GPL code on CP?
-
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
-
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.
-
Heh I've got a skin as thick as an elephant :-D Nothing better for me on a friday than to argue GPL <-> LGPL <-> closed license :-D
:-D 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
yep :) 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
Stefan Pedersen wrote: 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. Point conceded ;), although I'll probably still look at the code. I find that looking at a number of sources (no matter how badly written) tends to make the process of writing the code easier. Ryan He who laughs last thinks too slowly.
-
GPL beleives that no proprietary code should be legal. ""
Not good enough. Can you supply a reference? I agree that that there are Open Source supporters that believe what you state (proprietary code = evil). I too think they are full of it.
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. -
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.
Shawn Horton wrote: Where did you get that idea? The interpretation of where this line of thought goes is yes mine. But the interpretation of what linking means comes from their lawyer, who is the one going to be leading the lawsuit against you. If you want more see if you can get transcriptions of the MySQL lawsuit. The comments come from that trial. Which although maybe different the statement of what linking means comes from the lawyers representing the Free Software Foundation. Shawn Horton wrote: Sounds like BS to me. Yes, I agree, many legal interpretations are. ""
-
GPL doesn't believe anything. Stallman might ;) -- Shine, enlighten me - shine Shine, awaken me - shine Shine for all your suffering - shine
Jörgen Sigvardsson wrote: GPL doesn't believe anything. OK, then their legal staff, then. See my reply to Shawn. ""
-
Not good enough. Can you supply a reference? I agree that that there are Open Source supporters that believe what you state (proprietary code = evil). I too think they are full of it.
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.Bruce Duncan wrote: Not good enough. Can you supply a reference? See my reply to Shawn. I do not have a web link. If you want more see if you can get transcriptions of the MySQL lawsuit. The comments come from that trial. Which although maybe different the statement of what linking means comes from the lawyers representing the Free Software Foundation. ""
-
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.
In reality LGPL is a very badly written, overly broad yet simultaneously horribly vague license that will rightly give your legal department fits, if they ever bothered to read it. Many of its claims, as those of the GPL, are legally questionable and have not been tested in court. For example, it contains absurdities like: "2. You may modify your copy or copies of the Library or any portion of it.... c) You must cause the whole of the work to be licensed at no charge to all third parties under the terms of this License." Other parts state that you are free to change the licensing requirements of your software to GPL but once you do so, you cannot change the licensing again (most legal scholars who've written on this agree that this is probably indefensible in court, but who can afford the time, hassles and money to go to court to prove this?) CP should probably simply require the ZLib license: http://opensource.org/licenses/zlib-license.php[^]
-
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?
Let me give you an example of an article I wrote[^] that includes GPL code: I contribute to a project that is GPL. You can like it or not, but I find CVS a useful program and I fixed some bugs in it that relate to some severe bugs in the way NTFS handles dates and times on files. I thought others would be interested in how I worked around the Microsoft bug, so I posted an article and illustrated it with a snippet from the CVS source. Because CVS is GPL and my code derives from the CVS code, I cannot remove GPL from the example code I posted unless I were to rewrite it completely. I was too lazy to do that, but still thought it would be useful for CP'ers. I would think that it would be useful for people to see HOW to work around the NTFS date/time bug and the code is sufficiently simple that it would be straightforward for others who want proprietary versions to roll their own interpretation of the ideas I present. If this article were pulled because of a ban on GPL, would you really find life easier without the explanation of how to work around the NTFS date/time bug? Jonathan Why couldn't Science, in the long run, serve As well as one's uncleared lunch-table or Mme X en Culottes de Matador? James Merrill