Andrew Lentvorski wrote:
DJA wrote:
Incentive, maybe not. Isn't need motivation enough. Or do you need
some kind of "Attaboy!"?
No, because I *still* have all the hassles associated with it even if I
give some changes back to the GPL code. Then I get the joy of going
through this 2-3 years from now, again. I'll pass.
Then there's always the option digging your own potholes, one shovel at
a time ;-)
I wonder what the world of FOSS would be like today if everyone from
Stallman and Torvalds on down thought like that.
Given that they *started* their projects, the license was *as they wished*.
My point had nothing to do with licenses, it had to do with "I've got
nothing worth contributing, so I won't bother to give what I have.
Ironically, your own code eventually becomes abandonware itself.
It sounds not like the licenses are as much of a problem as that your
needs fall into a very niche category in which few are interested or
have have similar needs. Other than those who might very protective of
their work. How very ironic that FOSS software might stand more in
your way than the proprietary kind.
The unusual situation is that the algorithms for doing VLSI can be
*very* valuable. It is worth investing quite a bit of time to replace
GPL code in order to not have to reveal the VLSI algorithms.
I do understand that I am unusual.
Maybe I'm misunderstanding what you want. You want the benefit of
someone else's work, but you want it on your terms so you can
proprietize it, yet you complain that somehow it's someone else's fault
that they won't give you their better-than-yours code so that you can
profit from it? All because you don't/won't/can't do it yourself.
On the face of it, that's not so unreasonable. We all want someone else
to provide solutions for problems that we can't or won't, for whatever
reason, solve ourselves. And we want those solutions on the best
possible terms _for us_. But of course, the other side of the
transaction wants the same. There's the rub.
You've already developed code which works to some degree. Then release
it under the license of your choice. That /you/ don't think it's worth
releasing is irrelevant; the measure of its worth after its release
will be determined by the degree of its acceptance by the "World at
large".
In return for your generosity, you might get that code returned to you
with the features you want and more, as added by the FOSS community.
If not, well, then you're no worse off than before.
That's a bit of a simplisitic assessment.
It's a summation of a possible scenario, so yes it was put in simple
terms. I'm sure we're all capable of working out the details.
The problem is that released code forms part of your reputation. If the
world is large, and the people who would be using the code are mostly
anonymous, you can tell people: "Use it or not, I'm not supporting you."
and the consequences are small.
That's pretty common, although most of the FOSS project maintainers I've
corresponded with have been at least minimally helpful as long as I was
reasonable in my query.
With a field as small as VLSI design, that consequence is much larger.
That person you told "I'm not supporting you" may be your hiring manager
tomorrow. Not a good position to be in.
It's not a binary universe, why must there be only two choices? If your
hiring manager wants support for code you wrote - you give him support.
I have actually been in the
reverse--"Oh, *YOU* wrote that code! We've been using it for 3 years
without a hitch. Phenomenal."
It's not clear whether you think this a good or bad thing. Sounds like
quite a complement to me.
I still don't see the difference between abandoned GPL code and
maintained GPL code in your context. Unless you're merely wanting
someone else to do the heavy lifting.
It has to do with management. I have to provide the bug fixes,
You have to do that with any code you write.
test them,
Hopefully, that too.
put them in the code,
Ditto. Duh.
provide a place to store the code,
Your own doesn't go somewhere?
put the code online,
Not necessarily, there are options (See Sect. 3 or the GPL).
announce the new version, etc.
Who says? You only have to make your modifications /available/ to third
parties, and then only if you distribute publicly. There are no
requirements on maintaining status or version information outside the
code itself.
I effectively have to
maintain a public repository while I am using that code.
Yes you have to make your version of GPL code /available/ to third
parties. How you make it available is entirely up to you (per Section 3.
of the GPL). in that sense, /you/ are the repositor or /your/ changes,
if any.
Don't forget that you charge as damn much as you like for your binary
code and its support. There are only the somewhat vague restrictions on
what you can charge for the source (to cover your costs of distribution).
For an active project, I can file a bug report and patch and it will
become part of the next generation. Done.
For any code you write, you have to effectively file bug reports and
make patches, if only to yourself. The only additional burden on your
part is making your modifications available to third parties (if you
distribute).
In any case, you still can't use maintained GPL code in your proprietary
project any more easily than you can abandoned code. And most of the
same problems you enumerated earlier still exist.
Why not just buy what you need, negotiate a redistribution or run-time
license, and be done with it?
Quite often, we do. However, the authors often no longer exist or are
unreachable. With BSD this is a non-issue.
-a
What if the BSD code is not exactly what you want? You have to modify
it, document the changes, test it, and distribute it - albeit only to
paying customers. The only thing the BSD license gets you is not having
to make your source changes available. Oh, and you can proprietize it.
So you still have to do some or all of the heavy lifting yourself, GPL
or not.
--
Best Regards,
~DJA.
--
[email protected]
http://www.kernel-panic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/kplug-list
