|
Do I understand correctly that I can use LGPL in a commercial program without revealing my own source code?
Is there somewhere an overview of all libraries that can be used in a commercial program without revealing my own source code?
|
|
|
|
|
You are almost right. You are then allowed to link to the library from your own non-free program. How about including the source code in your own program? Please read the LGPL license carefully.
Just look for programs (usually libraries) licenses under the LGPL (also known as the Library General Public License), for example on Sourceforge.net.
Albert Einstein and Marilyn Monroe were seated together at a table. "Hey Albert," said Marilyn. "Imagine if we had a baby and it had my looks and your brains-it could do anything it wanted." "Yes, my dear," replied Einstein. "But what if it has my looks and your brains?"
|
|
|
|
|
Just some thoughts,
> Faster software development
Does this mean that I can give my spec to the 'community' and ask them to code "feature x", why would they do it any faster than the guy I'm paying to do it.
> Faster bug fixes
How are the bug fixes faster?
> More people will use the program
But will more people pay for using the program?
> The wishes of the general community will be automatically integrated in the program
How is this a good thing? A product needs a fixed set of aims and goals otherwise it becomes a nightmare to support and maintain. By having extra and probably un-needed functionality added by somebody who thought it was a 'cool' idea is the best way to have a project start slipping.
> Less development costs
Is there any figures to back this up? Surely the extra project management time, code reviewing time for checking for code developed by untrusted sources, extra testing etc add more to the development costs than if it was all done in-house by a team getting paid.
GPL is an interesting idea, one with ideals that are worthy but our current society will never embrace it fully because it impacts on our ability to pay the bills.
Can you name one succesful GPL product that pays the bills, but isn't aimed exclusivly at geeks, developers, or the general internet. Something in the real world that the rest of us can relate too.
Michael
'Logic, my dear Zoe, merely enables one to be wrong with authority.' - The Doctor: The Wheel in Space
|
|
|
|
|
Michael P Butler wrote:
> Faster software development
Does this mean that I can give my spec to the 'community' and ask them to code "feature x", why would they do it any faster than the guy I'm paying to do it.
More people work on it. And more people improve it *in their own way*. I.e. the result will be something that the general community likes (since it is created by them). You can give the idea of "feature x", and may even provinde the implementation. Or find someone else who likes this feature and implements it for the project.
Michael P Butler wrote:
> Faster bug fixes
How are the bug fixes faster?
Because when more people work on and with the program, the chances of noticing a bug increase, and fixing can be done by the person him/her self, or by posting this bug on a forum, and someone else will fix it.
Michael P Butler wrote:
> More people will use the program
But will more people pay for using the program?
Take for example, the Magic Library[^]. This library was Open Source, so it got developed by other people. Now that it has reached a state of completeness, the owner changed the license of their own code, and now you'll have to pay for it. They can improve the program on their very own, but those earlier versions that float around may still be used, improved, and further developed.
Michael P Butler wrote:
> The wishes of the general community will be automatically integrated in the program
How is this a good thing? A product needs a fixed set of aims and goals otherwise it becomes a nightmare to support and maintain. By having extra and probably un-needed functionality added by somebody who thought it was a 'cool' idea is the best way to have a project start slipping.
I never said that my letting other people develop a program, that they will code features that have nothing to do with the program. I just mean that when 'the general community' works on a program, it's improvements are good improvements in the eyes of those people, which mean that they like it. If they do, more (non developers) will propeably also like it.
For example, NSIS[^]. This is an open source installer for the Windows platform. People suggested a look like the new Windows XP look. The program didn't support that before, and now it does. People are happy.
People asked for multilingual support, which wasn't integrated by default. After many versions, multilingual support has been archieved (Right-to-left text, uncommon character sets, translated versions). The general community is happy...
Michael P Butler wrote:
> Less development costs
Is there any figures to back this up? Surely the extra project management time, code reviewing time for checking for code developed by untrusted sources, extra testing etc add more to the development costs than if it was all done in-house by a team getting paid.
I mentioned this from a hobby-developer point of view. I don't have to pay anything to let my programs develop. Neighter does Mono, the open source .NET framework replacement library, in contrast to Microsoft, who put millions of dollars into .NET.
Michael P Butler wrote:
Can you name one succesful GPL product that pays the bills, but isn't aimed exclusivly at geeks, developers, or the general internet. Something in the real world that the rest of us can relate too.
If I understand you correctly, you want me to name an open source product from which the developers (or the owning company) will earn money, right?
SuSE linux (not downloadable, still open source, you'll have to buy it). They provide the full source code with the distribution, unde rthe GPL licese which says that you may distribute and modify the source code. But people don't. SuSE develops it much better and all bugs and fixes, patches and feature requests are send to SuSE. So they earn money.
Same for that Magic library I mentioned.
Albert Einstein and Marilyn Monroe were seated together at a table. "Hey Albert," said Marilyn. "Imagine if we had a baby and it had my looks and your brains-it could do anything it wanted." "Yes, my dear," replied Einstein. "But what if it has my looks and your brains?"
|
|
|
|
|
Haha SuSE?! You're telling me that's aimed at the general public? No sir, you're dreaming.
I view open source as a way to spread and share knowledge, but it'd be suicidal to use an open source business model. Prove me wrong.
The graveyards are filled with indispensible men.
|
|
|
|
|
Judah H. wrote:
I view open source as a way to spread and share knowledge, but it'd be suicidal to use an open source business model. Prove me wrong.
Those companies who let themselves in with open source 'didn't commit suicide'. Prove me wrong, by giving one example of a company which developed an open source program and died from it..
And I never said anything about having a complete open source business model.. Just about developing an open source application.
Albert Einstein and Marilyn Monroe were seated together at a table. "Hey Albert," said Marilyn. "Imagine if we had a baby and it had my looks and your brains-it could do anything it wanted." "Yes, my dear," replied Einstein. "But what if it has my looks and your brains?"
|
|
|
|
|
Hello
Open Source is an idea, which I really like. I would love to code in world where all programs are open source. But generally it's a dream. As long as I have to earn money to live, I will not give away my progs for free -> why should I do this? Do you give keys to your apartment to anyone on the street? Tell me why -> I think that some people might come and tell you that you should for example buy another sofa, cause this one does not match color of the walls. If you open car doors and leave, it is probably that next day you will find your car intact (someone might borrow it, and return).
But as long as we close doors, as long as we keep keys to our cars, and as long as we have to earn money to live, I do not believe in open source.
I am now wondering: if you have enough courage please tell us what do yo do for living, them tell me what I should do for living (I am a chief programmer currently, but I am writing non-open source stuff).
Waiting for your answer
Mukkie
|
|
|
|
|
Mukkie wrote:
I am a chief programmer currently
You're Da Man, obviously.
You are of utmost importance and towering competence, that you really had no time to think from a broader perspective. Hence your moronic comparisons in the first part of your post.
Next time, when you are no longer anonymous, I will even answer you polite and without sarcasm.
We all, as we are on CodeProject use OpenSource a great deal. It seems to work, and there are obviously a lot of people contributing and still make money for a living.
So, at least partially Open Source seems to work.
Closed source seems partially not to work, as we see with the raging software patent nonsense.
Most of the not-dot-com-bubble companies of the new economy had some sound business strategy that involves software *as part* of solutions for some problem. Not software *as* solution lacking a problem.
Software is not a product in itself. It is part of a system an end user uses to solve its
problem. In this way, open source is no thread, as the specific knowledge of a company is in its people and 'engeneering knowledge' anyway.
Mukkie wrote:
I do not believe
A huge loss for the world, indeed.
Who is 'General Failure'? And why is he reading my harddisk?!?
|
|
|
|
|
Hello!
Truly saying, I am happy, cause I got the anwser from You
"Sarcasm is one of the weapons, where arguments fail"
Well, I think that there is no point to cry argue or kill someone hehe... and anyway it is not a matter of faith, but reality. You know, I have a friend that claims that Amiga is still alive. Good! I know people (many people) that says that open source is good. I will not judge them all, but my opinion is built based on my experience.
And if we live in world, where we work for money, to live -> we have to work for money to live.
Let's imagine situation: I am rich. I do not have to work for money, cause I have enough of them. I love coding - so I would spend some of my time to develop applications, and give them for free. Why not? ... someone would learn from my code, or I could learn from other's code.
Hope to get answer from You.
This time, try to convience me harder
|
|
|
|
|
Mukkie wrote:
I know people (many people) that says that open source is good. I will not judge them all, but my opinion is built based on my experience.
Ok. What experience do you have with working in a Company that makes a living from producing solution from open source software?
None?
How can you say that it will not work.
Don't pretend to be naive. You seem to argue that Open Source does mean everyone codes fulltime for free. That can't be the full extent of your knowledge about open source projects?
You do not sell your finished product, but the knowledge it takes.
I for example, program an application that is sold ridiculously cheap. In fact, it is often used as some sort as a rebate-bait: It is thrown in to keep the price of the whole system up.
So - I do work for free!
But I get my regular paycheck.
While this is not about Open Source, it is about not selling a program, but giving it away 'for free'.
Who is 'General Failure'? And why is he reading my harddisk?!?
|
|
|
|
|
Hello!
True: I have no experience with working in company that makes open-source software. But still, I cannot understand, how this company will pay for office, will pay salaries. Of course there will be people who pay for open-source code, but let's say that there are people who walk on the moon :P
I would pay for open-source, only if I would have enough money for me and my family. In most cases for most of us, it is impossible.
Discussion is rather simple for me. Open Source is a great idea in the world of free stuff: free buses, free tv's, free soft. It is possible, but I do not think that in my live (though maybe I regret)
If free soft, why not free gas? And If we are spoking bout technology:
if free soft, why not Sony gives us all it's specs bout technology: tv, ps2, etc. Many of home-engineers would work on new ps3 console - is not that right?
Why Sony does not want to make world better by allowing someone to make better tv?
Still
(Well I made a storm)
Best Regards
Magitian
|
|
|
|
|
Mukkie wrote:
I cannot understand, how this company will pay for office, will pay salaries.
Ah, this is the point!
But that is just you, lacking the creativity to come up with a viable business model:
Other people did, and it worked!
Rest assured that I am also incapable to come up with something so sound that I would bet my existence on it...
Mukkie wrote:
Sony...tv
What is the link between them?
Why Sony does not want to make world better by allowing someone to make better tv?
They have no word to say if you design a better TV-set. As long as you are not infringing on their patent (but that is a whole different story).
TV are made by a lot of companies. Each one thake the base technologies and tries to make better products from the specs that are common knowledge.
This way, TVs get better and better: 100Hz, PAL and NTSC in one set, improved videotext, Harddisk recorder build in etc.
None of this has been brought to us by Sony.
Yet they are making big money with it (you can bet they would have left the market if not)!
Who is 'General Failure'? And why is he reading my harddisk?!?
|
|
|
|
|
Hello!
But I want to code in my TV better menu - I think I am able to do this. But (my tv is Sony) Sony did not give me specs. Why? It would for sure make their product better - anyone could find bugs, and post possible fixes
Best Regards
Magitian
|
|
|
|
|
Mukkie wrote:
But I want to code in my TV better menu...Sony did not give me specs Why?
No idea. Probably people like you (and me!) are less than one permille of the Sony-customers.
The business model of Sony Inc. does have no impact on Open Source and making money with it.
Who is 'General Failure'? And why is he reading my harddisk?!?
|
|
|
|
|
jhwurmbach wrote:
Ah, this is the point!
But that is just you, lacking the creativity to come up with a viable business model:
Other people did, and it worked!
What? Like Mandrake who have probably the easiest to use Linux distro, and have had to file for bankruptcy in France. Or Redhat even, who have only recently gave up on Redhat Linux(as they had never made any money from it), to focus on RedHat Enterpirse server which comes with a much more restrictive licence.
Suse, Ximian, both now owned by Novell, as they were strugling on their own. Even if Suse had a decent turnover, there was still no money in it. Rememeber, one day you pention has to be invested in these companies, and you are going to want to make a profit or have a miserable retirement when you realise you have a huge shortfall.
About the only people making money from it are people like IBM, who tout it as a software licencing cost saving to clients, and them sting them with heavy support and consultancy fees when it does not work. If if so good, why don't they open source Websphere?
|
|
|
|
|
AnonymousCoward wrote:
had to file for bankruptcy in France.
Like thousands of startups in the IT industry.
Like some major players, too.
So what?
AnonymousCoward wrote:
Redhat Linux, to focus on RedHat Enterpirse server
RedHat Enterprise server is a proprietary solution build on Open Source. Someone has bundled all the Open Source stuff to make a server with premium support, and nor sell that.
Great! But you know how RedHat has done much to improve the Linux codebase.
Good example of give and take here.
AnonymousCoward wrote:
Even if Suse had a decent turnover, there was still no money in it.
Hmm. They have been owned by professional investment firms for years now. Seem to have been sufficient ROI.
SuSE originated from a project at Erlangen-Nuremberg university back in the early nineties. I was basically two guys bundling Linux, expecting Kernel version 1.0 anytime soon... Great business story, to get bought by Novell..
AnonymousCoward wrote:
one day you pension has to be invested in these companies
Thank god, until now that is not the case where I live. This scheme looked good for a few years dot-com-bubble and hyper-exponential share-price growth. But as we see now, it just don't hold over long time.
Who is 'General Failure'? And why is he reading my harddisk?!?
|
|
|
|
|
Mukkie wrote:
Hope to get answer from You.
You got an answer from me instead...
You refer to open source software as giving away your very own source. But that is *NOT* the concept behind open source. The concept is that you create an idea (or even program a base for this idea) and let other people (which you've never even met) work on it too!
No nonsense about letting other people into your own appartment... To do what? Clean it up together?
Albert Einstein and Marilyn Monroe were seated together at a table. "Hey Albert," said Marilyn. "Imagine if we had a baby and it had my looks and your brains-it could do anything it wanted." "Yes, my dear," replied Einstein. "But what if it has my looks and your brains?"
|
|
|
|
|
Open source or even just free software has its place. Many times when trying to interoperate MS stuff with anything else in the friggen world, I've wished open source were good enough or easy enough to use so that it would totally replace MS software. I don't hate MS, I use their stuff all the time...but, man, it ranges from impossible to a royal pain to integrate their overly complex file systems, code storage, software, or intentionally obuse protocols with anything else. Anyway, back to the point. I have read many times that some of the brilliant few that created some of the best open source software make good money from it. They either run support companies (mysql, zend--PHP, etc.) or get hired by a host company and given paid time to continue to support their brainchild (Linux, etc.). Most open source software is not a boxed-type solution (like gimp/open office is). Most of the tens of thousands of open source packages are modules (see CPAN) or languages (Perl, PHP, Python) or OSs/deamons (Linux/Apache/Sendmail) that PROGRAMMERS use to glue together custom software solutions. The problem comes when you want to use the code in a custome solution and sell it. If you are using open source software as support, like Linux/Perl/PHP/Apache, where the customer can download it themselves, then you are okay . But if you are imbedding something ... you are hosed...unless of course, you want to give it away and join the starving artists sect. One final thought...if there was no open source, MS would be forced to contemplate original thought (smile).
Chuck King
|
|
|
|
|
How does open source make me program faster?
It might make more people use the software, but I will not help me make any money and pay my bills, and then I can't make more software.
You dont program for a living do you?
So you really think that Linux can replace Windows, and that Mono can replace the .NET framework?
Please.....
- Anders
Money talks, but all mine ever says is "Goodbye!"
My Photos[^]
nsms@spyf.dk <- Spam Collecting
|
|
|
|
|
Anders Molin wrote:
So you really think that Linux can replace Windows
Yes, Linux replaces Windows for many people. Maybe not for you, but that's your opinion.
Anders Molin wrote:
and that Mono can replace the .NET framework?
And Mono is well on it's way to become the first multi-platform .NET framework. If finished, it will actually replace the .NET framework on Linux and many other systems. And because it offers extra functionality, it may very well replace the .NET framework on windows.
Albert Einstein and Marilyn Monroe were seated together at a table. "Hey Albert," said Marilyn. "Imagine if we had a baby and it had my looks and your brains-it could do anything it wanted." "Yes, my dear," replied Einstein. "But what if it has my looks and your brains?"
|
|
|
|
|
Daniël Pelsmaeker wrote:
Yes, Linux replaces Windows for many people. Maybe not for you, but that's your opinion.
Linux is less than 5% of the pc market.
John
|
|
|
|
|
the pc market is in the business of selling. open source is in the market of giving it away free, so 5% that compete for the market sell the software.
but where did you get that figure from?
|
|
|
|
|
Daniël Pelsmaeker wrote:
Yes, Linux replaces Windows for many people. Maybe not for you, but that's your opinion.
Well, not for many people, only a few. Try to give Linux to ordinary users which are not developers and only uses the computer as just another tool they need. Linux is not good enough for that yet.
Think about it, if it really was so much better than Windows, a lot more people would use it as its free.
Daniël Pelsmaeker wrote:
And Mono is well on it's way to become the first multi-platform .NET framework. If finished, it will actually replace the .NET framework on Linux and many other systems. And because it offers extra functionality, it may very well replace the .NET framework on windows.
You really think it will replace .NET?
Right now they work hard enough to support the same stuff as .NET does.
Another thing, you never asked my question: Do you program for a living, or are you a young guy that have just discovered Open Source and think it can save the world?
- Anders
Money talks, but all mine ever says is "Goodbye!"
My Photos[^]
nsms@spyf.dk <- Spam Collecting
|
|
|
|
|
OpenSource I like, it's cute.
But If you're gonna write an article about it,
be fair and explain *all* consequences.
You've only listed the pros of OpenSource / GPL / LGPL;
why haven't you listed the 'cons' - the reasons why most companies are *not* developing OpenSource software..?
Yes, some bugs might be fixed faster.
But some bugs might get *noticed* or *exploited* faster too.
Yes, more people will use your program.
But will they *pay* for using it..?
Yes, some of them will.
For the rest - your program is free for the taking.
And yes - the GPL / LGPL protects your rights.
But only when you can *prove* someone has copied your code.
etc. etc...
Once again, I'm all for open-source,
but (sorry, don't mean to bash you) this reads more like an article from someone who has just discovered the concept and hasn't thought it through.
If you want to push people in the right direction, at least tell them the whole truth
|
|
|
|
|
I do not work for a company, so I don't know how they think about Open Source, but I try to promote it, and tell what in my vision is important to a company.
I'm sure that those companies that I listed (SuSE, for example) earn big money on developing Linux, altough this is Open Source. SuSE doesn't let you download their distribution, but it gets developed very well. They even hire their own developers to do it, and on the other side, people can still copy the source, like you said.
I suppose that those people who read this article also understand the cons of Open Source. The fact that people can copy source code, is in my perspecive good, but in a big-time company's perspective, it may just not be what they want. That's up to them. I just tell the properties of Open Source, and GPL-ed programs, compared to non Open Source development.
Led wrote:
Yes, some bugs might be fixed faster.
But some bugs might get *noticed* or *exploited* faster too.
And about *exploiting* bugs, I think that the best way of *noticing* bugs is by testing. And from my perspective, it's a lot easier to exploit a bug in MS Office than in OpenOffice, just because OpenOffice gets developed faster, and leaks are closed earlier. So I don't agree with you on this.
Led wrote:
this reads more like an article from someone who has just discovered the concept and hasn't thought it through.
And I am an -still unknown- open source developer, thinking about putting his X.NET open source extended library online. I've been working with open source for two years now, mostly on the NSIS project.
|
|
|
|
|