Please open source all the things

[commodorejohn]

That's not what "shutting down all discussions of 'why should I give it away?'" means, man.

[wXR]

Originally Posted by commodorejohn

That's not what "shutting down all discussions of 'why should I give it away?'" means, man.

It's not a shutdown of those discussions by means of censorship. If the data proves out, then it is a refutation of what seems to be one of the more common arguments, that's all.

EDIT: On the other hand, this position assumes that you actually care about the Amiga platform and its well being generally. If that isn't the case, then the topic has no teeth, or point.

[commodorejohn]

Or it means that I care about the Amiga platform but don't think that individuals should feel obligated to put it ahead of their own best interests and desires.

But that's just crazy talk.

[wXR]

Originally Posted by commodorejohn

Or it means that I care about the Amiga platform but don't think that individuals should feel obligated to put it ahead of their own best interests and desires.

But that's just crazy talk.

Sure, we've already established no obligation. That's intrinsic. You, myself, and everyone else is entitled to his or her own opinions and respective course(s) of action. It doesn't need to be said anymore. What I am encouraging the discussion of, is the actual effect of "closed source thinking" on what I assume to be a mostly profit-free pastime.

[Graham Humphrey]

No perogative. No obligation. Yet you keep going on and on and on and on like a spoiled child who didn't get exactly what they want for Christmas. If people want to release their source they'll do it, if they don't then they don't. They don't need to justify it or need "facts" to prove them wrong. Give it a rest.

[commodorejohn]

Originally Posted by wXR

What I am encouraging the discussion of, is the actual effect of "closed source thinking" on what I assume to be a mostly profit-free pastime.

You mean like how some people might decided to keep their code to themselves for reasons other than monetary profit, and thus might not be instantly induced to share it because a guy on a forum told them they weren't making any money anyway? MADNESS!!!

[wXR]

Originally Posted by Graham Humphrey

No perogative. No obligation. Yet you keep going on and on and on and on like a spoiled child who didn't get exactly what they want for Christmas. If people want to release their source they'll do it, if they don't then they don't. They don't need to justify it or need "facts" to prove them wrong. Give it a rest.

Sorry Graham, but I'm not going to "give it a rest". This thread is specifically about the advantages and disadvantages of free software. If you or anyone else desires not to participate in this thread, then indeed, you need not.

Originally Posted by commodorejohn

You mean like how some people might decided to keep their code to themselves for reasons other than monetary profit, and thus might not be instantly induced to share it because a guy on a forum told them they weren't making any money anyway? MADNESS!!!

Same for you commodorejohn, you've already made your point. Rather than enter the domain of trolling, how about adding some substance to your argument? A few people have already made legitimate points, such as the fact that "managing" a community of developers can theoretically be distracting, that someone may wish to have eternal full control over a given product, and that the quality of their code may simply make one look bad. Do you have any further thoughts about it? "Someone might not want to" is really not worth writing down, because, well, obviously...

[britelite]

Originally Posted by wXR

This thread is specifically about the advantages and disadvantages of free software. If you or anyone else desires not to participate in this thread, then indeed, you need not.

And I assume you will not ask people if they're going to open source their projects in other threads, right?

[wXR]

Originally Posted by britelite

And I assume you will not ask people if they're going to open source their projects in other threads, right?

Well I tried that a while ago and it was not very productive, so no, not anymore.

EDIT: And your point is well taken, believe me.

[Korodny]

Originally Posted by Minuous

That's a pity. Not sure whether I will be able to do anything about that

You won't. Like I said, the remark wasn't directed at you: WINE often works - sort of. I just brought it up since you kept mentioning WINE as an option for Linux/OS X users: it's an emergency stop-gap, not an option. Which was my original motivation for asking about your license, since it makes proper ports less likely IMHO.

>There are about ten game ROMs included with the distribution, what kind of license do these have?

The companies concerned are all out of business so they are effectively PD.

There's no such thing as "effectively PD" and you know it. But when reading this, I remembered another incident were you were hosting more recent, "effectively PD" things on your website (it even gut shut down at some point, didn't it?).

That would explain your different take on licenses, of course. If you tend to ignore other peoples licenses or IP rights when it suits you, you would naturally expect similar behaviour from others - while the GPL or other free software licenses tend to assume the best in people.

I didn't say "you know shit" or anything to that effect. Anyway, there are countless open source projects that are not GPL, eg. AWeb, Handy, MAME, MESS, Apache, etc.

As I already stated, I wasn't recommending the GPL in particular, I was recommending to use any standardised free software license. I just brought up the GPL, because it's actually the one closest to your custom license.

I don't see anyone saying that those programs aren't open source.

Of course your stuff is open source. I was talking about free software, not open source. Your stuff is not "free software", if one uses the definition that has been used for the last 15 years - I just pointed out you shouldn't call it free (as in "freedom", not as in "free beer"), because that's misleading. In the manual you actually use the term "open source freeware", that's a lot better - i.e. more precise - IMHO.

[Korodny]

What is going on here? wXR politely asked a few people if they would consider releasing their sources, they said no and he went on with his life - how's that a problem?

And this particular thread has been created specifically to discuss releasing sources for Amiga software - it clearly says so in the title. If you don't care about that topic, why come here and then complain about feeling harassed? It's not like anybody gets dragged in here so we can yell at him or her.

[Thorham]

Originally Posted by wXR

Do you have any further thoughts about it? "Someone might not want to" is really not worth writing down, because, well, obviously...

What's there to think about? Someone wants to open source their code, or they don't. You can jump high and low, argue for the rest of eternity, etc, etc, but if the author doesn't want to make their software open source, then it won't happen. Simple really.

[Korodny]

Originally Posted by Thorham

You can jump high and low, argue for the rest of eternity, etc,

Nice.

but if the author doesn't want to make their software open source, then it won't happen. Simple really.

What world are you guys living in? There are countless examples of Amiga software that's open source now because somebody approached the copyright holder and asked. And I, for one, am glad about it - because a lot of the software I used a decade ago only survived because of that (DOpus 4, Wookiechat/AmIRC, AmiFTP, FTPMount...).

wXR is simply asking for advice on how to do that in a way that increases his chances of convincing said author. Yet people keep telling him to shut up, they imply he's feeling an "incredible sense of entitlement" or that the mere thought of asking would be an insult...

Could everybody who thinks like that just leave this thread please? You're the ones being destructive here. wXR already demonstrated (several times) he's receptive to (constructive) criticism. If that's not an option for you, maybe you could open your own thread about how the terribly self-righteous, unwashed open source advocates are harrassing proper Amiga coders? Thank you.

[Minuous]

There's no such thing as "effectively PD" and you know it.

I'm not talking about abandonware, where a particular product is no longer being sold by the copyright holder. I'm referring to the case where the company itself has gone out of business and thus there is no copyright holder. Those are two different things.

>As I already stated, I wasn't recommending the GPL in particular, I was recommending to use any standardised free software license. I just brought up the GPL, because it's actually the one closest to your custom license.

What does it matter whether it is "standardized" or not? The licence I use is more "standardized" than eg. the AWeb Public Licence or the licence used by Handy, both of which AFAIK are only used by a single program. And it's different from the GPL in some important ways, otherwise I would have just used the GPL. If I send my licence off to be rubberstamped by some organization as "standardized", would it suddenly be a "free" licence, even though it was still word for word the same? Or, conversely, if the GPL's stamp of approval was suddenly withdrawn, would this suddenly make the GPL a "non-free licence"? Of course not. Whether a licence is more "free" or not is purely dependent on what the licence terms actually are, not on some approvals/standardization process.

Could you outline exactly what it is about my licence terms that is not "free"? The only people whose freedom is curtailed are those who would make a quick buck out of someone else's work, or those who would like to add various kinds of malware to it.

>Your stuff is not "free software", if one uses the definition that has been used for the last 15 years - I just pointed out you shouldn't call it free (as in "freedom", not as in "free beer")

It is free in both senses, whereas the GPL and similar licences don't even *try* to be free in one of the senses, and arguably fail to be free in the other sense. You can't just redefine "free" to mean only one thing when a quick glance at any dictionary shows that it means more than one thing.

[Thorham]

Originally Posted by Korodny

wXR is simply asking for advice on how to do that in a way that increases his chances of convincing said author.

Perhaps I should have read the thread

[haps]

Originally Posted by wXR

Sure, we've already established no obligation. That's intrinsic. You, myself, and everyone else is entitled to his or her own opinions and respective course(s) of action. It doesn't need to be said anymore. What I am encouraging the discussion of, is the actual effect of "closed source thinking" on what I assume to be a mostly profit-free pastime.

You are not trying to encourage discussion, you are trying to force feed the mantra of 'all software should be open source', just like RMS.

It is the zealots that give the open source / libre software community a bad name.

[Korodny]

Originally Posted by Minuous

I'm referring to the case where the company itself has gone out of business and thus there is no copyright holder.

There is always a copyright holder - just because a company folds, doesn't mean their IP is PD now. It's now owned by the programmers, or whoever bought the remnants of the company, or the banks...

You are well aware of that, that's why you said "effectively PD" not "PD".

What does it matter whether it is "standardized" or not?

It matters to a lot of the people taking care of open source software. The people who could compile your stuff for more platforms, adopt it to SDL or wxWidgets, package it for various Linux distributions (so users can see it listed and install it with a single mouse click), add improvements to it...

You're simple reducing the chances of your code to be widely distributed or actually benefit from being in the open - that's all I'm saying. I brought it up since your custom license is so close to the GPL that it doesn't actually matter for any practical purposes. You keep worrying that some very mean person might insist on sending out the sources via snail mail only ("for a charge no more than your cost of physically performing source distribution") or try to get rich with it. Neither is going to happen. And if somebody wants to screw you, your custom license won't help you one bit.

Could you outline exactly what it is about my licence terms that is not "free"? The only people whose freedom is curtailed are those who would make a quick buck out of someone else's work, or those who would like to add various kinds of malware to it.

It's either "free" or "free for most people/in most cases". Your license is the latter, which makes it incompatible with completely free licenses and limits its usability in a context of free software. We simply disagree on wether how much impact this limitation will have and if your restricting clauses will have any positive effects.

[Dunny]

I tend to use a different strategy for my code - my current project is open under the GPLv3 because the coin I flipped came up heads. Others are closed, either because of said coin-toss of because I've ported closed-source software with the blessing of the original author. I see no benefits in letting others run rampant over my code.

I have had some people commit changes to my SVN, but I revert them when it happens.

D.

[Minuous]

>It matters to a lot of the people taking care of open source software.

Surely they can read and understand a one-page licence written in plain English? Much more easily than the GPL which just waffles on and on page after page...

>The people who could compile your stuff for more platforms, adopt it to SDL or wxWidgets, package it for various Linux distributions (so users can see it listed and install it with a single mouse click), add improvements to it...

Nothing in the licence prevents them from doing any of these four things.

>You keep worrying that some very mean person might insist on sending out the sources via snail mail only ("for a charge no more than your cost of physically performing source distribution") or try to get rich with it. Neither is going to happen.

Well, you don't know that for sure. And what is the harm of having such clauses? It's a bit like saying "probably no one will exploit this bug, so we will just leave the vulnerability in the code." Plus, the licence I have come up with is not really intended to be restricted to just my own stuff, I would be happy to see that licence used more widely, including by programmers whose software may have more commercial appeal. If that licence has gaping holes in it allowing selling, adding of spyware, etc. then it's unlikely anyone else would want to use it.

[Korodny]

Originally Posted by Minuous

Well, you don't know that for sure. And what is the harm of having such clauses?

I tried to explain that like five times now Let's just agree to disagree.

I checked your website again, and realised that in addition of the emulator with unlicensed ROMs, most of your games are unlicensed conversions of copyrighted board games. Not that I have a problem with that (like I said, I enjoyed playing "Africa" for a bit), but that fact alone would hinder more widespread distribution anyway.

I would be happy to see that licence used more widely [...] If that licence has gaping holes in it allowing selling, adding of spyware, etc. then it's unlikely anyone else would want to use it.

I'm a total amateur as far as license texts or legalese in general are concerned, and in a single 15 second brainstorming session could come up with a hole in your concept (banner ads) - that's not exactly a seal of quality.

Your license also does not make it clear how derivative works shall be licensed. I could take your source, compile it, and distribute it under the Korodny Public License 1.0 - which contains all your clauses, plus the new clause that people named 'James' are not allowed to do anything with the code.

Like I said - most of the standard licenses out there are decades old, went through several revisions, had armies of lawyers review them, were tested in court... Not sure I'd want to compete with that.

And again, GPL is not your only option. You might want to look at CC-BY-SA (a free license) or CC-BY-SA-NC.