Potatohead's excellent post summarises very well why GPL is both necessary and desirable.
Heater's (also excellent, but much more pragmatic) post summarizes why there is no real conflict between GPL and other licenses - each one is just appropriate for different circumstances - and all can work in the developers favor if you choose the right one in the right circumstances.
The best way to think of GPL is as just another tool in a software developer's arsenal for achieveing better outcomes.
Hippy's argument is a little more problematic. While it seems reasonable, it assumes two things (1) that altruism simply doesn't exist, and that others won't rally round and run with an idea in the absence of a profit motive. Okay - I'm cynical enough to believe that this could be true - but even in the absence of pure altruism, people will still do it purely for the kudos they will attract thereby. It also assumes that (2) there isn't a single clever bastard out there capable of figuring out a way to make money out an idea that is essentially free. On this one, my cynicism again comes to the rescue and says that if people can figure out how make a living selling bottled water at $20 per litre in the same countries where the source product is freely available everywhere, then they can figure out how to make money out of an essentially "free" piece of software. Or, to return to Hippy's medical analogy - if a pharmaceutical company can figure out how to make people buy their non-patentable drugs at $10 per packet when the generic equivalent costs $1 and sits right next to it on the same shelf, then I don't think we need to worry about the same companies not jumping on a GPL'd cure for cancer - they will do so with $$$$ signs lighting up their eyes.
Ross.
▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔
Catalina - a FREE C compiler for the Propeller - see Catalina
Pollution of ideas and methods is not the issue. Copyright and licenses don't cover ideas and methods, that's the job of patents. Pollution is desirable.
GPL'd code can be freely reinterpreted into MIT'd or non-disclosure and vice-versa. Just don't cut'paste.
Well Hippy, don't look then. I totally see that reasoning, I just don't adhere to it. It's easy enough to prove original work, so I prefer to just do that instead. The people that write the checks may well think otherwise, and there is little one can do about that, but to carve out and be aggressive about their personal time and works, which I strongly recommend, no matter what it is you do in life.
That has little bearing on the merits of GPL code however.
Heater has it right too. Closed can be totally worth it, and I don't think anybody has standing to deny others an opportunity. The only check on that I can see is the reality of open being litigated away should it become marginalized. We really won't like closed only, and that warrants contributions that will insure open continues to exist as the check it is.
Truth is, the way code works means only a nice fraction of people need to contribute, and or a majority contribute some of the time for it all to work just fine. There are plenty of ways to employ open code for profit, and those interested in doing that will easily pay to have contributions made that favor them. The use value equation is excellent here in that most of the time, for most uses, people get more out than they put in. This makes for an excellent competitor, that is permissive in terms of it's politics. A majority mind share simply isn't needed for it all to work just fine. Additionally, there is absolutely no penalty for users who simply leverage the use value without contributing anything at all! Nobody cares, as the political value of that alone is worth it, above and beyond the simple truth of it not being a loss to those that did contribute. I think that's damn cool, and there is very little in this world that works like that. Sign me up, where it makes sense!
I find it very interesting to see the dynamic flipped on the closed side. Not only does it require a majority to maintain, but it also requires considerable time and effort politically as well, coupled with clear opportunity costs for those who use without contributing back dollars for use value. Heh...
Maybe those types should be thankful those of us who grok open are nice people overall [noparse]:)[/noparse]
We have an accumulated and shared body of knowledge floating around in the human race. We have a shared culture of music, literature, music etc. Pretty much anything you think or do is built on the the thoughts and works of the generations that have have gone before and of the society you live in. Most of what you "think" actually does not make any sense without the rest of the human race being present and sharing in the process. Starting from the very language you use in your mind to have those thoughts. Whether it be a natural human language, mathematics, or a computer software language etc.
Can reading GPLed code result in you accidentally creating a derived work in your latest closed creation? Yes of course it can. Is that bad? Well in my mind it is no worse that the fact that most music you here is clearly a derived work of lots that when before and/or is around at the time. You know, there wasn't just one progressive rock band, or one psychedelic hippy band, or one punk band, or one heavy metal band add, going back to the first guys who ever stretched an animal skin and started banging on it. Same story in literature and the arts etc.
Everything feeds off everything else all the time.
This crazy situation we find ourselves in now where major corporations want to lock up our culture for there own profit is repugnant.
Hippy, may or may not be right that altruism simply doesn't exist, and that others won't rally round and run with an idea in the absence of a profit motive.
The point of my post was that even if you are solely driven by profit and self interest it may well be beneficial for you to act in a way that appears altruistic from the outside. It all depends on if you are smart enough to realize that "profit" does not just mean "money in the bank".
So for example: Creating or contributing to a GPLed project may well be a selfish act on my part. I do it because I reckon on others also contributing, fixing, improving that thing. I get a better program in less time than if I tried to do it myself.
▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔
For me, the past is not over yet.
heater said...
Can reading GPLed code result in you accidentally creating a derived work in your latest closed creation? Yes of course it can. Is that bad?
Yes, if that then means the code cannot be released under the licensing terms which were intended. The same goes for code intended to be MIT licensed as well as closed source.
heater said...
Everything feeds off everything else all the time.
And copyright protection with licensing of any restrictive form, GPL or closed, seeks to prevent and limit that except where the terms of license are complied with.
I don't really follow the logic of your music analogy. True, everything does build on everything else that has gone before, and some components of things are effectively placed in the public domain, but take someone else's riff into your own music and you can be hauled into court for infringement; ask George Harrison as just one example.
heater said...
This crazy situation we find ourselves in now where major corporations want to lock up our culture for there own profit is repugnant.
GPL equally seeks to lock people into its own culture, albeit for different motives. Infringements of GPL are / can be pursued just as vigorously as infringements of closed source. That's the nature and point of all restrictive licensing; preventing others from using a work other than how the copyright holder desires it to be used.
The concept of copyright and protection of works has existed for three centuries. That you feel that protecting ones work to further ones profits is repugnant is yours to make but it is a long established principle. You obviously accept the principle of such protection, reserving rights, but don't agree with a particular reason for doing that.
Lets put aside the technicalities of the law in all it's nightmarish details for a moment and look at what humans actually do.
Music is a good example of part of that. As time goes by musical forms come and go. We had a rock'n'roll era, a glam rock era, a punk era and so on. There are genres that persist through time, blues, jazz, techno whatever. This has been going on since that guy banging on the first stretched animal skin I mentioned.
A disinterested alien looking at all of this activity might conclude that us humans are busy copying each other as best we can all the time.
Well "copying" maybe putting it to strongly, put we are certainly greatly influenced by what others are doing around us. We see there is a fine line between "copying" and "inspired" or "imitated". For sure there are a lot of riffs and musical phrases that are common within a given musical style. Normally no one worries about that. You must have heard many tunes that sound vaguely familiar because they have some common features of what you have heard before.
Back to the law. We naturally don't like people copying what we have done, perhaps passing it off as their own, perhaps benefiting from it when we are not. We despise that guy in school who never does his home work but scrounges a copy to hand in at the last moment. Eventually we have all that enshrined in law.
Problem is the law now has to distinguish between "influence", "imitation" and down right "copying" That is the part where we now have the big debate, where to draw the lines. The fact that George Harrison had this problem is as absurd as me copying "while(1)" out of some GPLed code.
I did not say "protecting ones work to further ones profits is repugnant ". Read again what I did say. That my culture and everything I think turns out to be "owned" by large global corporations, either through copyright or patent is repugnant. The protections these guys get now is totally out of balance with the general good of society.
Yes "The concept of copyright and protection of works has existed for three centuries" but that's not to say they have always been working well. I could go off on a story now about the history of the steam engine and how patents slowed the progress of it's adoption for many decades. Another time.
▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔
For me, the past is not over yet.
evanh said...
You guys are stuck on patents still. Which has nothing to do with any licenses at all.
Not sure who "you guys" is, but I'm talking about copyrighted works, licensing such work, and infringements of such licensing.
Original published work is protected by copyright, originating authors or copyright holder of such a work has the right to dictate whatever licensing conditions they wish, the right to pursue infringements of such licenses. Whether they succeed in that or not is up to the courts and what the law in their jurisdiction says.
If it weren't so there'd be no purpose to copyright.
IMHO, this all comes down to the term of protection, and how that is related to relevancy.
In music, all the themes have been done for example. If you are a romantic, for example, appreciating the art comes down to how those are done in terms of style and execution, not whether or not the theme is new. Been there done that. For a more precise thing, like a riff, which is an element used to convey a greater theme, it's safe to say many of the meaningful ones have been done, leaving creative use of those that have not as the opportunity space where artists work in to create new things.
The longer the term, the less space there is for a competing riff to be realized. The scale is only so big, and only has so many combinations... The shorter the term, the larger that space is, and the more creative works are possible.
Where relevancy is concerned, the higher a particular work is in terms of relevancy, the more value it has generally speaking. Terms impact that too, as the profit is best at high relevancy, diminishing over time.
The idea of copyright protection is to make sure that profit can be realized, for a time, so that culture in general is not impacted. IMHO, terms are too long, covering works long past their peak earning potential, and because of that, the space or material they are created from is meagre enough to impact the overall advancement of culture.
That is what people mean when they talk about "owning culture", and I really don't favor that ownership to the degree we are currently seeing occur, largely because it has solidified our culture enough to notice the lack of progress. At least I notice that, maybe the majority of people don't, or like it solidified.
Where I'm going with this and computer code is three fold for me. One is the preservation of the "right to read", in that it really must be possible in the law for people to learn by direct examination and manupulation. If you can't open it, you don't own it kind of thing.
A robust body of open code being available nicely handles that case, while supporting a different one, and that is trust. Computers do what they are told to do, and they do so without regard to any of the human, people elements in play for us. Just machines. As machines become increasingly pervasive in our lives, that code can act as law does, and we've no appeal. Secondly, as complexity grows, it's not always possible to understand what is being done, and where that is true, exploitation will occur. That is not a good scenario. If one is in a situation were a very high degree of trust is necessary, open code gets us there, and that's just necessary to have as an option for people, particularly those living under oppressive governments and such.
Finally, it's about innovation in general, and this is where patents come into play more than copyright does. Copyright is the foundation of licensing, as patents are as well. With copyright, it's all about that particular work. One can learn from that work and realize their own without violating copyright. With a patent, it's about all works in that vein, meaning one can learn, but still be denied the right to use. With physical things, patent protection is a great thing. With information things, I believe it's a mistake.
What if EOR had been patented? What would that have done to innovation early in the time of computing? I suspect a whole lot of non-innovation would have occurred.
Long copyright terms are kind of good for software, but bad for other works, like movies, music, etc... However one sees this, it's not such a large problem that can'be be lived with. Software can be rewritten, and there is a lot in life that has nothing to do with music, movies, books. Again, I think the terms are too long, and fighting over a riff with terms as long as they are is silly, and mutually less productive for all involved.
On a personal note, I am actually offended by the very long terms. Take Disney for example. They got started from the works of the Brothers Grimm. At the time, terms were short enough to allow works with fairly high relevancy to be used to make new, compelling works. Disney leveraged this to start their empire. So far so good. That is how it should be.
The offensive part is now that Disney is an empire, they don't want to give back the same way the Brothers Grimm did! Mickey Mouse should be Public Domain now, as Betty Boop currently is. Each time that occurs, Disney has gone to legislators asking for term extensions and has been granted them. Today, terms are so long that it's very highly likely nobody alive today will experience the kind of culture transition Disney brought us, because no work will enter the Public Domain for that to occur, resulting in a more static, owned, solidified culture. IMHO, that's to our mutual loss, and a crime.
The analogy with patents then would be clear. We have expanded the scope of patents to cover business processes and software. The product of that will be less innovation in both areas. If terms on patents were expanded, our technical innovation culture will suffer the same fate as our media culture has, resulting in a more static society as a whole.
Patents on software are a mistake. Leave that to the domain of copyright. I'm of mixed opinion on the same for business processes... Probably a mistake too.
Long software copyright terms are probably just as bad for us as they are for media, but I can't say for sure as the body of open code continues to grow nicely despite these things. Perhaps those longer terms encourage open code so that people can leverage the much higher use value and be productive. Long copyright terms probably help open code grow. So maybe that's a wash.
Heater, damn good points...
I would argue that, unless one makes a contrived effort to copy, the statement "while(1)" is like using a word that is appropriate within a larger original body of words is in a story, inspired by another. In other words, a legal test for intent needs to be part of the infringement. It should never be proven on the basis of having seen GPL code alone, or we risk law exceeding it's practical scope, bogged down in minutiae. I forget the legal term for that, but there is one that contains the latin "minimus", and it translates to "too minor to be a consideration". That's where "while(1)" would reside, ideally.
If there is a case for spending some fraction of our time on political advocacy, it would be on these matters. More aggressive law favors the closed over the open, and the closed really needs the most aggressive law it can, as it competes at a disadvantage in terms of use value. Open code suffers no penalty for users simply using it with no contributions in return, where closed code clearly does. This will drive more and more aggressive law to the point of doing harm.
I submit the current worry over looking at a GPL project as being de facto evidence of said harm already upon us.
BTW: We've addressed the steam engine problem in more recent times with compulsory RAND licensing. A good thing all around for key enabling technologies, IMHO. The patent protection insures the innovator is rewarded for their work, but innovation is not unduly hobbled. That will be the way things go for computer code, unless patent reform is successful here in the US, or development will simply move to where patents do not exist.
I have mentioned patents as a growing potential problem, and perhaps that's where "stuck on patents" comes from. I mention them for comparison and contrast to copyright type protection, largely to illustrate the problem is larger than it seems, and growing potentially, at least here in the US, where patents are allowed for software.
On the Disney example. To circle back around to computer code, it's obvious the innovators we see today are trying to do exactly what Disney did. Get established in a niche where innovation is open, then once established, turn and protect that from future competetors, not giving back to that which empowered them to grow big in the first place. That's repugnant on all counts from where I stand.
The root problem is primarily that there is no universal law which defines in absolute terms what will be protected and what is infringing, what is derivative and what is not, except at the higher levels which don't help with specifics which is what all cases will rest upon. There is case law but it's not entirely consistent and decision can and have gone different ways in different cases and in different countries. It's therefore very hard to say what will and will not amount to an infringement. That's why commercial are so scared pantless of GPL lest they are found guilty of infringement which others may see as non infringing. They just cannot afford to take that chance. No amount of theorising will be provable one way or the other unless tested in court. Simply saying this how it will be, how it should be, is no guarantee that it is. In a litigious society that can be a very dangerous chance to take.
Secondly there is no entirely socially accepted rationale as to what copyright intent should be. Closed and GPL are extreme polar opposites; closed seeks to protect from disclosure, GPL seeks to protect from non-disclosure. Both assert protection should exist but disagree on who that should favour, and both seek to exclude the other. Some authors favour one over the other, some see both as equally bad in their own way, some don't care who benefits or how, only that there is benefit. Proponents of both GPL and closed will disagree on that as it is against both of their stances. It's a three way triangle with no agreement.
This has perhaps turned largely into a debate on the merits of GPL versus closed licensing to the exclusion of unrestricted licensing, a 'my restrictive license is better than your restrictive license' argument. It is however really a three corner fight with each corner having legitimate arguments in its favour and against, but don't forget that third corner.
I was quite happy to exercise a bit laissez faire with those who adopt that the stance that if they are working as developers in "closed source" shops they should go along with what the company says and not read any GPLed source code. After all what do a care what they get up to?
But I have realized a very serious problem with this:
It basically means that all those those developers in all those shops who follow along with that policy can ONLY ever develop code to run on closed operating systems, basically Windows nowadays, or on systems with "closed friendly" licensing.
The reason for that should be clear: If you use open source software, say use Linux as your dev system, even if you intend to use binary only packages you will find yourself wanting to fix bugs in or improve said systems. You will end up with the source code in your shop. Just ask BradC about his experience while creating BST for Windows, Mac and Linux.
The result of this "thou shalt not read" rule then is to help continue the ongoing monopoly situation of a certain OS provider. It helps to ensure that software, even closed commercial programs, are not available to me. It helps to ensure the world wide dependence on a single supplier for it's computing infrastructure.
As such it has moved on from the distasteful, stupid idea that I don't really care about to something that directly effects my well being.
May the source be with you [noparse]:)[/noparse]
▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔
For me, the past is not over yet.
You are quite right about there being no absolutes. Really, there are only legal tests, because intent isn't something we can just define. It requires consideration and judgement. That's just as good as it ever gets. So there is just going to be risk, and a decision as to whether or not it's worth carrying. I've no problem with all of that, and how people manage that risk, up to and including not looking at code for fear of that risk.
I personally would be more scared of the growing body of software patents than I would being called an infringer for looking at a GPL project.
On the matter of copyright protection, the number one problem with that lack of definition is poor discussion, ie the term theft used instead of infringement, and the number two is that being leveraged by media companies to favor their point of view, which is endless protection for all practical purposes. It's not a very good debate right now, and the product of that is a lousy operating environment.
As for there never being any agreement licensing wise, 100 percent correct! There never, ever will be as the closed -vs- open matter is a fundamental one. It's about more than disclosure on the GPL side though. Being able to see the code is a core enabling thing. What we get for it is all about use rights, and those are about freedom and trust. It's also about that use value equation, where people get more use value out than they generally put in.
I would take issue with GPL code seeking to exclude closed code. That's not the case at all, as I've shown multiple scenarios where GPL code is actually made practical in tandem with closed code licenses. I know that many who advocate for GPL don't like the implications of multiple licenses. What is going on is to insure that open code exists and that nobody can work to diminish the use value established by all the contributors. This goal for always growing use value is no different from the closed people always growing profit. Each is a worthy goal. It is completely possible to grow both, and I hope I made that point clear.
The "don't look crowd" is not looking for their own issues, not that GPL is toxic in any way. It's not, and I think I met that burden. If you've no intent to infringe, there should be no fear of infringing. It's not like there are a ton of companies, or individuals out there just trolling for some minor technical infringement, looking to rip whole projects open. That's laughable, and it does not occur.
It's also worth nothing that the rights holder can issue a license to continue closed work, just as I did for the company that flat out did infringe. They had a clown working for them, so it was easy to get sorted.
Finally, does anyone consider the infringing code could simply be removed? This happens in a lot of cases that have seen GPL challenges. Send out a patch, and life is good. The either or black and white scenario is a FUD one.
If there is fear, consider the patent trolls, patenting obvious things where there is art, then hammering on companies anyway. I would fear that way more than accidentally infringing to force a project open.
Those things said, FUD is a powerful thing, and that company is the king of it. The only check on that is ongoing, regular, and steady improvement of the state of discourse surrounding these things, which was my point early on, and remains my point now.
I've often heard this thing about negotiating for a closed licence with the authors of an otherwise GPLed program. I'm sure this is possible many times. But also many time the author will not do that on idealogical grounds (the enlightened self interest I talked about earlier) or it is just not possible because there may be tens or hundred of contributors to that code who would all have to agree.
▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔
For me, the past is not over yet.
heater said...
I've often heard this thing about negotiating for a closed licence with the authors of an otherwise GPLed program. I'm sure this is possible many times. But also many time the author will not do that on idealogical grounds (the enlightened self interest I talked about earlier) or it is just not possible because there may be tens or hundred of contributors to that code who would all have to agree.
That's the nature of commerce - you find way. Run with the license offered, negotiate a new one, or start over with your own code, after all, the ideas and methods aren't patented so you are still free to compete.
evanh said...
You guys are stuck on patents still. Which has nothing to do with any licenses at all.
Not sure who "you guys" is, but I'm talking about copyrighted works, licensing such work, and infringements of such licensing.
Your main concern appears to be fear of ideas "polluting" from GPL'd code rather than actual copyright violations. So, yes, you were the one I was mainly aiming that comment at. Heater was just responding to you.
Heater: Yes, it can get complicated, and that is their choice. One of the things I've observed in all things business is the entity making more of the right decisions competes better. Perhaps over time looking hard at ideological decisions might happen more to compete better.
evanh said...
Your main concern appears to be fear of ideas "polluting" from GPL'd code rather than actual copyright violations.
There's a complexity to making an idea and the implementation of it divisible ( probably not the correct legal phrase there ), but I was meaning copyright infringements. Maybe the difference of view or interpretation stems from our individual perceptions of relevant law, cases and enforcement in our own territory; I'm more familiar with European and UK interpretations ( though not up to date ).
There are serious concerns expressed by legal experts that GPLv2 because of its dependence on use of US copyright terminology. The same license may be interpreted differently in one jurisdiction and in another. In particular America and other jurisdictions are not in exact agreement on a definition of "derivative work". From a European perspective ( "Say what you mean, and mean what you say" ) the need to comply with licensed use of a GPL program "or any part" is explicitly clear in what it says and requires.
Hence what some may see as, "that will be okay, go ahead and do it, as long as it isn't cut and paste, that won't create a derivative work or infringement" may not hold true outside of America.
Interesting observation Hippy. Also interesting is the very significant amount of OSS development outside the US, because we have software patents, and some other rather draconian law to contend with.
I agree with their assessment of GPL V2, BTW. This was a significant discussion in Linux land as V3 contains the onerous patent revocation clause, as in, if you patent something that impacts a GPL work, you no longer have license to that work. (or something like that, and I'm not where I want to read through the thing again to parse it out better) IMHO, that's a purely political tit-for-tat clause that doesn't need to be the way it is, where the V2 is just older and less relevant, but not showing deliberate intent to hose things up.
Ideologically, that one element makes a ton of sense, but it's brutal otherwise. I'm a "lets get along kind of guy", who would rather cut deals and empower people, and it's an obstacle.
Still, I buy the idea, and I buy the politics. Open is necessary, and until we realize something better, it's the primary growth of open code.
Thanks for the Register article, I had missed that one, usually going there for BOFH stories.
I wonder what the EU law legal tests are? Those are where the rubber hits the road. I know the US ones pretty well. That's gonna be on my, when I can't do much else, reading list for sure.
Copenhaven says we should focus not on whether something is derivative, but on what is considered a separate and independent work.
Agreed on that too. Where possible to establish this, it's far more solid. Again, the "don't look" position is understandable. I don't like it, and personally don't have to contend with it, but completely understand those that do.
So then, another thing can be concluded. In terms of code collaboration, learning, re-use, etc... MIT is a much "safer" license. However, that safety comes at the cost of control. Once something is MIT, or something similar, it's out there, can be innovated on and closed again. That's a risk too. Just a different one.
If that's the only points I make; namely, the control issue, and open being a necessary thing, then I'm happy over all.
Great thread too, BTW. I have enjoyed hearing the different perspectives and have had a lot to think about on some rather long, ugly projects I'm stuck with. Happy distraction here.
I think all the licenses have legitimacy in that what they seek to achieve have validity of
goal - whether one agrees with particular goals is a personal matter ( 'the politics' ).
I cannot see anyway to satisfy GPL and closed users simultaneously so feel it is better to
not dissatisfy either in the possibility of usage.
potatohead said...
So then, another thing can be concluded. In terms of code collaboration, learning,
re-use, etc... MIT is a much "safer" license. However, that safety comes at the cost of
control. Once something is MIT, or something similar, it's out there, can be innovated
on and closed again. That's a risk too. Just a different one.
Absolutely agree. It's a risk I am prepared to take in my favouring MIT.
My belief is that it is a maximally open license in that anyone can do anything with the
code and good luck to them furthering things in whatever way they wish. It's in their
hands to decide how to do so and I won't dictate any conditions to affect their choice.
What I gain in loss of control is in furthering future gains. The biggest risk I see is
that having produced something it achieves nothing, and if that's because of licensing
I've brought that on myself, done a disservice to everyone.
That's a something is better than nothing attitude. Plus, if someone creates a derivative
work then close sources that, anyone else can go back to the original and work from
there. That original cannot be closed and it's the original work which is what I produce
with intent to be useful. How it becomes useful is less important than that it is.
Putting knowledge out there is the service, dictating how it's used is the politics. While
my personal politics is largely in alignment with GPL, anti-corporation, anti-capitalist,
I cannot hand on heart say everything I disagree with is entirely wrong, the current
implementation may be, the principles not so easy to say so in a world which is based
on needing income. In a different world we probably wouldn't even have the issue.
I therefore release 'knowledge' to be as best useful as it can be, not conditional on
trying to influence the world of the future ( 'politics' ). Thus I prefer MIT as against
GPL and other restrictive licensing ( and yes, that's 'politics' in its own way ).
potatohead said...
Once something is MIT, or something similar, it's out there, can be innovated on and closed again. That's a risk too. Just a different one.
Just to expand on hippy's comment, I don't regard this as a risk, per-se.· If you don't want to allow closed source distributions or derivations then you need to use a different license.· The Object Exchange is based on the MIT license precisely to allow closed source commercial code to be developed using the contents of the Object Exchange.· My NTSC240H sprite driver has a non-MIT non-GPL license precisely because I wanted attribution if someone were to use my code in a commercial closed-source product, but I didn't want to prevent it from being used in that way.· However, that means I cannot place it in the ObEx unless I relicense it.
▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔
Composite NTSC sprite driver: Forum
NTSC & PAL driver templates: ObExForum
OnePinTVText driver: ObExForum
IMHO, this is a simple matter of perspective. I actually think we agree more than not on core things.
Really, that comment was from the perspective of our other thread. Should Parallax open some code? In that scenario, the MIT carries risk as noted above. GPL also carries risk, but of a different kind. Given that scenario, I would prefer the GPL, leaving multiple licensing on the table for revenue and control reasons. I think that kind of sparked this thread, and so here we are.
...in a world needing income. True that Hippy.
Eric, I agree with that licensing decision, regarding that project. I'm eager to make another go around with that technique. And thanks for posting it. I've learned a ton from it.
The biggest risk I see is
that having produced something it achieves nothing, and if that's because of licensing
I've brought that on myself, done a disservice to everyone
Case in point, my first 8x8 drivers, reinterpreted by you to get something useful; namely, AiGeneric. Learned why MIT matters in this space on that one, and some of the products of that thinking have appeared on this thread. Thanks for that, BTW.
Comments
Potatohead's excellent post summarises very well why GPL is both necessary and desirable.
Heater's (also excellent, but much more pragmatic) post summarizes why there is no real conflict between GPL and other licenses - each one is just appropriate for different circumstances - and all can work in the developers favor if you choose the right one in the right circumstances.
The best way to think of GPL is as just another tool in a software developer's arsenal for achieveing better outcomes.
Hippy's argument is a little more problematic. While it seems reasonable, it assumes two things (1) that altruism simply doesn't exist, and that others won't rally round and run with an idea in the absence of a profit motive. Okay - I'm cynical enough to believe that this could be true - but even in the absence of pure altruism, people will still do it purely for the kudos they will attract thereby. It also assumes that (2) there isn't a single clever bastard out there capable of figuring out a way to make money out an idea that is essentially free. On this one, my cynicism again comes to the rescue and says that if people can figure out how make a living selling bottled water at $20 per litre in the same countries where the source product is freely available everywhere, then they can figure out how to make money out of an essentially "free" piece of software. Or, to return to Hippy's medical analogy - if a pharmaceutical company can figure out how to make people buy their non-patentable drugs at $10 per packet when the generic equivalent costs $1 and sits right next to it on the same shelf, then I don't think we need to worry about the same companies not jumping on a GPL'd cure for cancer - they will do so with $$$$ signs lighting up their eyes.
Ross.
▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔
Catalina - a FREE C compiler for the Propeller - see Catalina
GPL'd code can be freely reinterpreted into MIT'd or non-disclosure and vice-versa. Just don't cut'paste.
That has little bearing on the merits of GPL code however.
Heater has it right too. Closed can be totally worth it, and I don't think anybody has standing to deny others an opportunity. The only check on that I can see is the reality of open being litigated away should it become marginalized. We really won't like closed only, and that warrants contributions that will insure open continues to exist as the check it is.
Truth is, the way code works means only a nice fraction of people need to contribute, and or a majority contribute some of the time for it all to work just fine. There are plenty of ways to employ open code for profit, and those interested in doing that will easily pay to have contributions made that favor them. The use value equation is excellent here in that most of the time, for most uses, people get more out than they put in. This makes for an excellent competitor, that is permissive in terms of it's politics. A majority mind share simply isn't needed for it all to work just fine. Additionally, there is absolutely no penalty for users who simply leverage the use value without contributing anything at all! Nobody cares, as the political value of that alone is worth it, above and beyond the simple truth of it not being a loss to those that did contribute. I think that's damn cool, and there is very little in this world that works like that. Sign me up, where it makes sense!
I find it very interesting to see the dynamic flipped on the closed side. Not only does it require a majority to maintain, but it also requires considerable time and effort politically as well, coupled with clear opportunity costs for those who use without contributing back dollars for use value. Heh...
Maybe those types should be thankful those of us who grok open are nice people overall [noparse]:)[/noparse]
Cheers!
▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔
Propeller Wiki: Share the coolness!
Chat in real time with other Propellerheads on IRC #propeller @ freenode.net
Safety Tip: Life is as good as YOU think it is!
Post Edited (potatohead) : 12/17/2009 5:47:25 AM GMT
We have an accumulated and shared body of knowledge floating around in the human race. We have a shared culture of music, literature, music etc. Pretty much anything you think or do is built on the the thoughts and works of the generations that have have gone before and of the society you live in. Most of what you "think" actually does not make any sense without the rest of the human race being present and sharing in the process. Starting from the very language you use in your mind to have those thoughts. Whether it be a natural human language, mathematics, or a computer software language etc.
Can reading GPLed code result in you accidentally creating a derived work in your latest closed creation? Yes of course it can. Is that bad? Well in my mind it is no worse that the fact that most music you here is clearly a derived work of lots that when before and/or is around at the time. You know, there wasn't just one progressive rock band, or one psychedelic hippy band, or one punk band, or one heavy metal band add, going back to the first guys who ever stretched an animal skin and started banging on it. Same story in literature and the arts etc.
Everything feeds off everything else all the time.
This crazy situation we find ourselves in now where major corporations want to lock up our culture for there own profit is repugnant.
Hippy, may or may not be right that altruism simply doesn't exist, and that others won't rally round and run with an idea in the absence of a profit motive.
The point of my post was that even if you are solely driven by profit and self interest it may well be beneficial for you to act in a way that appears altruistic from the outside. It all depends on if you are smart enough to realize that "profit" does not just mean "money in the bank".
So for example: Creating or contributing to a GPLed project may well be a selfish act on my part. I do it because I reckon on others also contributing, fixing, improving that thing. I get a better program in less time than if I tried to do it myself.
▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔
For me, the past is not over yet.
And copyright protection with licensing of any restrictive form, GPL or closed, seeks to prevent and limit that except where the terms of license are complied with.
I don't really follow the logic of your music analogy. True, everything does build on everything else that has gone before, and some components of things are effectively placed in the public domain, but take someone else's riff into your own music and you can be hauled into court for infringement; ask George Harrison as just one example.
GPL equally seeks to lock people into its own culture, albeit for different motives. Infringements of GPL are / can be pursued just as vigorously as infringements of closed source. That's the nature and point of all restrictive licensing; preventing others from using a work other than how the copyright holder desires it to be used.
The concept of copyright and protection of works has existed for three centuries. That you feel that protecting ones work to further ones profits is repugnant is yours to make but it is a long established principle. You obviously accept the principle of such protection, reserving rights, but don't agree with a particular reason for doing that.
Music is a good example of part of that. As time goes by musical forms come and go. We had a rock'n'roll era, a glam rock era, a punk era and so on. There are genres that persist through time, blues, jazz, techno whatever. This has been going on since that guy banging on the first stretched animal skin I mentioned.
A disinterested alien looking at all of this activity might conclude that us humans are busy copying each other as best we can all the time.
Well "copying" maybe putting it to strongly, put we are certainly greatly influenced by what others are doing around us. We see there is a fine line between "copying" and "inspired" or "imitated". For sure there are a lot of riffs and musical phrases that are common within a given musical style. Normally no one worries about that. You must have heard many tunes that sound vaguely familiar because they have some common features of what you have heard before.
Back to the law. We naturally don't like people copying what we have done, perhaps passing it off as their own, perhaps benefiting from it when we are not. We despise that guy in school who never does his home work but scrounges a copy to hand in at the last moment. Eventually we have all that enshrined in law.
Problem is the law now has to distinguish between "influence", "imitation" and down right "copying" That is the part where we now have the big debate, where to draw the lines. The fact that George Harrison had this problem is as absurd as me copying "while(1)" out of some GPLed code.
I did not say "protecting ones work to further ones profits is repugnant ". Read again what I did say. That my culture and everything I think turns out to be "owned" by large global corporations, either through copyright or patent is repugnant. The protections these guys get now is totally out of balance with the general good of society.
Yes "The concept of copyright and protection of works has existed for three centuries" but that's not to say they have always been working well. I could go off on a story now about the history of the steam engine and how patents slowed the progress of it's adoption for many decades. Another time.
▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔
For me, the past is not over yet.
Original published work is protected by copyright, originating authors or copyright holder of such a work has the right to dictate whatever licensing conditions they wish, the right to pursue infringements of such licenses. Whether they succeed in that or not is up to the courts and what the law in their jurisdiction says.
If it weren't so there'd be no purpose to copyright.
In music, all the themes have been done for example. If you are a romantic, for example, appreciating the art comes down to how those are done in terms of style and execution, not whether or not the theme is new. Been there done that. For a more precise thing, like a riff, which is an element used to convey a greater theme, it's safe to say many of the meaningful ones have been done, leaving creative use of those that have not as the opportunity space where artists work in to create new things.
The longer the term, the less space there is for a competing riff to be realized. The scale is only so big, and only has so many combinations... The shorter the term, the larger that space is, and the more creative works are possible.
Where relevancy is concerned, the higher a particular work is in terms of relevancy, the more value it has generally speaking. Terms impact that too, as the profit is best at high relevancy, diminishing over time.
The idea of copyright protection is to make sure that profit can be realized, for a time, so that culture in general is not impacted. IMHO, terms are too long, covering works long past their peak earning potential, and because of that, the space or material they are created from is meagre enough to impact the overall advancement of culture.
That is what people mean when they talk about "owning culture", and I really don't favor that ownership to the degree we are currently seeing occur, largely because it has solidified our culture enough to notice the lack of progress. At least I notice that, maybe the majority of people don't, or like it solidified.
Where I'm going with this and computer code is three fold for me. One is the preservation of the "right to read", in that it really must be possible in the law for people to learn by direct examination and manupulation. If you can't open it, you don't own it kind of thing.
A robust body of open code being available nicely handles that case, while supporting a different one, and that is trust. Computers do what they are told to do, and they do so without regard to any of the human, people elements in play for us. Just machines. As machines become increasingly pervasive in our lives, that code can act as law does, and we've no appeal. Secondly, as complexity grows, it's not always possible to understand what is being done, and where that is true, exploitation will occur. That is not a good scenario. If one is in a situation were a very high degree of trust is necessary, open code gets us there, and that's just necessary to have as an option for people, particularly those living under oppressive governments and such.
Finally, it's about innovation in general, and this is where patents come into play more than copyright does. Copyright is the foundation of licensing, as patents are as well. With copyright, it's all about that particular work. One can learn from that work and realize their own without violating copyright. With a patent, it's about all works in that vein, meaning one can learn, but still be denied the right to use. With physical things, patent protection is a great thing. With information things, I believe it's a mistake.
What if EOR had been patented? What would that have done to innovation early in the time of computing? I suspect a whole lot of non-innovation would have occurred.
Long copyright terms are kind of good for software, but bad for other works, like movies, music, etc... However one sees this, it's not such a large problem that can'be be lived with. Software can be rewritten, and there is a lot in life that has nothing to do with music, movies, books. Again, I think the terms are too long, and fighting over a riff with terms as long as they are is silly, and mutually less productive for all involved.
On a personal note, I am actually offended by the very long terms. Take Disney for example. They got started from the works of the Brothers Grimm. At the time, terms were short enough to allow works with fairly high relevancy to be used to make new, compelling works. Disney leveraged this to start their empire. So far so good. That is how it should be.
The offensive part is now that Disney is an empire, they don't want to give back the same way the Brothers Grimm did! Mickey Mouse should be Public Domain now, as Betty Boop currently is. Each time that occurs, Disney has gone to legislators asking for term extensions and has been granted them. Today, terms are so long that it's very highly likely nobody alive today will experience the kind of culture transition Disney brought us, because no work will enter the Public Domain for that to occur, resulting in a more static, owned, solidified culture. IMHO, that's to our mutual loss, and a crime.
The analogy with patents then would be clear. We have expanded the scope of patents to cover business processes and software. The product of that will be less innovation in both areas. If terms on patents were expanded, our technical innovation culture will suffer the same fate as our media culture has, resulting in a more static society as a whole.
Patents on software are a mistake. Leave that to the domain of copyright. I'm of mixed opinion on the same for business processes... Probably a mistake too.
Long software copyright terms are probably just as bad for us as they are for media, but I can't say for sure as the body of open code continues to grow nicely despite these things. Perhaps those longer terms encourage open code so that people can leverage the much higher use value and be productive. Long copyright terms probably help open code grow. So maybe that's a wash.
Heater, damn good points...
I would argue that, unless one makes a contrived effort to copy, the statement "while(1)" is like using a word that is appropriate within a larger original body of words is in a story, inspired by another. In other words, a legal test for intent needs to be part of the infringement. It should never be proven on the basis of having seen GPL code alone, or we risk law exceeding it's practical scope, bogged down in minutiae. I forget the legal term for that, but there is one that contains the latin "minimus", and it translates to "too minor to be a consideration". That's where "while(1)" would reside, ideally.
If there is a case for spending some fraction of our time on political advocacy, it would be on these matters. More aggressive law favors the closed over the open, and the closed really needs the most aggressive law it can, as it competes at a disadvantage in terms of use value. Open code suffers no penalty for users simply using it with no contributions in return, where closed code clearly does. This will drive more and more aggressive law to the point of doing harm.
I submit the current worry over looking at a GPL project as being de facto evidence of said harm already upon us.
▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔
Propeller Wiki: Share the coolness!
Chat in real time with other Propellerheads on IRC #propeller @ freenode.net
Safety Tip: Life is as good as YOU think it is!
I have mentioned patents as a growing potential problem, and perhaps that's where "stuck on patents" comes from. I mention them for comparison and contrast to copyright type protection, largely to illustrate the problem is larger than it seems, and growing potentially, at least here in the US, where patents are allowed for software.
On the Disney example. To circle back around to computer code, it's obvious the innovators we see today are trying to do exactly what Disney did. Get established in a niche where innovation is open, then once established, turn and protect that from future competetors, not giving back to that which empowered them to grow big in the first place. That's repugnant on all counts from where I stand.
▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔
Propeller Wiki: Share the coolness!
Chat in real time with other Propellerheads on IRC #propeller @ freenode.net
Safety Tip: Life is as good as YOU think it is!
Post Edited (potatohead) : 12/17/2009 4:50:43 PM GMT
Secondly there is no entirely socially accepted rationale as to what copyright intent should be. Closed and GPL are extreme polar opposites; closed seeks to protect from disclosure, GPL seeks to protect from non-disclosure. Both assert protection should exist but disagree on who that should favour, and both seek to exclude the other. Some authors favour one over the other, some see both as equally bad in their own way, some don't care who benefits or how, only that there is benefit. Proponents of both GPL and closed will disagree on that as it is against both of their stances. It's a three way triangle with no agreement.
This has perhaps turned largely into a debate on the merits of GPL versus closed licensing to the exclusion of unrestricted licensing, a 'my restrictive license is better than your restrictive license' argument. It is however really a three corner fight with each corner having legitimate arguments in its favour and against, but don't forget that third corner.
But I have realized a very serious problem with this:
It basically means that all those those developers in all those shops who follow along with that policy can ONLY ever develop code to run on closed operating systems, basically Windows nowadays, or on systems with "closed friendly" licensing.
The reason for that should be clear: If you use open source software, say use Linux as your dev system, even if you intend to use binary only packages you will find yourself wanting to fix bugs in or improve said systems. You will end up with the source code in your shop. Just ask BradC about his experience while creating BST for Windows, Mac and Linux.
The result of this "thou shalt not read" rule then is to help continue the ongoing monopoly situation of a certain OS provider. It helps to ensure that software, even closed commercial programs, are not available to me. It helps to ensure the world wide dependence on a single supplier for it's computing infrastructure.
As such it has moved on from the distasteful, stupid idea that I don't really care about to something that directly effects my well being.
May the source be with you [noparse]:)[/noparse]
▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔
For me, the past is not over yet.
I personally would be more scared of the growing body of software patents than I would being called an infringer for looking at a GPL project.
On the matter of copyright protection, the number one problem with that lack of definition is poor discussion, ie the term theft used instead of infringement, and the number two is that being leveraged by media companies to favor their point of view, which is endless protection for all practical purposes. It's not a very good debate right now, and the product of that is a lousy operating environment.
As for there never being any agreement licensing wise, 100 percent correct! There never, ever will be as the closed -vs- open matter is a fundamental one. It's about more than disclosure on the GPL side though. Being able to see the code is a core enabling thing. What we get for it is all about use rights, and those are about freedom and trust. It's also about that use value equation, where people get more use value out than they generally put in.
I would take issue with GPL code seeking to exclude closed code. That's not the case at all, as I've shown multiple scenarios where GPL code is actually made practical in tandem with closed code licenses. I know that many who advocate for GPL don't like the implications of multiple licenses. What is going on is to insure that open code exists and that nobody can work to diminish the use value established by all the contributors. This goal for always growing use value is no different from the closed people always growing profit. Each is a worthy goal. It is completely possible to grow both, and I hope I made that point clear.
▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔
Propeller Wiki: Share the coolness!
Chat in real time with other Propellerheads on IRC #propeller @ freenode.net
Safety Tip: Life is as good as YOU think it is!
The "don't look crowd" is not looking for their own issues, not that GPL is toxic in any way. It's not, and I think I met that burden. If you've no intent to infringe, there should be no fear of infringing. It's not like there are a ton of companies, or individuals out there just trolling for some minor technical infringement, looking to rip whole projects open. That's laughable, and it does not occur.
It's also worth nothing that the rights holder can issue a license to continue closed work, just as I did for the company that flat out did infringe. They had a clown working for them, so it was easy to get sorted.
Finally, does anyone consider the infringing code could simply be removed? This happens in a lot of cases that have seen GPL challenges. Send out a patch, and life is good. The either or black and white scenario is a FUD one.
If there is fear, consider the patent trolls, patenting obvious things where there is art, then hammering on companies anyway. I would fear that way more than accidentally infringing to force a project open.
Those things said, FUD is a powerful thing, and that company is the king of it. The only check on that is ongoing, regular, and steady improvement of the state of discourse surrounding these things, which was my point early on, and remains my point now.
▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔
Propeller Wiki: Share the coolness!
Chat in real time with other Propellerheads on IRC #propeller @ freenode.net
Safety Tip: Life is as good as YOU think it is!
▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔
For me, the past is not over yet.
Heater: Yes, it can get complicated, and that is their choice. One of the things I've observed in all things business is the entity making more of the right decisions competes better. Perhaps over time looking hard at ideological decisions might happen more to compete better.
▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔
Propeller Wiki: Share the coolness!
Chat in real time with other Propellerheads on IRC #propeller @ freenode.net
Safety Tip: Life is as good as YOU think it is!
There are serious concerns expressed by legal experts that GPLv2 because of its dependence on use of US copyright terminology. The same license may be interpreted differently in one jurisdiction and in another. In particular America and other jurisdictions are not in exact agreement on a definition of "derivative work". From a European perspective ( "Say what you mean, and mean what you say" ) the need to comply with licensed use of a GPL program "or any part" is explicitly clear in what it says and requires.
www.theregister.co.uk/2009/10/15/black_duck_gpl_web_conference_copenhaver_radcliffe/
Hence what some may see as, "that will be okay, go ahead and do it, as long as it isn't cut and paste, that won't create a derivative work or infringement" may not hold true outside of America.
I agree with their assessment of GPL V2, BTW. This was a significant discussion in Linux land as V3 contains the onerous patent revocation clause, as in, if you patent something that impacts a GPL work, you no longer have license to that work. (or something like that, and I'm not where I want to read through the thing again to parse it out better) IMHO, that's a purely political tit-for-tat clause that doesn't need to be the way it is, where the V2 is just older and less relevant, but not showing deliberate intent to hose things up.
Ideologically, that one element makes a ton of sense, but it's brutal otherwise. I'm a "lets get along kind of guy", who would rather cut deals and empower people, and it's an obstacle.
Still, I buy the idea, and I buy the politics. Open is necessary, and until we realize something better, it's the primary growth of open code.
Thanks for the Register article, I had missed that one, usually going there for BOFH stories.
I wonder what the EU law legal tests are? Those are where the rubber hits the road. I know the US ones pretty well. That's gonna be on my, when I can't do much else, reading list for sure.
(code tag used to underscore code = law concept http://www.lessig.org)
Agreed on that too. Where possible to establish this, it's far more solid. Again, the "don't look" position is understandable. I don't like it, and personally don't have to contend with it, but completely understand those that do.
So then, another thing can be concluded. In terms of code collaboration, learning, re-use, etc... MIT is a much "safer" license. However, that safety comes at the cost of control. Once something is MIT, or something similar, it's out there, can be innovated on and closed again. That's a risk too. Just a different one.
If that's the only points I make; namely, the control issue, and open being a necessary thing, then I'm happy over all.
Great thread too, BTW. I have enjoyed hearing the different perspectives and have had a lot to think about on some rather long, ugly projects I'm stuck with. Happy distraction here.
▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔
Propeller Wiki: Share the coolness!
Chat in real time with other Propellerheads on IRC #propeller @ freenode.net
Safety Tip: Life is as good as YOU think it is!
Post Edited (potatohead) : 12/18/2009 4:44:01 AM GMT
We're off to a good start - what Hippy hasn't yet realized is that even just reading about GPL licenses is enough to get the virus into your blood.
Ross.
▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔
Catalina - a FREE C compiler for the Propeller - see Catalina
goal - whether one agrees with particular goals is a personal matter ( 'the politics' ).
I cannot see anyway to satisfy GPL and closed users simultaneously so feel it is better to
not dissatisfy either in the possibility of usage.
Absolutely agree. It's a risk I am prepared to take in my favouring MIT.
My belief is that it is a maximally open license in that anyone can do anything with the
code and good luck to them furthering things in whatever way they wish. It's in their
hands to decide how to do so and I won't dictate any conditions to affect their choice.
What I gain in loss of control is in furthering future gains. The biggest risk I see is
that having produced something it achieves nothing, and if that's because of licensing
I've brought that on myself, done a disservice to everyone.
That's a something is better than nothing attitude. Plus, if someone creates a derivative
work then close sources that, anyone else can go back to the original and work from
there. That original cannot be closed and it's the original work which is what I produce
with intent to be useful. How it becomes useful is less important than that it is.
Putting knowledge out there is the service, dictating how it's used is the politics. While
my personal politics is largely in alignment with GPL, anti-corporation, anti-capitalist,
I cannot hand on heart say everything I disagree with is entirely wrong, the current
implementation may be, the principles not so easy to say so in a world which is based
on needing income. In a different world we probably wouldn't even have the issue.
I therefore release 'knowledge' to be as best useful as it can be, not conditional on
trying to influence the world of the future ( 'politics' ). Thus I prefer MIT as against
GPL and other restrictive licensing ( and yes, that's 'politics' in its own way ).
▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔
Composite NTSC sprite driver: Forum
NTSC & PAL driver templates: ObEx Forum
OnePinTVText driver: ObEx Forum
Really, that comment was from the perspective of our other thread. Should Parallax open some code? In that scenario, the MIT carries risk as noted above. GPL also carries risk, but of a different kind. Given that scenario, I would prefer the GPL, leaving multiple licensing on the table for revenue and control reasons. I think that kind of sparked this thread, and so here we are.
...in a world needing income. True that Hippy.
Eric, I agree with that licensing decision, regarding that project. I'm eager to make another go around with that technique. And thanks for posting it. I've learned a ton from it.
Case in point, my first 8x8 drivers, reinterpreted by you to get something useful; namely, AiGeneric. Learned why MIT matters in this space on that one, and some of the products of that thinking have appeared on this thread. Thanks for that, BTW.
▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔
Propeller Wiki: Share the coolness!
8x8 color 80 Column NTSC Text Object
Safety Tip: Life is as good as YOU think it is!
Post Edited (potatohead) : 12/18/2009 8:18:21 PM GMT
xkcd.com/225/
▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔
Powered by enthusiasm
▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔
Propeller Wiki: Share the coolness!
8x8 color 80 Column NTSC Text Object
Safety Tip: Life is as good as YOU think it is!