I think I owe Parallax, the forum and Bill Henning in particular a big apology.
You see, I was the first one to mention, in passing, the licence issue in Bill's B2BEE Xmas Present thread. I don't know if that was the trigger for the ensuing, shall we say "lively" debate, or not but it's there anyway. It was really only comment in passing and I did not imagine such a furor would erupt.
I do hope this is all put to rest now and we all get back to using our energies creatively.
Wow. Just noticed this thread, don't think I would have read it except saw Ken's name on it.
I think this is a noble effort that will free the forum users from having to worry about licencing issues.
Hope you can find a way to make new users and people who didn't notice this thread aware of the new rules.
I saw the first discussion and avoided it, but I could tell by the reply rate that it was a hot topic. I have no problem with the new rules as I always viewed posting code in a public forum as releasing it into the wild. I often copy and paste code from the forum together into a complete project. When I do that I make a habit of putting everyone's names in the posted code. Besides being polite, it makes it seem like I collaborate with an illustrious crowd! :^)
Just a thought (don't know if it is a good one or not...) on how to do this cleanly...
Maybe it's a good time to start a new Prop2 thread with this new license requirement.
Maybe make a new Prop1 thread or just leave this one without the license requirement.
Well, we have the GPL to help lower Microsoft costs, which I believe would be more onerous today, if it were the large body of GPL code and other open type code we can run to do lots of things. It's not perfect, but there are really viable options for people in most cases. It's best given how things are structured that we don't really begrudge the Microsoft model, just compete with it, keep 'em fairly honest and get through with as few hassles as we can.
As for all software being open, etc... There are some kinds of software that model wouldn't bring to us right now. Lots of reasons for that, most are economic and political. Advanced mechanical CAD software is one example of this where the geometry kernels have so many bazillions of man hours in them it would take a "Star Trek" type society to produce without the strong incentive proprietary software can bring to the table.
However that goes, the good news is a lot of the stuff we really like to do is open. There is a lot of freedom out there for those that seek it today. I can live with that.
... I often copy and paste code from the forum together into a complete project. When I do that I make a habit of putting everyone's names in the posted code. Besides being polite, it makes it seem like I collaborate with an illustrious crowd! :^)
At the top of my main Spin file I like to list the authors of all the 'pieces' I have used. Including listing the authors of the supporting Spin files (fsrw, fullDuplexSerial4Port, etc), or code from the Forum. Nobody ever really sees my code, but it seems the right thing to do. And I've thought on more than one occasion that the list sometimes looks like the box containing all the names of the contributors when Photoshop opens. Looks like I'm working with a large development team!
Thank you for taking a fair and balanced approach on this. (Something I've come to count on from Parallax.) It's also pleasing to see most of those who were welding Nerf bats toss them down for a group hug. Time to pop open my MP3 Christmas albums for the occasion. While alot of own code is thanks to MIT examples posted by folks like Mike Green and other coding superheros, I would like to also state that anything I've posted/attached to the forums in the past may be considered MIT and used anywhere / by anyone who finds it useful.
Edit: Holy Smile! Just noticed I passed the 7,000 mark.. Time to shut up..
Honestly, if it were up to me, all software would be completely free of any license, patent, or restrictions. Software is just not that hard or even that innovative. Without the hardware giving it life, software is nothing.
Roy, you're kidding, right? Yes, you need hardware for software to run, but without software the hardware is useless. The system I work on in my day job has over 1 million lines of code. We have 10 times as many software engineers as we do hardware engineers. It cost millions of dollars per year for us to develop and maintain software. Why would we want to give that away for free?
I submit you can't actually give it away. It won't get funded, which means it won't ever exist. Open code happens and gets funded by returns to contributors and use value that exceeds the contribution value. Software is funny that way being one of the few things that really can be more valuable than it's individual labors would otherwise indicate.
Some are beginning to say that software is more valuable than oil. Intriguing thought actually.
A lot of this dynamic comes down to the audience and the supporting hardware. Where the hardware is more generally applicable, open software tends to exist for it as the audience and software function applicability tends to be broad enough to make the use value high enough for individuals to realize, contribute and maintain. Where either of those things isn't true, say niche hardware, or smaller audiences, the solution itself still has value, but the initial investment to realize it exceeds the threshold where an open effort can succeed, and so one generally doesn't until such time as that niche grows, if it grows at all.
Some exceptions are government and or academic niche software. NASA developed a lot of software, some crude by today's standards, but very useful in any case. Taxes funded that, and the product of it was made available to the public at large. Academic efforts get funded through school activities, and much of that ends up public as well.
At any given time, there are new niches opening all over the place where materials science, math, engineering, physics, manufacturing, visualization, gaming, and all manner of disciplines combine to present solution possibilities that may not align with open software dynamics. Unless we find a way to fund those that makes sense, closed efforts can and will bring them to market where those that can best employ them pay to do so, all parties getting a nice return, assuming the value of the software / hardware solution is real.
BTW: Ideology on this can significantly impact just doing business and or making a living. Politics in all it's forms is a contact sport. Where we individually have means, we are more free to express our politics through speech, how we do business, live our lives. Where we don't, risks and implications are high and potentially life changing or really harmful. In short, we must all sort out the idealized way we find most resonant with who we are politically and ideologically and that need to pay the bills, live a reasonable life, raise a family and perhaps follow a dream.
Each of you will interpret that differently, as intended. Never let the perfect be the enemy of the good intent you have to show your peers through your life, labors, love, etc...
An example from how I find it best to play it:
I value open code, GPL, MIT, etc... I value open content too, Creative Commons. Where those make sense, I both contribute and use without reservations. However, I also work with others, pay the bills, the usual we all face, right? Right now that means I run Windows systems mostly because there is a common resonance between the closed software I deal with often and the open stuff I am always seeking to grow. The economies there bring me time to work with the Propeller and grow in that way, where if I were to invest more time in "open only", which I did for a fair spell with Linux, much of that time gets consumed, for me a net loss.
When viewed in that light, the dollars Microsoft wants are reasonable and the returns exceed those dollars. Equitable, and should that change, there is open code there to check and balance that, giving me options. I'm not a fan, and would much rather just not do it that way, but then again, I kind of want and need stuff, need time to play, etc... too. Choices. Because of that, I can hardly fault where my peers play it differently. It's highly likely they must, no worries beyond that.
Should things change, opportunities present themselves, I'll shift, move and adapt that balance to optimal without reservations too, because there is more in life than ideology.
So, that's one balance. Mine actually. When it make sense to run an open system, I enjoy it very much and do. In some cases, this works professionally too, and those skills have proven quite valuable. More margins back to me, not Microsoft, for example. All good, but also not all universal. These things are not mutually exclusive, put simply. Get after it, get it done, do good, build, grow, play, do, love, laugh, and enjoy the ride! Basic priorities there, if you ask me.
Each of us must sort that out and get through best we can priorities firmly in mind. So don't let this stuff get in the way. It's important, but not a means to some greater end.
Hi Dave I am kidding: how many lines of code has the holy bible? Or the constitution. If software is open there is no need for 10 times the number of software engineers and we would reach more. ;-) ErNa
The Holy Bible contains about 790,000 words in 31,000 verses. I think this works out to less than 100,000 lines.
If my company's software was open we could not make a profit, and there would be no need for software engineers, or hardware engineers because the company would go out of business.
Parallax's business is different. They make money selling chips and boards. It makes sense to provide software for free to promote the sale of their products.
I have read over this thread a couple times, and this was the first time that I caught this:
to idbruce for his role as the "loyal opposition"
And of course it made me smile and chuckle a little, because it is true that I am a staunch supporter of intellectual property rights and laws. I must admit that losing my debate had a little sting for me, however I do understand Parallax's reason and purpose for enacting such a policy, and I sincerely hope that it will end up helping Parallax, instead of hurting them.
Even though I may not always agree with some of you, the policies that have been enacted, or policies that may be enacted in the future, I truly consider Parallax forums to be an important part of my life. In order to remain in the commune, I suppose I must conform
In an effort to solidify my commitment, I offer up a suggestion to further protect the idea involved here. As mentioned in the other thread, copyright and contract law has a very wide scope. If I were to enact a similar a policy on any website, at the very minimum, I would at least include a very concise statement of this policy within the post submission script, which could be read before every post to the forum. This would help to eliminate any copyright or contract discrepancies and it would help protect Parallax and forum members from possible litigation.
It is just a suggestion of what I do to protect my business and valued forum members.
Bruce
EDIT: Or perhaps a statement within the post submission script similar to this:
"By making a post within the Parallax forums you acknowledge an agreement with the forum user policy."
When I said up there that I would have software be free, I wasn't clear. I meant free of patents or licenses. Obviously, I'm fine with companies developing software and selling it, it's my day job.
I have no issue paying for quality software. For example I had no problem paying for a personal edition of Rowley Crossworks and other development tools for the ARM. If Parallax put out a polished version of GCC equivalent to Rowley's for the P2, I'd pay for it.
I still miss the days of the old compiler shops like Borland and Watcom who provided nice, well documented tools that worked out of the box at a decent price and were beginner/hobbyist friendly.
I object to the idea that we need to read that every post. Adding the policy to the form people see when they request access to the forum, the license template page linked in the policy, and the sticky is enough.
There is no need to make this onerous.
Anyone who really has concerns knows to look and has experience prior to being here. The question, "what license?" comes up for anyone doing serious work and they know to deal with it prior to a code release, or aren't concerned about small bits here and there. Given that, they would simply ask, get pointed to the resources and welcomed here as anyone is, questions answered, etc... should they have not really read the terms initially. That's a long established norm for forums like this.
Others, who don't have that experience are not likely to be going around litigating, and wouldn't have a solid case basis established anyway.
Finally, if that really is the concern, than the issue should have been raised long ago with the former ambiguity here, red flags saying, "no license!!! beware!", and it was not.
..If I were to enact a similar a policy on any website, at the very minimum, I would at least include a very concise statement of this policy within the post submission script, which could be read before every post to the forum. This would help to eliminate any copyright or contract discrepancies and it would help protect Parallax and forum members from possible litigation.
Bruce
Ken, Others, we need to do what Bruce is suggesting here. Keep it simple. Something like:
"If posting any code or snippets to the Parallax forums, you agree to freely share them by implied compliance to the <MIT license (link)>.
[OK] [CANCEL]"
Or... Maybe not, as Potatohead argues. I don't know. Maybe we should just consult with a lawyer - or not.
@Bruce, my only interest is a good balance that doesn't dilute the value. On a code upload, like say for a package to OBEX, or attachment to the forum, maybe that makes great sense. For code pasted into the [code] tag, I don't think it does because it's a check box or step required to complete a post. Anyway, that's my .02 on it, and I'm all for anyone advocating their point of view. We get the best solution that way, no worries here.
Back in 2005 when apple opensourced osx (which is based on freebsd btw, not linux as so many seem to think) Ms had made the suggestion that perhaps it was time to opensource windows code. The open source community jumped all over ms for the suggestion, claiming that ms was just looking for cheap labor to fix all their bugs. I think that was the only time I've ever seen such a backlash against opensourcing anything. Unfortunately, ms has been the brunt of other such debates as well. At one point, ms had developed a screen reader to be incvluded with windows, but the vi community screamed so loud about ms putting all the screen reader manufacturers out of business, and holding a monopoly on screen reader technology for windows, that ms dropped the idea, and released an extremely crippled version that is now called narrator. However, apple performed the same thing, including voiceover in osx, and there has been very little outcry, so I guess it's all pov.
Roy, you're kidding, right? Yes, you need hardware for software to run, but without software the hardware is useless. The system I work on in my day job has over 1 million lines of code. We have 10 times as many software engineers as we do hardware engineers. It cost millions of dollars per year for us to develop and maintain software. Why would we want to give that away for free?
I would say it's more like 30 to 1 in my current project at Erics..... a telecom company. Even though the hardware is very complex with 4 different kinds of CPUs and more than 400 cores running in parallell. The software is even more complex with many millions rows of code and almost a thousand sofware developers.
Saying "Software is just not that hard or even that innovative" is like saying "A stone is not very heavy". Of course a standard Windows Application like Word "is not very heavy".
If it's stated in the terms and conditions when you register, then those rules are in effect when you post anything. Since this is a change, then when folks log on the next time, the terms and conditions should be presented with the amendments and you agree or disagree.
Before you submit each post, should you be asked or reminded that your post should not contain profanity or be offensive (OK/CANCEL) - no, it was in the terms and conditions when you signed up. Should your car check the GPS location and match it with the speed limit for the road and remind you "The speed limit on this road is 45mph. (OK/CANCEL)"?
We're all adults (or mature younglings) and should have read the terms and conditions when we signed up. We can be responsible for our actions. Since they are changing, let us read them again and agree or disagree again.
If you wouldn't leave it unattended with a bunch of strangers don't leave it on the forum and if you do it or say it in your mother's parlor, don't do it or say it here. Common sense!
You know a great balance would be to do this on first code submission. If a post invokes the [code] tag, pop the dialog up for them to read, and the same for their first attached file. If done, I would simply reset the flag for all users, so they see it when they next contribute, then they know and don't need to see it over and over and over.
Scratch that. Just invoke it on the next contribution of any kind for everybody. Once they've seen it, they've seen it, and it doesn't trigger again. We are adults and don't need to see that every single day. All noise IMHO, no value add.
Should the policy need to change in the future, invoke it again, done.
Think of those "DONT COPY THIS DVD" FBI things we see way too much. Ugh.
Comments
You see, I was the first one to mention, in passing, the licence issue in Bill's B2BEE Xmas Present thread. I don't know if that was the trigger for the ensuing, shall we say "lively" debate, or not but it's there anyway. It was really only comment in passing and I did not imagine such a furor would erupt.
I do hope this is all put to rest now and we all get back to using our energies creatively.
I think this is a noble effort that will free the forum users from having to worry about licencing issues.
Hope you can find a way to make new users and people who didn't notice this thread aware of the new rules.
Double sigh.
Maybe it's a good time to start a new Prop2 thread with this new license requirement.
Maybe make a new Prop1 thread or just leave this one without the license requirement.
Well, we have the GPL to help lower Microsoft costs, which I believe would be more onerous today, if it were the large body of GPL code and other open type code we can run to do lots of things. It's not perfect, but there are really viable options for people in most cases. It's best given how things are structured that we don't really begrudge the Microsoft model, just compete with it, keep 'em fairly honest and get through with as few hassles as we can.
As for all software being open, etc... There are some kinds of software that model wouldn't bring to us right now. Lots of reasons for that, most are economic and political. Advanced mechanical CAD software is one example of this where the geometry kernels have so many bazillions of man hours in them it would take a "Star Trek" type society to produce without the strong incentive proprietary software can bring to the table.
However that goes, the good news is a lot of the stuff we really like to do is open. There is a lot of freedom out there for those that seek it today. I can live with that.
At the top of my main Spin file I like to list the authors of all the 'pieces' I have used. Including listing the authors of the supporting Spin files (fsrw, fullDuplexSerial4Port, etc), or code from the Forum. Nobody ever really sees my code, but it seems the right thing to do. And I've thought on more than one occasion that the list sometimes looks like the box containing all the names of the contributors when Photoshop opens. Looks like I'm working with a large development team!
Thank you for taking a fair and balanced approach on this. (Something I've come to count on from Parallax.) It's also pleasing to see most of those who were welding Nerf bats toss them down for a group hug. Time to pop open my MP3 Christmas albums for the occasion. While alot of own code is thanks to MIT examples posted by folks like Mike Green and other coding superheros, I would like to also state that anything I've posted/attached to the forums in the past may be considered MIT and used anywhere / by anyone who finds it useful.
Edit: Holy Smile! Just noticed I passed the 7,000 mark.. Time to shut up..
Jeff
Some are beginning to say that software is more valuable than oil. Intriguing thought actually.
A lot of this dynamic comes down to the audience and the supporting hardware. Where the hardware is more generally applicable, open software tends to exist for it as the audience and software function applicability tends to be broad enough to make the use value high enough for individuals to realize, contribute and maintain. Where either of those things isn't true, say niche hardware, or smaller audiences, the solution itself still has value, but the initial investment to realize it exceeds the threshold where an open effort can succeed, and so one generally doesn't until such time as that niche grows, if it grows at all.
Some exceptions are government and or academic niche software. NASA developed a lot of software, some crude by today's standards, but very useful in any case. Taxes funded that, and the product of it was made available to the public at large. Academic efforts get funded through school activities, and much of that ends up public as well.
At any given time, there are new niches opening all over the place where materials science, math, engineering, physics, manufacturing, visualization, gaming, and all manner of disciplines combine to present solution possibilities that may not align with open software dynamics. Unless we find a way to fund those that makes sense, closed efforts can and will bring them to market where those that can best employ them pay to do so, all parties getting a nice return, assuming the value of the software / hardware solution is real.
BTW: Ideology on this can significantly impact just doing business and or making a living. Politics in all it's forms is a contact sport. Where we individually have means, we are more free to express our politics through speech, how we do business, live our lives. Where we don't, risks and implications are high and potentially life changing or really harmful. In short, we must all sort out the idealized way we find most resonant with who we are politically and ideologically and that need to pay the bills, live a reasonable life, raise a family and perhaps follow a dream.
Each of you will interpret that differently, as intended. Never let the perfect be the enemy of the good intent you have to show your peers through your life, labors, love, etc...
An example from how I find it best to play it:
I value open code, GPL, MIT, etc... I value open content too, Creative Commons. Where those make sense, I both contribute and use without reservations. However, I also work with others, pay the bills, the usual we all face, right? Right now that means I run Windows systems mostly because there is a common resonance between the closed software I deal with often and the open stuff I am always seeking to grow. The economies there bring me time to work with the Propeller and grow in that way, where if I were to invest more time in "open only", which I did for a fair spell with Linux, much of that time gets consumed, for me a net loss.
When viewed in that light, the dollars Microsoft wants are reasonable and the returns exceed those dollars. Equitable, and should that change, there is open code there to check and balance that, giving me options. I'm not a fan, and would much rather just not do it that way, but then again, I kind of want and need stuff, need time to play, etc... too. Choices. Because of that, I can hardly fault where my peers play it differently. It's highly likely they must, no worries beyond that.
Should things change, opportunities present themselves, I'll shift, move and adapt that balance to optimal without reservations too, because there is more in life than ideology.
So, that's one balance. Mine actually. When it make sense to run an open system, I enjoy it very much and do. In some cases, this works professionally too, and those skills have proven quite valuable. More margins back to me, not Microsoft, for example. All good, but also not all universal. These things are not mutually exclusive, put simply. Get after it, get it done, do good, build, grow, play, do, love, laugh, and enjoy the ride! Basic priorities there, if you ask me.
Each of us must sort that out and get through best we can priorities firmly in mind. So don't let this stuff get in the way. It's important, but not a means to some greater end.
If my company's software was open we could not make a profit, and there would be no need for software engineers, or hardware engineers because the company would go out of business.
Parallax's business is different. They make money selling chips and boards. It makes sense to provide software for free to promote the sale of their products.
Even though I may not always agree with some of you, the policies that have been enacted, or policies that may be enacted in the future, I truly consider Parallax forums to be an important part of my life. In order to remain in the commune, I suppose I must conform
In an effort to solidify my commitment, I offer up a suggestion to further protect the idea involved here. As mentioned in the other thread, copyright and contract law has a very wide scope. If I were to enact a similar a policy on any website, at the very minimum, I would at least include a very concise statement of this policy within the post submission script, which could be read before every post to the forum. This would help to eliminate any copyright or contract discrepancies and it would help protect Parallax and forum members from possible litigation.
It is just a suggestion of what I do to protect my business and valued forum members.
Bruce
EDIT: Or perhaps a statement within the post submission script similar to this:
I still miss the days of the old compiler shops like Borland and Watcom who provided nice, well documented tools that worked out of the box at a decent price and were beginner/hobbyist friendly.
There is no need to make this onerous.
Anyone who really has concerns knows to look and has experience prior to being here. The question, "what license?" comes up for anyone doing serious work and they know to deal with it prior to a code release, or aren't concerned about small bits here and there. Given that, they would simply ask, get pointed to the resources and welcomed here as anyone is, questions answered, etc... should they have not really read the terms initially. That's a long established norm for forums like this.
Others, who don't have that experience are not likely to be going around litigating, and wouldn't have a solid case basis established anyway.
Finally, if that really is the concern, than the issue should have been raised long ago with the former ambiguity here, red flags saying, "no license!!! beware!", and it was not.
Ken, Others, we need to do what Bruce is suggesting here. Keep it simple. Something like:
"If posting any code or snippets to the Parallax forums, you agree to freely share them by implied compliance to the <MIT license (link)>.
[OK] [CANCEL]"
Or... Maybe not, as Potatohead argues. I don't know. Maybe we should just consult with a lawyer - or not.
@Bruce, my only interest is a good balance that doesn't dilute the value. On a code upload, like say for a package to OBEX, or attachment to the forum, maybe that makes great sense. For code pasted into the [code] tag, I don't think it does because it's a check box or step required to complete a post. Anyway, that's my .02 on it, and I'm all for anyone advocating their point of view. We get the best solution that way, no worries here.
I suggest this instead, because it covers all policies, including the post of MIT source code:
EDIT: As added protection to the proceeding statement, I would also include a hyperlink to the forum user policy.
That's good. That's probably what we should do.
How about something a little more calming: "All your code are belong to us."
I would say it's more like 30 to 1 in my current project at Erics..... a telecom company. Even though the hardware is very complex with 4 different kinds of CPUs and more than 400 cores running in parallell. The software is even more complex with many millions rows of code and almost a thousand sofware developers.
Saying "Software is just not that hard or even that innovative" is like saying "A stone is not very heavy". Of course a standard Windows Application like Word "is not very heavy".
/Johannes
Maybe just show this when a user logs in.
C.W.
LOL Actually that is not that far fetched. You should read some of the submission pages for ideas and inventions
If it's stated in the terms and conditions when you register, then those rules are in effect when you post anything. Since this is a change, then when folks log on the next time, the terms and conditions should be presented with the amendments and you agree or disagree.
Before you submit each post, should you be asked or reminded that your post should not contain profanity or be offensive (OK/CANCEL) - no, it was in the terms and conditions when you signed up. Should your car check the GPS location and match it with the speed limit for the road and remind you "The speed limit on this road is 45mph. (OK/CANCEL)"?
We're all adults (or mature younglings) and should have read the terms and conditions when we signed up. We can be responsible for our actions. Since they are changing, let us read them again and agree or disagree again.
If you wouldn't leave it unattended with a bunch of strangers don't leave it on the forum and if you do it or say it in your mother's parlor, don't do it or say it here. Common sense!
Scratch that. Just invoke it on the next contribution of any kind for everybody. Once they've seen it, they've seen it, and it doesn't trigger again. We are adults and don't need to see that every single day. All noise IMHO, no value add.
Should the policy need to change in the future, invoke it again, done.
Think of those "DONT COPY THIS DVD" FBI things we see way too much. Ugh.