Commercial Software
Hi, I quote you from your page: http://www.freebsd.org/doc/en_US.ISO8859-1/articles/contributing/index.html Commercial entities engaged in FreeBSD-related enterprises are also encouraged to contact us. I am a software writer, my website is http://www.shankar-software.org I want to port my business software to other operating systems. Linux seemed the obvious first choice. After studying it for the past one month I am completely vexed by the gnu licenses covering their glibc libraries. It seems that if I want to port my software to linux, I have to write my own libc libraries (which is a highly time consuming effort) or not-object to giving my software under terms that almost strips me of all rights. Some of the frustrating aspects of the LGPL terms are: a) I must allow the end user to modify my work for their own use (should picasso allow the buyers of his paintings to alter it if it doesn't suit their taste?) b) I must allow reverse engineering for debugging even if source is not provided. (should or would an artist allow his artwork to be corrected by his customers?) I want to port my software to the freebsd os. Now my question to you are these. 1) Can I keep my software closed source, proprietary? 2) Do you have any C library that will ease the porting of my software to freebsd that I can statically link to, which is not covered by LGPL or any such nonsense. After the royal treatment that we commercial developers receive under windows, entering other oses seem prohibitively time consuming because: 1) Commercial interests are discouraged. One linux user said if I copy protect my system, I will have no takers under linux. So I said fine, linux then does not need me I will go where I am welcome and where I am allowed to protect my interests. The price of anything depends on its need. If my software is very much needed people will take it even if it is closed source and proprietary and copy protected. After all there are a lot of buyers for my closed source, proprietary, copy protected windows version of my software. If it is not needed then people will not take it even if it is free and open source. Ask business users about their ERP source code customization project disasters and if they still would like to have the source code. They will vehemently say no. They want software that will work, that will solve their headaches, that will solve their problems. All these does not necessarily come with free source code. The popularity of an operating system depends on the number of applications (commercial or otherwise) that are available for it. Microsoft understands this very very well. When windows 3.0 was released Bill Gates rolled in a big trolley full of software packages that would run on windows 3.0 on to the stage. That led to the success of windows 3.0 where windows 1.0 and windows 2.0 failed due to lack of applications on it. 2) Porting help like libraries, programming documentation like MSDN is next to non existent or are most difficult to find. 3) There is no Platform SDK complete with all libraries, compilers, header files that encourages developers without stripping them naked. In fact the windows operating system is itself one huge library with thousands of functions that we can call directly. Compared to that huge library of functions, glibc libraries and even the entire linux system seems pitiful, in addition to being unusable by commercial entities. Please let me know if you have a c library for interacting with your operating system that is under the BSD license or something similar. Let me know even if it is still under development, maybe I can lend an helping hand with its completion. Shankar ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Commercial Software
shankar [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I am a software writer, my website is http://www.shankar-software.org I want to port my business software to other operating systems. Linux seemed the obvious first choice. After studying it for the past one month I am completely vexed by the gnu licenses covering their glibc libraries. It seems that if I want to port my software to linux, I have to write my own libc libraries (which is a highly time consuming effort) or not-object to giving my software under terms that almost strips me of all rights. Some of the frustrating aspects of the LGPL terms are: a) I must allow the end user to modify my work for their own use (should picasso allow the buyers of his paintings to alter it if it doesn't suit their taste?) In many countries the buyer of a painting is already allowed to do that anyway. b) I must allow reverse engineering for debugging even if source is not provided. So what? How many of your customers can do that, and how many of those that can, care about what you allow or not? (should or would an artist allow his artwork to be corrected by his customers?) Why should the artist care after she got the money? I want to port my software to the freebsd os. Now my question to you are these. 1) Can I keep my software closed source, proprietary? Yes. 2) Do you have any C library that will ease the porting of my software to freebsd that I can statically link to, which is not covered by LGPL or any such nonsense. Depends on the definition of such nonsense, but in general the BSD licenses are less restrictive than the (L)GPL. After the royal treatment that we commercial developers receive under windows, entering other oses seem prohibitively time consuming because: 1) Commercial interests are discouraged. One linux user said if I copy protect my system, I will have no takers under linux. So I said fine, linux then does not need me There are more than one GNU/Linux users, the one you talked to doesn't speak for the rest of them. I will go where I am welcome and where I am allowed to protect my interests. The price of anything depends on its need. If my software is very much needed people will take it even if it is closed source and proprietary and copy protected. After all there are a lot of buyers for my closed source, proprietary, copy protected windows version of my software. If it is not needed then people will not take it even if it is free and open source. Ask business users about their ERP source code customization project disasters and if they still would like to have the source code. They will vehemently say no. They want software that will work, that will solve their headaches, that will solve their problems. All these does not necessarily come with free source code. But having the source code available is never a disadvantage. The popularity of an operating system depends on the number of applications (commercial or otherwise) that are available for it. Microsoft understands this very very well. When windows 3.0 was released Bill Gates rolled in a big trolley full of software packages that would run on windows 3.0 on to the stage. That led to the success of windows 3.0 where windows 1.0 and windows 2.0 failed due to lack of applications on it. 2) Porting help like libraries, programming documentation like MSDN is next to non existent or are most difficult to find. Are you only talking about GNU/Linux here? At least on the BSDs there is programming documentation available by default, and if you write clean C, porting shouldn't be a problem either. 3) There is no Platform SDK complete with all libraries, compilers, header files that encourages developers without stripping them naked. In fact the windows operating system is itself one huge library with thousands of functions that we can call directly. There are several cross-platform SDKs available that run on Windows, GNU/Linux and the BSDs. If you use one of them, porting should be easy or not even necessary. Compared to that huge library of functions, glibc libraries and even the entire linux system seems pitiful, in addition to being unusable by commercial entities. GNU/Linux seems to be usable enough for a lot of commercial entities. Some of them successfully sell proprietary dongled software that's even more expensive than yours is. If your software is as special as you think it is, you shouldn't have any problems finding new buyers. Please let me know if you have a c library for interacting with your operating system that is under the BSD license or something similar. Let me know even if it is still under development, maybe I can lend an helping hand with its completion. While FreeBSD's libc is BSD licensed, your program looks like it requires a lot of Windows specific functions. It's probably easier to port it to one of the cross-platform SDKs and have the program run on nearly every OS,
Re: Commercial Software
On 8/26/06, shankar [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi, I quote you from your page: http://www.freebsd.org/doc/en_US.ISO8859-1/articles/contributing/index.html Commercial entities engaged in FreeBSD-related enterprises are also encouraged to contact us. I am a software writer, my website is http://www.shankar-software.org I want to port my business software to other operating systems. Linux seemed the obvious first choice. After studying it for the past one month I am completely vexed by the gnu licenses covering their glibc libraries. It seems that if I want to port my software to linux, I have to write my own libc libraries (which is a highly time consuming effort) or not-object to giving my software under terms that almost strips me of all rights. Use QT: http://www.trolltech.com/products/qt If you buy a commercial license from trolltech you can do whatever you want with your software, plus QT runs on every popular OS; Qt/Windows, Qt/X11, and Qt/Mac. The KDE project uses QT. -- BSD Podcasts @: http://bsdtalk.blogspot.com/ http://freebsdforall.blogspot.com/ ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Commercial Software
On 2006-08-26 13:00, shankar [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi, I quote you from your page: http://www.freebsd.org/doc/en_US.ISO8859-1/articles/contributing/index.html Commercial entities engaged in FreeBSD-related enterprises are also encouraged to contact us. I am a software writer, my website is http://www.shankar-software.org I want to port my business software to other operating systems. Linux seemed the obvious first choice. After studying it for the past one month I am completely vexed by the gnu licenses covering their glibc libraries. It seems that if I want to port my software to linux, I have to write my own libc libraries (which is a highly time consuming effort) or not-object to giving my software under terms that almost strips me of all rights. Some of the frustrating aspects of the LGPL terms are: a) I must allow the end user to modify my work for their own use (should picasso allow the buyers of his paintings to alter it if it doesn't suit their taste?) No, you are not required to do this for all programs that merely use the services provided by the LGPL. Term (5) of the LGPL explicitly states that: A program that contains no derivative of any portion of the Library, but is designed to work with the Library by being compiled or linked with it, is called a work that uses the Library. Such a work, in isolation, is not a derivative work of the Library, and therefore falls outside the scope of this License. b) I must allow reverse engineering for debugging even if source is not provided. (should or would an artist allow his artwork to be corrected by his customers?) I don't agree with the parallel and comparison with artists, but what is the explicit part of the LGPL that makes you think this is a requirement? I want to port my software to the freebsd OS. Great :-) You are more than welcome, of course. Now my question to you are these. 1) Can I keep my software closed source, proprietary? Yes. 2) Do you have any C library that will ease the porting of my software to freebsd that I can statically link to, which is not covered by LGPL or any such nonsense. The system version of libc in FreeBSD is not distributed under the terms of the LGPL. Please see the copyright statements in our web site: http://www.freebsd.org/copyright/index.html After the royal treatment that we commercial developers receive under windows, entering other oses seem prohibitively time consuming because: 1) Commercial interests are discouraged. One linux user said if I copy protect my system, I will have no takers under linux. So I said fine, linux then does not need me I will go where I am welcome and where I am allowed to protect my interests. The price of anything depends on its need. If my software is very much needed people will take it even if it is closed source and proprietary and copy protected. After all there are a lot of buyers for my closed source, proprietary, copy protected windows version of my software. If it is not needed then people will not take it even if it is free and open source. Ask business users about their ERP source code customization project disasters and if they still would like to have the source code. They will vehemently say no. They want software that will work, that will solve their headaches, that will solve their problems. All these does not necessarily come with free source code. All this is irrelevant in the context of the BSD license. You are, essentially, free to do whatever you wish, other than sell FreeBSD itself and say that you did all the work. The popularity of an operating system depends on the number of applications (commercial or otherwise) that are available for it. Microsoft understands this very very well. When windows 3.0 was released Bill Gates rolled in a big trolley full of software packages that would run on windows 3.0 on to the stage. That led to the success of windows 3.0 where windows 1.0 and windows 2.0 failed due to lack of applications on it. Most of FreeBSD users are highly uniniterested in what Windows wants or Windows users like paying for. We like getting the job done, and if a BSD OS can do it, that's what we use. For example, Windows can do whatever it pleases, as far as I am concerned. I don't really care about the reasons why other people like paying huge amounts of money for buing something that runs as part of Windows or on Windows itself. 2) Porting help like libraries, programming documentation like MSDN is next to non existent or are most difficult to find. Are you sure? The BSD operating systems are famous for their level of documentation and the support they provide to users who are programmers themselves too. 3) There is no Platform SDK complete with all libraries, compilers, header files that encourages developers without stripping them naked. In fact the windows operating system is itself one huge library with thousands
