Shop OBEX P1 Docs P2 Docs Learn Events
Propeller Open Source — Parallax Forums

Propeller Open Source

soshimososhimo Posts: 215
edited 2010-07-16 12:29 in Propeller 1
I see a lot of code sharing with propeller code. Is spin code open source or is it just the community sharing and giving back? If it is sharing, what are the licensing requirements for using something out of the object exchange in a commercial product? I'd hate to use a component "off the shelf" and have someone come back and sue for IP infringement or royalties.

Comments

  • heaterheater Posts: 3,370
    edited 2010-07-14 02:51
    All Object Exchange entries are MIT licensed so you have no worries there.

    Anything else you find depends on the author of course.

    Always check anyway.

    ▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔
    For me, the past is not over yet.
  • RossHRossH Posts: 5,519
    edited 2010-07-14 03:07
    @heater,

    I also thought it was supposed to be true, but I don't think it is actually enforced.

    As you say - you should always check the license.

    Ross.

    ▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔
    Catalina - a FREE C compiler for the Propeller - see Catalina
  • jazzedjazzed Posts: 11,803
    edited 2010-07-14 03:16
    If you don't follow the MIT license requirements for OBEX (omitting your name from the copyright for example), you may get an email from Jeff Martin [noparse]:)[/noparse]

    ▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔
    Propeller Pages: Propeller JVM
  • RossHRossH Posts: 5,519
    edited 2010-07-14 06:43
    @all,

    One reason I've never contributed anything to the OBEX is that I tend to like to release my code under the GPL, not the MIT license.

    Without getting into the pros and con's of the various licenses, does anybody think a GPL equivalent to the OBEX might be a good idea?

    Ross.

    ▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔
    Catalina - a FREE C compiler for the Propeller - see Catalina
  • Phil Pilgrim (PhiPi)Phil Pilgrim (PhiPi) Posts: 23,514
    edited 2010-07-14 07:06
    Ross,

    You have to understand Parallax's point of view with the OBEX. Their main objective is to get as much quality code into as many hands as possible, with as few strings attached as possible. The more they are able to accomplish this, the more Propeller chips they will be able to sell. The MIT license is a nearly perfect fit for such an objective; the GPL is not.

    I used to be a GPL advocate. The motives behind it seem pure enough: If I go to the trouble to write good code, then provide it for free, you'd better do the same if you use my code, and don't try to hide the fact. It seems fair. But, like most concepts borne of Utopian idealism, it comes up short pragmatically. Once you can cross that threshold of not caring whether someone profits from your code without sharing it -- or even disclosing the fact -- life becomes a little less stressful.

    That said, and as a supporter of Parallax's objectives, I would not encourage formation of an object exchange to compete with the OBEX for Prop coders' hearts and minds.

    -Phil
  • RossHRossH Posts: 5,519
    edited 2010-07-14 07:14
    @Phil,

    I understand. I wasn't proposing to compete with the OBEX, I was more thinking that Parallax might host a less official "alternative" to the OBEX - perhaps along the lines discussed in another thread where a "two tier" OBEX was proposed - one tier that is qualified by the forum (or Parallax) as worthy of promotion (and by implication, would be supported by either Parallax or the author if something were found to be faulty) and another tier for just generally useful stuff that is either not yet up to "tier 1" OBEX standard, or which doesn't comply with the MIT license (i.e. basically, use at your own risk!).

    Of course, that is partly what the various "useful thread" indices in these forums are for - but finding things in these forums is almost impossible. And even if you can find the right thread, it is not often easy to find the latest version of something.

    Just a thought.

    Ross.

    ▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔
    Catalina - a FREE C compiler for the Propeller - see Catalina
  • Phil Pilgrim (PhiPi)Phil Pilgrim (PhiPi) Posts: 23,514
    edited 2010-07-14 07:36
    My suggestion of a two-tiered OBEX was not meant to imply a relaxation of licensing requirements at the lower level but, rather, as an acknowledgement that some potential users have more stringent requirements than others when it comes to reliability and documentation; yet, at the same time, some potential contributors may feel to intimidated by those higher standards to contribute anything. It would be similar to major and minor league baseball. The standards of play might be different, but the contractual obligations of the players are the same. Promotion is based on performance, and the spectators (i.e. end-users) can watch games in whichever league they choose. I do not believe that Parallax would have any rational incentive to support an object exchange that doesn't require terms at least as liberal as those of the MIT license.

    -Phil

    Post Edited (Phil Pilgrim (PhiPi)) : 7/14/2010 7:41:38 AM GMT
  • wjsteelewjsteele Posts: 697
    edited 2010-07-15 13:48
    I personally have no intention of ever using GPL based products. I also have no problem giving back to the community, but when I'm developing a product to sell in a competitive landscape, I might not want to give up some of my propritary information or code. I have no problem building or expanding on objects for the OBEX and am happy to MIT license them, but there are certain things we can not disclose that anything GPL based would force us to. (Especially with the propeller compiler and the way it "links" the code, no true library calls here.)

    I see nothing wrong with the MIT based licensing, as it's much more free and open than GPL. The MIT license has only one restriction, which is to recognize the authors of the work.

    Bill
  • evanhevanh Posts: 16,159
    edited 2010-07-16 11:55
    Stop thinking motives and start thinking function. Why does something work or still get used?

    The purpose of the OBEX is a free for all, to support the sale of Props, where even credit is unlikely to be given beyond the OBEX itself.

    The purpose of GPL'd code is to build large intertwined projects that have many commercial/industrial consumers and contributors of the aggregate sources. GPL is very good for this purpose. And, yes, having a GPL repository for Prop code would be useful. This would be used in a different manner to the OBEX.
  • heaterheater Posts: 3,370
    edited 2010-07-16 12:29
    I think a GPLed OBEX would be a great idea. However I see no possible reason why Parallax would be interested in maintaining it or why they should be expected to. They need to sell silicon and that is encouraged by having a lot of sogtware for it that anyone can use for anything. Open or closed.

    If anything it's us users who should maintain such an OBEX. I don't know if any one is that enthusiastic. It's too much for me to think about.

    Actually I took a look in OBEX for the first time in a year a few days back and was wondering why it is so empty. What 400 or so objects. It does not seem to have grown much since my last visit.

    There have been so many interesting projects and ideas flowing through this forum but they don't seem to end up in OBEX. Where is the software defined radio? The spectrum anaylser ? Etc Etc.

    ▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔
    For me, the past is not over yet.
Sign In or Register to comment.