August 31, 2014
On 8/31/2014 5:37 AM, ketmar via Digitalmars-d wrote:
> On Sun, 31 Aug 2014 09:23:24 +0000
> Joakim via Digitalmars-d <digitalmars-d@puremagic.com> wrote:
>
>> As such, his GPL, which doesn't allow such
>> pragmatic mixing of open and closed source, is
> ...a great thing to stop invasion of proprietary software. hey, i'm not
> *renting* my smartphone, i'm *buying* it! and i want to be able to
> change it's software as i like. yet what i got is a bunch of blobs and
> a locked loader. i don't want to pay my money for jailing me: the ones
> who want to put me in a jail should pay to me to compensate my
> inconvience.
>

I *completely* agree. Very, VERY strongly.

> i don't care about what is good for some corporation out here. what i
> really care about is what is good for *me*. GPLv3 makes me happy.

GPL forces companies to open-source (some of) their software...but *ONLY* if the company willingly uses the GPL software in the first place.

So what do they do? Not use the GPL software in the first place. So we end up with second-rate crap (like Bionic) or worse - closed source proprietary - just because GPL scared them away.

> BSDL
> makes corporations happy. so it's obvious choice.
>

Hah. BSD/etc is NOT what corporations typically like - they like proprietary closed source. BSD gives them incentive to at least *use* OSS software. GPL gives them incentive to stay away from OSS software.

August 31, 2014
On Sun, 31 Aug 2014 06:46:15 -0400
Nick Sabalausky via Digitalmars-d <digitalmars-d@puremagic.com> wrote:

> So what do they do? Not use the GPL software in the first place. So we end up with second-rate crap (like Bionic) or worse - closed source proprietary - just because GPL scared them away.
this will not change. it's not specifically GPL what scares away corporations, it's about "losing control". corporations will always be hostile to any license that tries to give end users some rights that can be enforced by user. releasing software under "permissive" licenses will not help to turn corporations to FOSS. so i can't see any reason to think about "how we can drag corporations into FOSS culture".

> Hah. BSD/etc is NOT what corporations typically like - they like proprietary closed source. BSD gives them incentive to at least *use* OSS software. GPL gives them incentive to stay away from OSS software.
i don't care what source code was used to build binary blob: proprietary or BSD-licensed. the result is the same for me. so i don't care if they use [F]OSS software or not.


August 31, 2014
On Sunday, 31 August 2014 at 10:30:24 UTC, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
> There is some precedent for a commercial software package to be released like this:
>
> "This is available under either a commercial license or GPL. You can freely download and use the software and its source code, at no cost, under the terms of the GPL. Companies that do not wish to be bound by the GPL can purchase a commercial license instead."

Ah, I wasn't sure what you meant by "cross-licensed," the GPL/commercial  licensing model you're referring to is commonly called dual-licensing.

> Or there will be a common variant like:
>
> "Students, home users and small businesses can use it under the terms of GPL, but companies with annual revenue >= $xxxxx require a commercial license."
>
> Or something roughly along those lines anyway.

Under the terms of the GPL, it's not feasible to set an arbitrary revenue limit like that, as those getting the source under the GPL are free to redistribute it to anyone they like.  However, since the GPLv2 doesn't deal with software patents, it may be possible to set such a revenue limit with patent licensing, ie license the software patents employed in the code for free to those you mentioned but charge for the patents with larger businesses.

> I don't know what the FSF would have to say about it, or how well it works in practice, but the idea is that the source code is both free and free, AND since the OSS license used is GPL, there is still (at least in theory) sufficient added value to to justify a paid version (beyond just premium support. Being a support-based business has its own pros/cons - if you're just a group of developers trying to make a living, the Red Hat model may not be a great option). And, the OSS-version, being GPLed, cannot easily be used by another company *as* a competitor to you.

This dual-licensing model works fairly well, as a handful of companies have used it successfully and MySQL AB brought in almost 9 figures in revenue using this model before getting bought out by Sun for $1 billion almost seven years ago (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MySQL_AB), although most think that was a big overpay by the soon-to-be-sold Sun.  The MySQL CEO went on to head another company called Eucalyptus, which uses a similar GPLv3/commercial dual-licensing model.

The big drawbacks are that dual licensing requires full copyright assignment from anyone who contributes to the GPL'd code, or the company won't be able to re-license those patches commercially, and that usually only one company can make money off the code through commercial licensing, which as you mentioned keeps competitors out.

> Theoretically, you *could* do that with BSD/MIT/zlib/etc instead of GPL. Nothing's explicitly prohibiting it. But then where's the "added value" in the paid version? They can already do anything they want. Or how do you restrict the OSS version to small businesses or home users only? It's BSD, it already permits *anyone* to use it or re-grant the same permissive license to anyone else. And what's to stop a competitor from competing against you with your own product?

The dual-licensing model doesn't make sense with permissive licenses like BSD/MIT/zlib/boost so they use a different model, where they provide an "open core" of BSD-licensed code for free and then charge for proprietary features added through closed-source patches, sometimes called "freemium."  This is the model Apple and Google/Samsung use with iOS and Android, only the most successful software projects of the last decade, :) though Android obviously makes available a lot more open source than iOS does.

This mixed model doesn't stop competitors from taking the permissively-licensed source, but that's actually a benefit for users as it means more competition.  For example, you can see this with all the companies that forked Android, whether Amazon, Nokia, or Xiaomi, which now sells more smartphones in China than anyone else, including Samsung.  As long as the companies provide enough value in their closed patches, they do fine.

> Don't get me wrong, I like BSD/MIT/zlib/etc., and I use such licenses whenever my intent is to get my software USED rather than directly make money off it. But trying to mix them with a commercial model (for example, if you want to make a living directly off your software) seems very problematic. Being a support company seems the only theoretical way, and even then, anyone else, any corporation, etc., can still just pop up and offer support for your software too, and without the overhead of being a primary developer.

On the contrary, the mixed model that such permissive licenses allow is much more commercially successful than any GPL-based model.  If you insist that _all_ source must be open, only then the GPL dual-licensing model may work better.

> Yea, I can agree there's some truth to that. And even if you can argue that closed doesn't TRULY have real genuine benefits, it still doesn't matter: As long as people perceive a benefit, then that's real enough in its effects.

There are genuine _commercial_ benefits to closed-source, ie you can keep others from simply taking your code.  There may not be any inherent _technical_ benefits, but if you're not making any money, you can't fund much technical development either.  So a mixed open/closed source model mixes these commercial and technical benefits, rather than ignoring one for the other.

> Yea. I hate that the mixing is necessary, but big business has all the money, and big business likes closed/proprietary, so if you want some of the money (*or* just a significant chunk of the market), then you have to please them enough to get them to fork it over. *Then* you can go from there and swing around as much clout as you've earned.
>
> It's sickening, but that's where things are right now. At least it beats the hell out of the Windows model. And it *could* still lead to further acceptance of and demand for even more openness. Like burgers or crack: Give 'em a taste, maybe they'll like it and want more. And maybe by then you'll have earned enough clout that you'll be *able* to given them more.
>
> The world may not be ready for full-on Stallman openness yet, but the mixed model at least gets the foot in the door. It's a step in the right direction.

I have argued, on the contrary, that the mixed model is the best one, not pure open or closed source:

http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=sprewell_licensing

I think the evidence is in that my article from four years ago called it right. :)
August 31, 2014
On 8/31/2014 7:57 AM, Joakim wrote:
> On Sunday, 31 August 2014 at 10:30:24 UTC, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
>> There is some precedent for a commercial software package to be
>> released like this:
>>
>> "This is available under either a commercial license or GPL. You can
>> freely download and use the software and its source code, at no cost,
>> under the terms of the GPL. Companies that do not wish to be bound by
>> the GPL can purchase a commercial license instead."
>
> Ah, I wasn't sure what you meant by "cross-licensed," the
> GPL/commercial  licensing model you're referring to is commonly called
> dual-licensing.
>

Ah, ok. My mind registered "cross-" and "dual-" as being the same.

>> Or there will be a common variant like:
>>
>> "Students, home users and small businesses can use it under the terms
>> of GPL, but companies with annual revenue >= $xxxxx require a
>> commercial license."
>>
>> Or something roughly along those lines anyway.
>
> Under the terms of the GPL, it's not feasible to set an arbitrary
> revenue limit like that, as those getting the source under the GPL are
> free to redistribute it to anyone they like.  However, since the GPLv2
> doesn't deal with software patents, it may be possible to set such a
> revenue limit with patent licensing, ie license the software patents
> employed in the code for free to those you mentioned but charge for the
> patents with larger businesses.
>

Come to think of it, the size/revenue-limit stuff I've seen may have all just been plain old closed-source.

> The big drawbacks are that dual licensing requires full copyright
> assignment from anyone who contributes to the GPL'd code, or the company
> won't be able to re-license those patches commercially,

Good point. I wasn't aware of that. (One of the dangers of GPL: It's too big and convoluted to really grok.)

>
> The dual-licensing model doesn't make sense with permissive licenses
> like BSD/MIT/zlib/boost so they use a different model, where they
> provide an "open core" of BSD-licensed code for free and then charge for
> proprietary features added through closed-source patches,

Ahh, ok. Now that makes sense. That method hadn't occurred to me. (I don't know *why* it didn't. I mean, using the "temporarily closed source" you mention below, it's basically the id/Carmack model.)

I don't like that it's still requires a closed element, but still, it's definitely something worth considering, especially the "time limit" version.

> sometimes called "freemium."

I'm accustomed to "freemium" referring to so-called "free to play" gaming, but yea, I can see how it applies here too.

> This is the model Apple and Google/Samsung use with
> iOS and Android, only the most successful software projects of the last
> decade, :) though Android obviously makes available a lot more open
> source than iOS does.
>

Yea, true.


>> Yea. I hate that the mixing is necessary, but big business has all the
>> money, and big business likes closed/proprietary, so if you want some
>> of the money (*or* just a significant chunk of the market), then you
>> have to please them enough to get them to fork it over. *Then* you can
>> go from there and swing around as much clout as you've earned.
>>
>> It's sickening, but that's where things are right now. At least it
>> beats the hell out of the Windows model. And it *could* still lead to
>> further acceptance of and demand for even more openness. Like burgers
>> or crack: Give 'em a taste, maybe they'll like it and want more. And
>> maybe by then you'll have earned enough clout that you'll be *able* to
>> given them more.
>>
>> The world may not be ready for full-on Stallman openness yet, but the
>> mixed model at least gets the foot in the door. It's a step in the
>> right direction.
>
> I have argued, on the contrary, that the mixed model is the best one,
> not pure open or closed source:
>
> http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=sprewell_licensing
>
> I think the evidence is in that my article from four years ago called it
> right. :)

Could be. That is a fairly convincing article, at least for the "time limit" version of mixed closed/open.

But in any case, even if one takes the Stallman "all must be open, period" stance, the mixed stuff is STILL a step in the desired direction. So regardless of whether or not mixed is the final end-goal, it's still a good direction to taking.

August 31, 2014
On Sunday, 31 August 2014 at 19:58:03 UTC, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
> Could be. That is a fairly convincing article, at least for the "time limit" version of mixed closed/open.

Glad to hear that. :) Nobody has really tried my time-limited version, which I believe is the final step.

> But in any case, even if one takes the Stallman "all must be open, period" stance, the mixed stuff is STILL a step in the desired direction. So regardless of whether or not mixed is the final end-goal, it's still a good direction to taking.

This is what guys like Stallman or ketmar don't seem to get, that mixed-source still leads to _more_ open source, even if it isn't _pure_ open source.  For example, the success of Android means that there's more open source code running on computing devices than ever before, a billion at last count, even if it's not _pure_ open source.  As you said, that pragmatic mixed approach has done more to advance open source than their purist approach ever will.  And my time-limited model advances it even more, by making sure you get the source to all the binary blobs eventually.
August 31, 2014
On 31 August 2014 05:24, Nick Sabalausky via Digitalmars-d <digitalmars-d@puremagic.com> wrote:
> On 8/30/2014 9:49 PM, Era Scarecrow wrote:
>>
>>
>>   Although M$ doing this seems more like a move in order to muscle their
>> way in for other things. Take the actions of their actions regarding
>> Novell.
>>
>> http://www.gnu.org/licenses/rms-why-gplv3.html
>>
>> [quote]
>> Another threat that GPLv3 resists is that of patent deals like the
>> Novell-Microsoft pact. Microsoft wants to use its thousands of patents
>> to make users pay Microsoft for the privilege of running GNU/Linux, and
>> made this pact to try to achieve that. The deal offers rather limited
>> protection from Microsoft patents to Novell's customers.
>> [/quote]
>>
>>   It feels like they are trying to make a monopoly where they are the
>> only ones able to make compilers, and anything with 'more useful
>> features' have to pay them royalties or get a very expensive & limited
>> license in order to be left alone.
>>
>>   Of course there's other cases similar where idiots try to copyright
>> the symbol pi, so they can then exploit it in order to sue companies and
>> individuals for easy cash...
>
>
> Y'know, that link above is a good example of why FSF and GPL bug me.
>
> Don't get me wrong, I'm not a "GPL vs BSD" guy. I genuinely believe both have their place, and the difference lies in is what your, and your project's, exact goals are.
>
> And I completely agree with the full extent of Stallman's famously ultra-strict villainization of closed-box proprietary shackle-ware. That shit pisses me off far more than it does most people.
>
> And I *do* appreciate that GPL, unlike BSD, can *realistically* be cross-licensed with a commercial license in a meaningful way and used on paid commercial software (at least, I *think* so, based on what little anyone actually *can* comprehend of the incomprehensible GPL).
>

GPL can be summarised in four simple freedoms.  Nothing complicated there.

In any case, you do know that there are paid gpl software too, right? Ardour is a good example of this.

http://ardour.org/download.html


> I *do* agree with Stallman's views, even most of the more extreme ones, I *want* to like FSF and GPL, but...
>
> ...but then there's stuff like that link above.
>
> He keeps harping on how MS is being evil, and GPL v3 prevents the evil MS is attempting...but jesus crap he *WILL NOT* spend ONE FUCKING WORD on ***HOW*** the shit any of that supposedly works. We're supposed to just blindly accept all of it just like the good little corporate whores he keeps trying to crusade that we *shouldn't* be. Shit.
>
> The FSF constantly sounds just like one of those worthless pro-issue #XX / anti-issue #XX asshats we have to put up with every voting season:

<snip>

Having spoken to RMS in person, I can say that you are far from the reality of their stance on promoting free software.  This is the sort of attitude I'd expect from a sorely misunderstood teenager.  Your heart might be in the right place, but your actually insulting both sides of the border.

Iain.
August 31, 2014
On 31 August 2014 06:53, Nick Sabalausky via Digitalmars-d <digitalmars-d@puremagic.com> wrote:
>
> I know FSF prefers "free" over the "open" I've been using. But really, everybody knows what "open" and "open source" mean, and it's *not* confusing and ambiguous. So the whole "free" obsession is just semantic pedantry that introduces ambiguity and confusion ("free as in...what, which 'free' now? Because Linux...I mean GNU/Linux...is both types, right?") and distracts people from the more important matters.
>

I find that using the term "open source" is like using the term "cloud computing".  It's a buzzword to make free software sound more attractive to commercial businesses.

By preferring the term "free" over "open", you are merely pointing out that a "Waste Management and Disposal Technician" is just a "Bin-man", no matter what angle you take on it.

Iain.
August 31, 2014
On 8/31/2014 4:43 PM, Joakim wrote:
> On Sunday, 31 August 2014 at 19:58:03 UTC, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
>> Could be. That is a fairly convincing article, at least for the "time
>> limit" version of mixed closed/open.
>
> Glad to hear that. :) Nobody has really tried my time-limited version,
> which I believe is the final step.
>
>> But in any case, even if one takes the Stallman "all must be open,
>> period" stance, the mixed stuff is STILL a step in the desired
>> direction. So regardless of whether or not mixed is the final
>> end-goal, it's still a good direction to taking.
>
> This is what guys like Stallman or ketmar don't seem to get, that
> mixed-source still leads to _more_ open source, even if it isn't _pure_
> open source.

I suspect they may actually get *that* much of it...I'm just not sure they seem to *care*. I get the impression it's basically toddler-style "it's not EXACTLY what I want so I don't want ANY of it!" pouting.

Anyway, either way, that's probably just splitting hairs. Regardless of their exact level of awareness, the end result is the same.

> For example, the success of Android means that there's
> more open source code running on computing devices than ever before, a
> billion at last count, even if it's not _pure_ open source.  As you
> said, that pragmatic mixed approach has done more to advance open source
> than their purist approach ever will.  And my time-limited model
> advances it even more, by making sure you get the source to all the
> binary blobs eventually.

Exactly. And if Google had insisted on *pure* OSS for android, you *Know* the carriers (and to a lesser extent, manufacturers) *NEVER* would have gone for it. And then there we'd be, stuck with Apple owning a 1990's-MS-style monopoly, but worse because of the iOS's third-party restrictions and gatekeeping.

September 01, 2014
On Wednesday, 27 August 2014 at 21:19:47 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
> On 8/27/2014 1:02 PM, "Jérôme M. Berger" wrote:
>> 	So for patent number 20140196015, the application number is
>> 13/734762 and for patent number 20140196008, the application number
>> is 13/734750.
>>
>> 		Jerome
>>
>
> "Required fields (Patent Number) cannot be empty or the data entered is incorrectly formatted."
>
> "The field contains over 9 characters which cannot be processed in the USPTO system."

Walter, will it really become a threat for D? I have lot of hopes from D language.
September 01, 2014
On 8/31/2014 8:26 PM, Kajal Sinha wrote:
> Walter, will it really become a threat for D?

I have no idea.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16