Am 24.10.2011 01:59, schrieb Walter Bright:
> On 10/23/2011 2:56 PM, Daniel Gibson wrote:
>> But I'd be interested in the opinions of other people in this newsgroup who earn money with software development (or have done so in the past): Have you ever experienced exposure to GPL'ed or proprietary software as a hindrance for a job?
> 
> In once selling a license to some software I wrote for $$$, the licensee's lawyers grilled me about if I'd worked on the popular GPL'd version. I told them I hadn't, and that satisfied them that I wasn't trying to pass off GPL'd code as my own.
> 
> They were just doing their due diligence.
> 
> If I had worked on the GPL'd version, then I'd have had to go through a lot more grilling to ensure none of that code had leaked into the code I was selling.

Ok, this kinda makes sense, but I guess that having been exposed to the
GPL'ed version wouldn't have made the deal impossible, just harder?
(Couldn't they just compare the code or something?)
Also this wasn't about being exposed to GPL'ed software in general but
to this specific project, if I understand correctly.
And I can imagine that similar problems could have existed with other
licenses, e.g. proprietary in some constellations like "Company A
developed $software, later company B buys a license to develop it
further, maybe with the help of some of A's engineers. Then company C
also buys a license and wants experts from company A to help them - but
they need to make sure that no code from company B slips into their
codebase". Or something like that.

But I do understand that in some circumstances exposure to GPL'ed code of a specific project could be a hinderance.

Thanks for sharing :-)

Cheers,
- Daniel

Am 24.10.2011 02:35, schrieb Chante:
> "Daniel Gibson" <metalcaedes@gmail.com> wrote in message news:j822kv$7jf$2@digitalmars.com...
>>
>> I've never read a job description that said "we want a programmer that has no job experience and has not touched GPL code either".
> 
> While such a "concept" may be new to you, it is not to me. If I'm the first to say it, maybe some who are not yet "tainted" will see it as a differentiator and/or a way forward. Surely, if I had the funds to hire programmers, the role description would be something like you stated above.

This would exclude many talented programmers - which are hard enough to
find without restrictions like that.
How is someone going to get experience without working with foreign code?
Reading books on programming and also exhibits you to foreign code (that
often doesn't even have an implicit license but only the license of the
whole book that is basically "don't copy at all").

> The ideal, for me, is allying with others who are also not "tainted".

i.e. people without any experience.

>> But I'd be interested in the opinions of other people in this newsgroup
>> who earn money with software development (or have done so in the past):
>> Have you ever experienced exposure to GPL'ed or proprietary software as
>> a hindrance for a job?
>> Is the opposite true - Open Source commitment (GPL or otherwise) is a
>> bonus in ones resume that increases the chances of being hired?
>> (Or both - "depends on the job"?)
> 
> "Job" is but one thing, freedom is another.

Not getting contact with any "tainted" source code (like the DMD frontend, btw) doesn't seem like freedom to me.

> "Job" may be the only option once one becomes "tainted". Surely one cannot say "clean room" development for a product they offer from their own company once they have exposed themselves, unknowingly or not, to viral source code or another company's source code.

So you're gonna start your own company without any prior professional experience and without looking at most (?) open source code and you'll only hire people that also have no experience? Good luck with that.

I don't see the value of "untainted" code per your definition.
Of course you don't want to break copyright by mixing in code that you
may not mix in (because of incompatible licenses or whatever), but this
much paranoia is not needed and not feasible.

And if somebody claims you stole their code they don't *have* to believe
you if you say "I've never seen it", so in the end facts - or maybe some
incompetent judge or jury - will decide.
Or are you gonna breed you own programmers that are (from childhood on!)
guaranteed to not have any exposure to "tainted" code by locking them up
without any contact to the rest of the world (including yourself,
because you can't guarantee that you're not tainted)?

Cheers,
- Daniel

"Kagamin" <spam@here.lot> wrote in message news:j83tie$abu$1@digitalmars.com...
>> You're afraid of others, but GPL can also protect *your* code.
>
> Most notably GPL protects the rights of your users. Are you thinking about your users?

That's just backwards, GPL *limits* user rights. For instance, the right to license my software however I damn well choose. The right to feel safe about using a piece of software *without* hiring an expensive lawyer to wade through the ten pounds of legalese bullshit. There's a lot of things I *strongly* agree with Stallman on, but his reasoning on the GPL is just a complete load of crap.

"Jeff Nowakowski" <jeff@dilacero.org> wrote in message news:j84fli$1it5$1@digitalmars.com...
> On 10/24/2011 05:30 AM, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
>>
>> Meh, use of the term "FUD" itself has become a FUD tactic. And it's just
>> an
>> analogy (plus joke). Analogies are rarely perfect and they aren't meant
>> to
>> hold up to being picked apart by all the little details. It's close
>> enough
>> as an analogy.
>
> It's deceitful propaganda and mudslinging. If it was directed at D you'd be up in arms.

So expressing disapproval about something, and the reason for the disapproval, is suddenly "deceitful propaganda and mudslinging"? Ah, I forgot, ever since the 60's nobody's allowed to have a negative option on anything...

On 10/24/2011 1:02 PM, Daniel Gibson wrote:
> Ok, this kinda makes sense, but I guess that having been exposed to the
> GPL'ed version wouldn't have made the deal impossible, just harder?

Right - not impossible, just harder.


> (Couldn't they just compare the code or something?)

At the rates lawyers charge, it would be expensive.


There's always the issue that if you're intimately familiar with X, and you wish (for legal reasons) to write an equivalent Y, it is pretty hard to make it different. You will unintentionally make much of it pretty similar to X.

The first IBM PC BIOS had a big problem with this. They solved it by dividing the dev team into three groups:

1. One group read the IBM PC BIOS and wrote a spec for it.
2. Another group of lawyers vetted the spec.
3. Spec was passed to a third group who implemented it, and who were not allowed to talk to group 1 nor look at the IBM PC BIOS source in any way.

IBM was notoriously litigious and protective of their IP, but this "clean room" technique, as it was dubbed, worked.

And the PC clone industry was thence born.


So, how far you need to go to avoid 'taint' kind of depends on how litigious and aggressive your competitor is.

"Kagamin" <spam@here.lot> wrote in message news:j83tbq$a12$1@digitalmars.com...
> Chante Wrote:
>
>> While I haven't thought it through (and maybe don't have the knowledge
>> to
>> do so), elimination of software patents was something I had in mind as
>> a
>> potential cure for the current state of affairs (not a cure for viral
>> source code though). Of course, noting that first-to-file is now the
>> thing, it appears (to me) that Big Software Corp and Big Government
>> are
>> on one side, humanity on the other.
>
> Patents are seen to exist for humanity.

With "first-to-file", it seems that "humanity" has either been sold-out, or raped (or both).

> Elimination of patents is equivalent to elimination of intellectual property.

Simply keep it a secret ("trade secret"). First-to-file allows Big Softare Corp to claim rights to things which they have no proprietary right to. But I'm not read-up on this stuff, I'm just spouting feelings. My feelings are that I've been sold-out, betrayed, raped (but I won't know for sure if those feelings are correct until I figure this stuff out).

> You're not going to succeed on that. But GPL3 at least protects you from patent claims from the author, so you'd better use it. You're afraid of others, but GPL can also protect *your* code.

"Nick Sabalausky" <a@a.a> wrote in message news:j84kee$1vk5$1@digitalmars.com...
> "Kagamin" <spam@here.lot> wrote in message news:j83tie$abu$1@digitalmars.com...
>>> You're afraid of others, but GPL can also protect *your* code.
>>
>> Most notably GPL protects the rights of your users. Are you thinking about your users?
>
> That's just backwards, GPL *limits* user rights. For instance, the right to license my software however I damn well choose. The right to feel safe about using a piece of software *without* hiring an expensive lawyer to wade through the ten pounds of legalese bullshit. There's a lot of things I *strongly* agree with Stallman on, but his reasoning on the GPL is just a complete load of crap.
>

He may be one of these "things": http://www.aspeneducation.com/article-entitlement.html

The number of people wanting something for nothing is astounding. I don't like those people.

"Steven Schveighoffer" <schveiguy@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:op.v3u2chz6eav7ka@localhost.localdomain...
> On Mon, 24 Oct 2011 10:39:54 -0400, Kagamin <spam@here.lot> wrote:
>
>> Chante Wrote:
>>
>>> While I haven't thought it through (and maybe don't have the
>>> knowledge  to
>>> do so), elimination of software patents was something I had in mind
>>> as a
>>> potential cure for the current state of affairs (not a cure for viral
>>> source code though). Of course, noting that first-to-file is now the
>>> thing, it appears (to me) that Big Software Corp and Big Government
>>> are
>>> on one side, humanity on the other.
>>
>> Patents are seen to exist for humanity. Elimination of patents is equivalent to elimination of intellectual property. You're not going to  succeed on that. But GPL3 at least protects you from patent claims from  the author, so you'd better use it. You're afraid of others, but GPL can  also protect *your* code.
>
> Patents are to foster innovation.  Software innovation needs no patent system to foster it.  Nobody writes a piece of software because they were  able to get a patent for it.
>
> I feel software patents are a completely different entity than material patents.  For several reasons:
>
> 1. Software is already well-covered by copyright.

Software, though, is not like a book: it's not just text. There is inherent design, architecture, engineering represented by source code.

> 2. With few exceptions, the lifetime of utility of a piece of software
> is  well below the lifetime of a patent (currently 17 years).
> 3. It is a very slippery slope to go down.  Software is a purely
> *abstract* thing, it's not a machine.

Maybe literally "abstract", but those flow charts, layers, boxes-and-arrows actually become realized (rendered, if you will) by the source code. The text really isn't important. The "abstraction" is.

> It can be produced en mass with  near-zero cost.  It can be expressed via source code, which is *not* a  piece of software.  There is a very good reason things like music, art,  and written works are not patentable.

Music and art don't "do" anything except titilate the senses. Software, OTOH, does do things of practical utility.

"Daniel Gibson" <metalcaedes@gmail.com> wrote in message news:j84ibc$1l0g$3@digitalmars.com...
> Am 24.10.2011 02:35, schrieb Chante:
>> "Daniel Gibson" <metalcaedes@gmail.com> wrote in message news:j822kv$7jf$2@digitalmars.com...
>>>
>>> I've never read a job description that said "we want a programmer
>>> that
>>> has no job experience and has not touched GPL code either".
>>
>> While such a "concept" may be new to you, it is not to me. If I'm the
>> first to say it, maybe some who are not yet "tainted" will see it as a
>> differentiator and/or a way forward. Surely, if I had the funds to
>> hire
>> programmers, the role description would be something like you stated
>> above.
>
> This would exclude many talented programmers - which are hard enough to find without restrictions like that.

Experience in programming is not necessarily an asset. It's easier to teach someone anew than it is to "unteach" someone. Those "talented" programmers that you mention may indeed be the ones I would want to avoid because that "talent" is chock full of viral source code techniques or proprietary patterns.

Programming isn't that hard, and it's not even very important. What is important is being able to render things in code. Say, a GUI or file system or a space shuttle launcher. I won't be looking for "coders" per se, but rather those who know how to implement something that I don't know how to or have no desire to. A WYSIWIG print engine, for example. I probably don't want to hire someone to do that either. I'll buy it from the company/individual who does that kind of thing after evaluating the choices. I don't have to start or support a "communistic movement". I can just go to the store and buy what I want (maybe even barter for it: I'll trade you my file system for your GUI system, e.g.)

> How is someone going to get experience without working with foreign code?

Creating it, of course. The best way to learn programming is to jump in with both feet. I'd recommend NOT looking first at how others do it. Use the knowledge gained from the instructional materials. Looking at other renderings should come after trying it one's self. Have you ever heard music played by someone who learned it FIRST from the music sheet instead of trying to put it together on their own? The result is horrendous.

I do a little bit of consulting from time to time. A lot of times (almost always), the client tries to present a potential solution (nevermind that they don't have the foundational knowledge to do that) instead of stating the problem they want solved. What that does is color my mind immediately instead of leaving me to think freely to come up with what I think is the best solution (not to mention that it bypasses all my well-evolved methods designed to deliver a project efficiently).

> Reading books on programming and also exhibits you to foreign code
> (that
> often doesn't even have an implicit license but only the license of the
> whole book that is basically "don't copy at all").

Read the other books then that really want to educate rather than to sell code.

Ideally, if I may fantasize a bit more, I wouldn't hire programmers. I'd hire "normal" ( ;-) ) people and teach them to program as it is done by the standards and methods of my company.

>
>> The ideal, for me, is
>> allying with others who are also not "tainted".
>
> i.e. people without any experience.

Exactly: with no PROGRAMMING experience. Of course, for the highly-comp-sci-like stuff, it's another story, but I'm thinking that those aren't "hires" but rather products that some other company makes which I will buy to use. Maybe have them whittle-out a little peace of their technology tailored to my needs.

>
>>> But I'd be interested in the opinions of other people in this
>>> newsgroup
>>> who earn money with software development (or have done so in the
>>> past):
>>> Have you ever experienced exposure to GPL'ed or proprietary software
>>> as
>>> a hindrance for a job?
>>> Is the opposite true - Open Source commitment (GPL or otherwise) is a
>>> bonus in ones resume that increases the chances of being hired?
>>> (Or both - "depends on the job"?)
>>
>> "Job" is but one thing, freedom is another.
>
> Not getting contact with any "tainted" source code (like the DMD frontend, btw) doesn't seem like freedom to me.

It's a personal choice. It depends on one's goals and capabilities. I'm more of the type like Intel is as a company. Excerpt from their TOS for their AppUp program:

"Unsolicited Idea Submission Policy
INTEL OR ITS EMPLOYEES DO NOT ACCEPT OR CONSIDER UNSOLICITED IDEAS,
INCLUDING IDEAS FOR NEW ADVERTISING CAMPAIGNS, NEW PROMOTIONS, NEW
PRODUCTS OR TECHNOLOGIES, PROCESSES, MATERIALS, MARKETING PLANS OR NEW
PRODUCT NAMES. PLEASE DO NOT SEND ANY ORIGINAL CREATIVE ARTWORK, SAMPLES,
DEMOS, OR OTHER WORKS. THE SOLE PURPOSE OF THIS POLICY IS TO AVOID
POTENTIAL MISUNDERSTANDINGS OR DISPUTES WHEN INTEL'S PRODUCTS OR
MARKETING STRATEGIES MIGHT SEEM SIMILAR TO IDEAS SUBMITTED TO INTEL. SO,
PLEASE DO NOT SEND YOUR UNSOLICITED IDEAS TO INTEL OR ANYONE AT INTEL.
IF, DESPITE OUR REQUEST THAT YOU NOT SEND US YOUR IDEAS AND MATERIALS,
YOU STILL SEND THEM, PLEASE UNDERSTAND THAT INTEL MAKES NO ASSURANCES
THAT YOUR IDEAS AND MATERIALS WILL BE TREATED AS CONFIDENTIAL OR
PROPRIETARY."


IOW, they have plenty of their own ideas and don't want or need anyone else's. I have a feeling that most programmers aren't that creative and tend to "requrgitate" what they have seen elsewhere, such as in viral source code, and that is not a good thing, not for my projects, anyway.

>
>> "Job" may be the only option
>> once one becomes "tainted". Surely one cannot say "clean room"
>> development for a product they offer from their own company once they
>> have exposed themselves, unknowingly or not, to viral source code or
>> another company's source code.
>
> So you're gonna start your own company without any prior professional experience and without looking at most (?) open source code and you'll only hire people that also have no experience? Good luck with that.

It sounds CRAZY, doesn't it! I'm hardly a noob at programming though. So much so, that I don't need to hire guru programmers. (I think everybody else is doing it "wrong").

>
> I don't see the value of "untainted" code per your definition.

Well maybe after reading this post you'll have a better understanding of my position on the matter.

> Of course you don't want to break copyright by mixing in code that you may not mix in (because of incompatible licenses or whatever), but this much paranoia is not needed and not feasible.

Well if it can't be had, then the alternatives would have to be evaluated. I do think, though, that the ideal situation is "growing" the developers rather than having to "unteach" (if that is even possible, given that the only patterns they may know is viral source patterns) existing ones.

>
> And if somebody claims you stole their code

And how would they ever know anyway, since my goals are to deliver "shrink-wrapped" software product, not source code product?

> they don't *have* to believe
> you if you say "I've never seen it", so in the end facts - or maybe
> some
> incompetent judge or jury - will decide.

Doesn't it seem prudent to dodge that bullet from the get go?

> Or are you gonna breed you own programmers that are (from childhood on!)

That probably would have been a great idea 10 or 20 years ago, for me. Maybe "I fucked up royally" in that regard.

> guaranteed to not have any exposure to "tainted" code by locking them
> up
> without any contact to the rest of the world (including yourself,
> because you can't guarantee that you're not tainted)?

Well you're just presenting the extreme end case, which of course is not representative of the actual "landscape" of things. There is a range of between best case and worst case. I think the latter would be the case where someone has ONLY worked with viral source (or only at Microsoft?), and the best case would be training a non-programmer (for the non-highly-comp-sci things) with good capability in another domain.

"renoX" <renzyx@free.fr> wrote in message news:j8383e$1ul8$1@digitalmars.com...
> >I'd never seen it before - maybe I lead a sheltered life.
>>
>>GPL: "Free as in Herpes"
>>
>>Doesn't that just hit the nail on the head.
>
> No, not at all.
> First, it isn't new: it's just the "GPL is viral" classic FUD,

Not that I care about anything GPL (rejected it long ago), but how is calling GPL'd code "viral" not appropriate when just placing uninfected code next to it, infects it?

On another note: Isn't the goal of GPL to offer "crap code" with the intent-of/attempt-at getting good (valuable/saleable/researched/developd) code? A "something for nothing", "Gen Y", "entitlement" mindset? See:

http://www.aspeneducation.com/article-entitlement.html