the point of sharing ideas and code on CP if you are going to restrict how I can use it? Besides the point is mute, whatever licence you put on your code - somebody will always ignore it and do what they want. Lets face it, you are probably never going to see my source-code and I'm not likely to see yours. So how would I know if you'd used my restricted licence code or if I'd used yours. IMO - Open-source is a good thing, GPL is a bad thing. Michael He who knows when he can fight and when he cannot will be victorious - Sun Tzu (The Art of War)
-
Well, almost all non-GPL'ed code that I see around here has some form of copyright like 'binary distribution ok, source distribution not', or 'contact author if you want to use code' or something like that. At least GPL'ing code will make sure that nobody goes off selling your hard work (which was written to educate others) as their own. It's ridiculous (as suggested by another poster) to prohibit GPL code - it should be encouraged!
This is a quote from the GPL (http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl.html[^]): "This General Public License does not permit incorporating your program into proprietary programs." Isn't that what CodeProject is all about? - giving parts of a program that can be included in other programs. The GPL just contradicts the purpose of the site! If a library is released under the GPL, then any program that uses it must also be released under the GPL. IMO, this is unacceptable for most commercial software. If I've misread the GPL, please let me know, but I don't think I have Ryan He who laughs last thinks too slowly.
-
Personally I don't care if the code is GPL if the article is good. I rather do my own implementation anyway, I just want some quick info on things to watch out for (and keywords to lookup in the docs). On the other hand, I haven't read the article submission rules, I guess they tell you what's ok and what's not. "was wir auch tun, wohin wir gehen die illuminaten sind im system sie kontrollieren überall und 23 ist ihre zahl!" 23, welle: erdball
That's all great and stuff, but what if the article is something you really want to know, but is written poorly? Or what if it's a great article, but it's something like Chris M's grid control - far too big to write just from the article, it's taken a long time to get right. It defeats the purpose of the site. In both of these situations, if the code is GPL'd, then the article may as well not be there. In which case, why submit it in the first place?? Ryan He who laughs last thinks too slowly.
-
I was under the impression that code on CP was intended to be free for any usage.. or rather, that CP is supposed to be a place where programmers freel yshare their code and knowledge. I just came across an article whose code is supposedly GPL'd. Is this kosher?
I think people are getting confused between the GPL and LGPL licenses. The GPL does not allow people to include the code inside other programs, unless the other program is also released under the GPL (must distribute full source code etc...). This is not much use for commercial programs The LGPL does allow this, and is the one that (I think) should be used for code libraries, unless the author specifically does not want it to be used in commercial software, in which case, why are they submitting it to a site for professional developers? I hope this clarifies some confusion or perhaps it creates more... :) Ryan He who laughs last thinks too slowly.
-
Nemanja Trifunovic wrote: sick political ideas WTF? Please elaborate.
Bruce Duncan, CP#9088, CPUA 0xA1EE, Sonork 100.10030
Blackadder: Baldrick, have you no idea what irony is?
Baldrick: Yeah, it's like goldy and bronzy only it's made of iron.GPL beleives that no proprietary code should be legal. ""
-
there aren't just one but quite a few of them. I guess this is totally up to the authors themselves. Afterall, they are the author of the article. But frankly speaking, some TOO COMMON stuffs do not deserve a GPL for sure. Degrading the level of GPL. Imagine Linux OS source code a GPL but some...:wtf:
Anthony_Yio wrote: Imagine Linux OS source code a GPL but some... Isn't linux GPL? Which if you read the license and the explaination of what they interpret linking to be (any usage of any functions compiled into your code or used at runtime by your code is linking) which means that any software that runs on linux is also GPL. Which is one reason I will not touch linux. It if fine for a university but no business would want to touch it. ""
-
I think people are getting confused between the GPL and LGPL licenses. The GPL does not allow people to include the code inside other programs, unless the other program is also released under the GPL (must distribute full source code etc...). This is not much use for commercial programs The LGPL does allow this, and is the one that (I think) should be used for code libraries, unless the author specifically does not want it to be used in commercial software, in which case, why are they submitting it to a site for professional developers? I hope this clarifies some confusion or perhaps it creates more... :) Ryan He who laughs last thinks too slowly.
Ryan Binns wrote: I hope this clarifies some confusion Well it is a start. The confusion comes from how many license there are and how many developers have actually sat down with a lawyer and gone through what they mean (it is educational and (egad) Lawyers are good for something.) The Approved Licenses by the Open Source Organization[^] The legal definition of "Link" and "Distribution" are probably more open than most developers understand. ""
-
What is the point of sharing ideas and code on CP if you are going to restrict how I can use it? Besides the point is mute, whatever licence you put on your code - somebody will always ignore it and do what they want. Lets face it, you are probably never going to see my source-code and I'm not likely to see yours. So how would I know if you'd used my restricted licence code or if I'd used yours. IMO - Open-source is a good thing, GPL is a bad thing. Michael He who knows when he can fight and when he cannot will be victorious - Sun Tzu (The Art of War)
Very little of the code on CP is free to do whatever you want with it. That being said, it would still be good for people to use LGPL on their submitted things, which does allow inclusion into a proprietary application. At least it's a real, lawyer-written licence - better than the random stuff that people seem to be putting in their headers.
-
That's all great and stuff, but what if the article is something you really want to know, but is written poorly? Or what if it's a great article, but it's something like Chris M's grid control - far too big to write just from the article, it's taken a long time to get right. It defeats the purpose of the site. In both of these situations, if the code is GPL'd, then the article may as well not be there. In which case, why submit it in the first place?? Ryan He who laughs last thinks too slowly.
-
In both of these situations, if the code is GPL'd, then the article may as well not be there.
Has it ever occurred to you that there may be people who use code from articles with GPL code in GPL applications?Of course. I do apologise for not pointing that out. I was merely responding to the previous post, unfortunately I generalised a bit. However, I'd be fairly certain that most people who use code from these articles are not writing GPL applications. I hope it didn't offend too much :~ Ryan He who laughs last thinks too slowly.
-
Anthony_Yio wrote: Imagine Linux OS source code a GPL but some... Isn't linux GPL? Which if you read the license and the explaination of what they interpret linking to be (any usage of any functions compiled into your code or used at runtime by your code is linking) which means that any software that runs on linux is also GPL. Which is one reason I will not touch linux. It if fine for a university but no business would want to touch it. ""
Michael A. Barnhart wrote: Which if you read the license and the explaination of what they interpret linking to be (any usage of any functions compiled into your code or used at runtime by your code is linking) which means that any software that runs on linux is also GPL Where did you get that idea? Sounds like BS to me.
-
That's all great and stuff, but what if the article is something you really want to know, but is written poorly? Or what if it's a great article, but it's something like Chris M's grid control - far too big to write just from the article, it's taken a long time to get right. It defeats the purpose of the site. In both of these situations, if the code is GPL'd, then the article may as well not be there. In which case, why submit it in the first place?? Ryan He who laughs last thinks too slowly.
A poor article usually indicates that the person responsible for it isn't that bright and might have missed important things when researching the subject. Therefor I'm inclined to continue to look for another source of information. Concerning case #2, well written large projects/components, then I agree totally with you. (With the exception of writing a GPL application which another post pointed out.) "was wir auch tun, wohin wir gehen die illuminaten sind im system sie kontrollieren überall und 23 ist ihre zahl!" 23, welle: erdball
-
GPL beleives that no proprietary code should be legal. ""
GPL doesn't believe anything. Stallman might ;) -- Shine, enlighten me - shine Shine, awaken me - shine Shine for all your suffering - shine
-
This is a quote from the GPL (http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl.html[^]): "This General Public License does not permit incorporating your program into proprietary programs." Isn't that what CodeProject is all about? - giving parts of a program that can be included in other programs. The GPL just contradicts the purpose of the site! If a library is released under the GPL, then any program that uses it must also be released under the GPL. IMO, this is unacceptable for most commercial software. If I've misread the GPL, please let me know, but I don't think I have Ryan He who laughs last thinks too slowly.
Ryan Binns wrote: If a library is released under the GPL, then any program that uses it must also be released under the GPL. IMO, this is unacceptable for most commercial software. And this is exactly the reason why LGPL was born. :) -- Shine, enlighten me - shine Shine, awaken me - shine Shine for all your suffering - shine