Re: [Haskell-cafe] Re: Hugs on iPhone
Rick R wrote: The agreement doesn't specifically prohibit the use of interpreters (just those than run external code). It also doesn't say anything about machine generated code. The only thing one would have to ensure is that the dependencies of JHC are all compiled in, or statically linked. Shared libs are disallowed in any app. If it has a runtime dependency on gcc (is there such a thing?) Then you would have to statically link it and therefore couldn't sell your application. (gotta love GPL) Not true. GPL doesn't forbid selling and never has. RMS used to make money selling emacs tapes. All it requires is that you accompany your sale either with a copy of the source code, or a promise to make source available. Posting the source on a public web site would meet this requirement. Does anything in the iPhone SDK forbid you from posting your source? ___ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
Re: [Haskell-cafe] Re: Hugs on iPhone
Go ahead sell your GPL application. I'll get your code, build the application, and sell it for less than half of what you're selling it for. How exactly will you make your money, then? When people say, You can't make commercial software with GPL code, they don't mean it's not legally possible to sell GPL code, only that it's not commercially viable. Regards, John A. De Goes N-BRAIN, Inc. The Evolution of Collaboration http://www.n-brain.net|877-376-2724 x 101 On Mar 24, 2009, at 1:27 AM, Jules Bean wrote: Rick R wrote: The agreement doesn't specifically prohibit the use of interpreters (just those than run external code). It also doesn't say anything about machine generated code. The only thing one would have to ensure is that the dependencies of JHC are all compiled in, or statically linked. Shared libs are disallowed in any app. If it has a runtime dependency on gcc (is there such a thing?) Then you would have to statically link it and therefore couldn't sell your application. (gotta love GPL) Not true. GPL doesn't forbid selling and never has. RMS used to make money selling emacs tapes. All it requires is that you accompany your sale either with a copy of the source code, or a promise to make source available. Posting the source on a public web site would meet this requirement. Does anything in the iPhone SDK forbid you from posting your source? ___ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe ___ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
Re: [Haskell-cafe] Re: Hugs on iPhone
John A. De Goes wrote: Go ahead sell your GPL application. I'll get your code, build the application, and sell it for less than half of what you're selling it for. How exactly will you make your money, then? Ask RedHat how they make money from RHEL while Oracle and CentOS are exact copies of it. Ask RedHat/JBoss how they make money from JBoss AS when all the source code is available in their repository. Probably, it's not only about the software anymore, but also about the service you get with the software subscription... Although I agree that this applies only to software which crossed some kind of complexity already (hence service is needed) and that majority of phone apps might not fall into this category yet especially if they are not tied to some kind of server based services. Karel ___ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
[Haskell-cafe] Re: Hugs on iPhone
John A. De Goes j...@n-brain.net wrote: Go ahead sell your GPL application. I'll get your code, build the application, and sell it for less than half of what you're selling it for. I don't think you can go below 0.79 in the Apple store, and I guess you'll have a hard time convincing Apple to list your identical program alongside with the original version. How exactly will you make your money, then? Selling tapes, not software. Unless you invent something like the internet that gets rid of time needed write tapes and packageshipment costs, you're going to have a very, very hard time being cheaper than anybody else unless you live on a different continent, and an incredibly hard time financing the advertisement you need to place your product more prominently than RMS can do simply by being himself. When people say, You can't make commercial software with GPL code, they don't mean it's not legally possible to sell GPL code, only that it's not commercially viable. Oh, it is. Id is still selling Quake I data files, and you'll be surprised how much you're allowed to do since the GPL isn't the Affero GPL. -- (c) this sig last receiving data processing entity. Inspect headers for copyright history. All rights reserved. Copying, hiring, renting, performance and/or quoting of this signature prohibited. ___ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
Re: [Haskell-cafe] Re: Hugs on iPhone
Like I said, go ahead and try that with an iPhone application. If the iPhone app is so buggy or complicated so as to require support, no one will buy it. If it's not, I'll make all the money by selling it for half the price you sell it for. In any case, the examples you mention involve companies selling the labors of others. Joe Schmoe who contributed patch #2345235 to fix a critical bug never sees a cent from RedHat. So your examples don't support your case as much as you seem to think. Regards, John A. De Goes N-BRAIN, Inc. The Evolution of Collaboration http://www.n-brain.net|877-376-2724 x 101 On Mar 24, 2009, at 6:58 AM, Karel Gardas wrote: John A. De Goes wrote: Go ahead sell your GPL application. I'll get your code, build the application, and sell it for less than half of what you're selling it for. How exactly will you make your money, then? Ask RedHat how they make money from RHEL while Oracle and CentOS are exact copies of it. Ask RedHat/JBoss how they make money from JBoss AS when all the source code is available in their repository. Probably, it's not only about the software anymore, but also about the service you get with the software subscription... Although I agree that this applies only to software which crossed some kind of complexity already (hence service is needed) and that majority of phone apps might not fall into this category yet especially if they are not tied to some kind of server based services. Karel ___ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
Re: [Haskell-cafe] Re: Hugs on iPhone
Again, go ahead and write your GPL app -- i.e. put your money where your mouth is. After you spend a year developing some cool app, I'll take your code and sell it -- maybe under a different name, with different screenshots, and a different description. Or maybe I'll just list it in the free section so no one makes any money. You can't make money selling tapes of iPhone apps because no one wants tapes and iPhone apps come exclusively from the iPhone store (unless you're an iPhone developer). You simply can't make a living selling GPL software. If the software's complicated enough and you know your way around it, then you can sell support maintenance. However, those conditions doesn't apply to consumer software, because consumers don't want complicated software. Regards, John A. De Goes N-BRAIN, Inc. The Evolution of Collaboration http://www.n-brain.net|877-376-2724 x 101 On Mar 24, 2009, at 7:00 AM, Achim Schneider wrote: John A. De Goes j...@n-brain.net wrote: Go ahead sell your GPL application. I'll get your code, build the application, and sell it for less than half of what you're selling it for. I don't think you can go below 0.79 in the Apple store, and I guess you'll have a hard time convincing Apple to list your identical program alongside with the original version. How exactly will you make your money, then? Selling tapes, not software. Unless you invent something like the internet that gets rid of time needed write tapes and packageshipment costs, you're going to have a very, very hard time being cheaper than anybody else unless you live on a different continent, and an incredibly hard time financing the advertisement you need to place your product more prominently than RMS can do simply by being himself. When people say, You can't make commercial software with GPL code, they don't mean it's not legally possible to sell GPL code, only that it's not commercially viable. Oh, it is. Id is still selling Quake I data files, and you'll be surprised how much you're allowed to do since the GPL isn't the Affero GPL. -- (c) this sig last receiving data processing entity. Inspect headers for copyright history. All rights reserved. Copying, hiring, renting, performance and/or quoting of this signature prohibited. ___ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe ___ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
Re: [Haskell-cafe] Re: Hugs on iPhone
John A. De Goes j...@n-brain.net writes: In any case, the examples you mention involve companies selling the labors of others. ...like the original poster wanted to, by linking to GCC and sell it as part of his proprietary product? The difference is that Red Hat et al benefit from the labor of others in a way intended and explicitly allowed by the authors. -k -- If I haven't seen further, it is by standing in the footprints of giants ___ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
[Haskell-cafe] Re: Hugs on iPhone
John A. De Goes j...@n-brain.net wrote: You simply can't make a living selling GPL software. If the software's complicated enough and you know your way around it, then you can sell support maintenance. However, those conditions doesn't apply to consumer software, because consumers don't want complicated software. Sure, times have changed. Still, go to a campus, figure out who doesn't have internet access (personally, back then I bought a 100mb zip drive to get my software). You might not be able to earn a living burning Debian CD's, but you're going able to finance your beer consumption. Not only because you're bound to get some free beer while helping people to install it. OTOH, magazines still come with CDs or DVDs, which means that there's a demand for hard-copies of software. People _will_ buy your 1000 best open source games collection. The costs of setting up distribution and manufacturing will prevent others from doing the same: They'd rather distribute other OSS software, avoiding competition that's only going to lessen their own profits. Additionally to the physical medium, you're providing the service of compiling the compilation, in the first place: I can tell you it's a bugger to rummage through OSS games to find out what's cool. Surely, it's not a big market and won't make you a millionaire, but no source of income can be used by everyone without breaking down. Just to make things clear: I wouldn't hand out venture capital to such an endeavour, either. -- (c) this sig last receiving data processing entity. Inspect headers for copyright history. All rights reserved. Copying, hiring, renting, performance and/or quoting of this signature prohibited. ___ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
Re: [Haskell-cafe] Re: Hugs on iPhone
On Mon, Mar 23, 2009 at 07:00:26PM -0400, Rick R wrote: The agreement doesn't specifically prohibit the use of interpreters (just those than run external code). It also doesn't say anything about machine generated code. The only thing one would have to ensure is that the dependencies of JHC are all compiled in, or statically linked. Shared libs are disallowed in any app. If it has a runtime dependency on gcc (is there such a thing?) Then you would have to statically link it and therefore couldn't sell your application. (gotta love GPL) No problem here, the gcc licence explicity states things compiled with it are not considered derivative works. And after all, Mac OS X is compiled with gcc, apple X-Code uses gcc as its compiler and I think gcc may even be the only objective C compiler out there. John -- John Meacham - ⑆repetae.net⑆john⑈ ___ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
Re: [Haskell-cafe] Re: Hugs on iPhone
Correct. My point was only in the case that it would need to statically link to a GPL'd lib (which I'm not sure if such a case exists) If the gcc license suddenly decided to claim compiled items as derivative works, the IT world as we know it would end. On Tue, Mar 24, 2009 at 11:06 AM, John Meacham j...@repetae.net wrote: On Mon, Mar 23, 2009 at 07:00:26PM -0400, Rick R wrote: The agreement doesn't specifically prohibit the use of interpreters (just those than run external code). It also doesn't say anything about machine generated code. The only thing one would have to ensure is that the dependencies of JHC are all compiled in, or statically linked. Shared libs are disallowed in any app. If it has a runtime dependency on gcc (is there such a thing?) Then you would have to statically link it and therefore couldn't sell your application. (gotta love GPL) No problem here, the gcc licence explicity states things compiled with it are not considered derivative works. And after all, Mac OS X is compiled with gcc, apple X-Code uses gcc as its compiler and I think gcc may even be the only objective C compiler out there. John -- John Meacham - ⑆repetae.net⑆john⑈ ___ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe -- We can't solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when we created them. - A. Einstein ___ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
Re: [Haskell-cafe] Re: Hugs on iPhone
2009/3/24 Rick R rick.richard...@gmail.com Correct. My point was only in the case that it would need to statically link to a GPL'd lib (which I'm not sure if such a case exists) If the gcc license suddenly decided to claim compiled items as derivative works, the IT world as we know it would end. Any linkage to GPL has different implications than dynamic or static linkage to LGPL code. And I'm not a lawyer, so I won't comment on this crap because it's all freaking ridiculous. People who believe in using and writing software that people are free to use any way they want should just stay the hell away from anything from the FSF. I like freedom from restrictions, not freedom with restrictions. Dave On Tue, Mar 24, 2009 at 11:06 AM, John Meacham j...@repetae.net wrote: On Mon, Mar 23, 2009 at 07:00:26PM -0400, Rick R wrote: The agreement doesn't specifically prohibit the use of interpreters (just those than run external code). It also doesn't say anything about machine generated code. The only thing one would have to ensure is that the dependencies of JHC are all compiled in, or statically linked. Shared libs are disallowed in any app. If it has a runtime dependency on gcc (is there such a thing?) Then you would have to statically link it and therefore couldn't sell your application. (gotta love GPL) No problem here, the gcc licence explicity states things compiled with it are not considered derivative works. And after all, Mac OS X is compiled with gcc, apple X-Code uses gcc as its compiler and I think gcc may even be the only objective C compiler out there. John -- John Meacham - ⑆repetae.net⑆john⑈ ___ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe -- We can't solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when we created them. - A. Einstein ___ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe ___ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
[Haskell-cafe] Re: Hugs on iPhone
Miguel Mitrofanov wrote: 3) Personally, I'd love to see ghc on iPhone. It could even persuade me to upgrade. See the GHC-on-ARM page[1] for my work on it last summer, among others'. GHC is tough to port because bootstrapping to new architectures has been broken for a long time, since soon after 6.6.2. My attempts to cross-compile 6.6.1 using the development environment for my Nokia N810 failed, as can be seen in [1]. I attempted several times to build Hugs for it: it would build successfully and then fail to run either on the device, in scratchbox, or natively compiled on x86 because it failed to find the Prelude. I suspect I was doing something wrong in building Hugs, something unrelated to the ARM platform. The good news is that jhc's portable C code works perfectly well -- but of course that is simply running precompiled Haskell apps and not a compiler or interpreter running on the device. Since jhc is not self-hosting (yet?) but instead is built with GHC, that's the best we can do with that approach for now. Braden Shepherdson shepheb [1] http://hackage.haskell.org/trac/ghc/wiki/ArmLinuxGhc ___ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
Re: [Haskell-cafe] Re: Hugs on iPhone
On Mon, Mar 23, 2009 at 04:41:04PM -0400, Braden Shepherdson wrote: The good news is that jhc's portable C code works perfectly well -- but of course that is simply running precompiled Haskell apps and not a compiler or interpreter running on the device. Since jhc is not self-hosting (yet?) but instead is built with GHC, that's the best we can do with that approach for now. I wondered what would happen if I submitted some jhc generated C for approval, it _almost_ looks like it could have been hand written by someone with an unusual penchant for gotos and their own inscrutable hungarian notation. John -- John Meacham - ⑆repetae.net⑆john⑈ ___ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
Re: [Haskell-cafe] Re: Hugs on iPhone
This is solely the reason for my interest in JHC. The agreement doesn't specifically prohibit the use of interpreters (just those than run external code). It also doesn't say anything about machine generated code. The only thing one would have to ensure is that the dependencies of JHC are all compiled in, or statically linked. Shared libs are disallowed in any app. If it has a runtime dependency on gcc (is there such a thing?) Then you would have to statically link it and therefore couldn't sell your application. (gotta love GPL) JHC also helps with another issue: There is some concern about garbage collection schemes, Apple removed their own garbage collector in the iPhone SDK and the docs mention that GC isn't allowed. But there is nothing about that in the Developer Agreement. JHC's region based memory management very closely reflects Apples own convention for using memory pools for all allocation. I speculate that this would less likely to be rejected. . There is also some discussion on both the GHC and JHC mailing list WRT this a month or two ago. I will attempt exactly this scheme later next month, will let you know how it goes. :) On Mon, Mar 23, 2009 at 5:45 PM, John Meacham j...@repetae.net wrote: On Mon, Mar 23, 2009 at 04:41:04PM -0400, Braden Shepherdson wrote: The good news is that jhc's portable C code works perfectly well -- but of course that is simply running precompiled Haskell apps and not a compiler or interpreter running on the device. Since jhc is not self-hosting (yet?) but instead is built with GHC, that's the best we can do with that approach for now. I wondered what would happen if I submitted some jhc generated C for approval, it _almost_ looks like it could have been hand written by someone with an unusual penchant for gotos and their own inscrutable hungarian notation. John -- John Meacham - ⑆repetae.net⑆john⑈ ___ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe -- We can't solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when we created them. - A. Einstein ___ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
