The things people do for money...
-
@morbiuswilters said:
Okay, but first I want you to answer some questions: why would code that is completely free of copyright not be usable? How can the person who wrote the code make you do anything if there is no copyright involved? I'm just curious to hear why you think that might be.
What on Earth makes you think it's in any way free of copyright?
In the US, copyright for a work is in existence by default, and is exclusive. See 17 US Code Chapter 2 § 201 if you want the wording.
A license is an agreement between a copyright holder and some other party to allow the other party's use.
If there is no license, the copyright is, as by default, the exclusive rights of the copyright holder.
You seem quite confused as to the difference between non-copyrighted aka "public domain" and "unlicensed"; unlicensed code is still copyrighted.
@morbiuswilters said:
So what I said: existing stuff is exempted from the license, new works must acquire a new license, works-in-progress are a gray area. Although, I'd say it's reasonably safe to assume that in-progress works would be safe, too.
I'm not even sure why you thought that was in contest, but yeah.
Anyways, I'm off for the day. Hopefully everything's been cleared up, and I really don't care if it hasn't
-
@HardwareGeek said:
I understood his statement to mean that the author was granting a license by stating the work is in the public domain, in which case of course you are free to do as you will with it.
That's not how it works. When you put something into the public domain, you surrender the copyright. You aren't granting a license and you can't later change your mind and take the copyright back.
-
@Buttembly Coder said:
You seem quite confused as to the difference between non-copyrighted aka "public domain" and "unlicensed"; unlicensed code is still copyrighted.
Um, what? No, you're the one who seems confused. Some jackass repeated the FSF-spread propaganda that you can't include public domain code in your code because you don't have a license. That is untrue, you do not need a license for public domain code.
-
@morbiuswilters said:
@HardwareGeek said:
So, public domain code is like a park bench, except with less hobo sweat on it?I understood his statement to mean that the author was granting a license by stating the work is in the public domain, in which case of course you are free to do as you will with it.
That's not how it works. When you put something into the public domain, you surrender the copyright. You aren't granting a license and you can't later change your mind and take the copyright back.
-
@morbiuswilters said:
@HardwareGeek said:
True, but this is effectively – not legally, but effectively – equivalent to giving you a "do whatever you want; I don't care" license, except, as you say, it is irrevocable. Both allow you to do whatever you want because the author won't (license) or can't (public domain) put any restrictions on your use. This is what I thought Buttembly was trying to say, but his later comments don't seem to be following this line of reasoning, so, yeah, I don't know what he's trying to say, either.I understood his statement to mean that the author was granting a license by stating the work is in the public domain, in which case of course you are free to do as you will with it.
That's not how it works. When you put something into the public domain, you surrender the copyright. You aren't granting a license and you can't later change your mind and take the copyright back.
-
@morbiuswilters said:
FSF-spread propaganda that you can't include public domain code in your code because you don't have a license.
Huh? Does FSF really say this? If so, my level of respect for FSF is lower than it was a few minutes ago.
-
@drurowin said:
So, public domain code is like a park bench, except with less hobo sweat on it?
Depends on whether Stallman worked on it or not.
-
@HardwareGeek said:
@morbiuswilters said:
FSF-spread propaganda that you can't include public domain code in your code because you don't have a license.
Huh? Does FSF really say this? If so, my level of respect for FSF is lower than it was a few minutes ago.I shouldn't have said FSF-spread. I recall that several years back, some FOSS zealots were spreading lies that you shouldn't use public domain software because it wasn't a real license and could be revoked at any time. Lawrence Rosen (a lawyer who worked for the Open Source Institute and advised some other FOSS projects) was a bit proponent of this bullshit. He ended up recanting a year or two ago after people got onto his case for, literally, just making shit up.
Whether the FSF ever pushed that line, I don't know. I just checked and the FSF's info on public domain software is accurate (although they still don't like it because it's not GPL.) It was pushed by a number of prominent FOSStards, so I may have mis-remembered Stallman also doing so, or perhaps he did it and later recanted, I don't know.
-
Upon viewing your conversation, I found myself going from overflowing with energy and enthusiasm to being a bucket with a big hole in it and nothing inside.
-
It all comes together.
-
@hhaamu said:
Upon viewing your conversation, I found myself going from overflowing with energy and enthusiasm to being a bucket with a big hole in it and nothing inside.
Umm... oookay.
-
@morbiuswilters said:
@hhaamu said:
Upon viewing your conversation, I found myself going from overflowing with energy and enthusiasm to being a bucket with a big hole in it and nothing inside.
Umm... oookay.
I think he's calling you a tiresome prat.
-
@dhromed said:
@morbiuswilters said:
@hhaamu said:
Upon viewing your conversation, I found myself going from overflowing with energy and enthusiasm to being a bucket with a big hole in it and nothing inside.
Umm... oookay.
I think he's calling you a tiresome prat.
sadface.jpg
-
@morbiuswilters said:
@dhromed said:
@morbiuswilters said:
@hhaamu said:
Upon viewing your conversation, I found myself going from overflowing with energy and enthusiasm to being a bucket with a big hole in it and nothing inside.
Umm... oookay.
I think he's calling you a tiresome prat.
sadface.jpg
-
@dhromed said:
Well la-de-daa, Mr. Serif Font. Do you type with your pinky up in the air too?It all comes together.
-
@morbiuswilters said:
Quite frankly, I'm surprised you, of all people, aren't more bothered by that. It's classic left-wing agitprop: "Being under our control makes you more free, because we are thoughtful, wise dictators who will always make sure you are taken care of, so long as you do not upset us."
I agree that their attempted appropriation of the word "Free" is annoying and similar (in spirit if not in scope) to, say, redefining infanticide as choice or women's health. But their conception of Free Software just has a different emphasis than what people commonly assume, as opposed to a completely opposite meaning.
-
@drurowin said:
Well la-de-daa, Mr. Serif Font. Do you type with your pinky up in the air too?
Yes.
I was also immunized to common diseases at young age so I did not fall ill to these.
-
@boomzilla said:
@morbiuswilters said:
Quite frankly, I'm surprised you, of all people, aren't more bothered by that. It's classic left-wing agitprop: "Being under our control makes you more free, because we are thoughtful, wise dictators who will always make sure you are taken care of, so long as you do not upset us."
I agree that their attempted appropriation of the word "Free" is annoying and similar (in spirit if not in scope) to, say, redefining infanticide as choice or women's health. But their conception of Free Software just has a different emphasis than what people commonly assume, as opposed to a completely opposite meaning.
Fair 'nuff.
-
@dhromed said:
@drurowin said:
Well la-de-daa, Mr. Serif Font. Do you type with your pinky up in the air too?
Yes.
I was also immunized to common diseases at young age so I did not fall ill to these.
Yeah, that didn't stop the Herp, though, did it?
-
@dkf said:
@morbiuswilters said:
The AGPL is basically identical to the GPL. The AGPL claims to cover normal use, but you can't do that in the United States. If you look at the exclusive rights afforded to copyright holders (17 USC 106), you will *not* see the right to "use" the work listed. Only a wrap or EULA can restrict the right to ordinary use, and the AGPL is neither a wrap nor an EULA. It's equivalent to a billboard that says "By reading this billboard you agree to do the chicken dance for an hour a day for the rest of your life". You can write anything you like in a license, but it's not automatically enforceable under US law. All you can do in a license like the GPL or AGPL is grant the right to do things 17 USC 106 would normally prohibit. You can't take anything away or add conditions to things people could already do.@blakeyrat said:
It could be worse; it could be AGPL. It's quite the most noxious infectious license out there; “kill it, kill it with fire” is a reasonable response. Thankfully it's rare.Maybe GPLv3 changes this, I dunno.
I don't think GPLv3 changes it. Then again, nobody uses GPLv3, so it doesn't really matter.In fact, maybe we can just skip the ranting about it and go straight to declaring that everyone who doesn't hate it is either blissfully ignorant or a complete idiot.
IANAL. This is not legal advice.
-
@joelkatz said:
The AGPL is basically identical to the GPL. The AGPL claims to cover normal use, but you can't do that in the United States. If you look at the exclusive rights afforded to copyright holders (17 USC 106), you will not see the right to "use" the work listed. Only a wrap or EULA can restrict the right to ordinary use, and the AGPL is neither a wrap nor an EULA. It's equivalent to a billboard that says "By reading this billboard you agree to do the chicken dance for an hour a day for the rest of your life". You can write anything you like in a license, but it's not automatically enforceable under US law. All you can do in a license like the GPL or AGPL is grant the right to do things 17 USC 106 would normally prohibit. You can't take anything away or add conditions to things people could already do.
IANAL. This is not legal advice.
[citation needed]
The AGPL isn't an end-user license, instead it's aimed at people who incorporate GPL'd code into their own code base, but who then provide that code as a service than rather as a direct distribution. I don't think the GPL is probably going to end up enforceable, but if it does, then the AGPL is probably as-enforceable.
-
-
@dhromed said:
weren't those the orange guys in the willy wonka movie?@morbiuswilters said:
Yeah, that didn't stop the Herp, though, did it?
The herp derp.
-
@drurowin said:
@dhromed said:
weren't those the orange guys in the willy wonka movie?@morbiuswilters said:
Yeah, that didn't stop the Herp, though, did it?
The herp derp.
You're thinking of oompa loompas:
-
@morbiuswilters said:
@drurowin said:
What the hell is that, their union steward?@dhromed said:
weren't those the orange guys in the willy wonka movie?@morbiuswilters said:
Yeah, that didn't stop the Herp, though, did it?
The herp derp.
You're thinking of oompa loompas:
-
@Ben L. said:
To be fair, GiB and KiB have a purpose.
Yes, they do, and the purpose is to identify the user of those terms as a needlessly-pedantic individual.
Sometimes it feels like Ben L is Blakeyrat if he had an insulin pump full of mood stabilizers.
-
@FrostCat said:
@Ben L. said:
For some reason, I read that as GWB and KGB. I need to stop staring at a poorly calibrated LCD monitor.To be fair, GiB and KiB have a purpose.
Yes, they do, and the purpose is to identify the user of those terms as a needlessly-pedantic individual.
Sometimes it feels like Ben L is Blakeyrat if he had an insulin pump full of mood stabilizers.
-
@The_Assimilator said:
Unless your code is open-source and/or you hire an open-source hippie who will go running to Stallman (protip: this is a good interview question), no-on who cares will ever see it.
God only knows why I'm feeling like an Aspie at the moment, but this isn't actually 100% true--there's been more than one case where people have reverse-engineered things and discovered the unmentioned use of GPLed code.
-
@morbiuswilters said:
@hhaamu said:
It would not be a dual licence (as commonly understood in the open sauce world);
Um.. huh? It has two different licensing terms: an open source one, and a proprietary one. Sounds like a dual-license to me.
@hhaamu said:
Nobody is demanding you work for free; they're demanding that if you use their code, you abide by the GPL's terms.
Yes, and the GPL's terms are that I work for free. It's idiotic that GPL people try to act like "Oh, our licenses just free you from the original developer's whim. Except when it comes to any code you write modifying, adding to or using the source--then you have to abide by the developer's whim." It would be as idiotic as M$ saying "Hey, our software costs absolutely no monies!* (*Except for licensing fees.)"
That's a pretty un-nuanced way of putting it. What it boils down to is you may not be able to sell your software for money if you have to give the code away to anyone who asks for the source and is able to compile it themselves. You're free to (attempt to) make money by selling a service contract instead, and let's face it, in the business world that's probably where you'll make most of your money anway.
Certainly at my company nobody wants to use OSS because "what do we do if there's a problem?"
-
@FrostCat said:
@Ben L. said:
To be fair, GiB and KiB have a purpose.
Yes, they do, and the purpose is to identify the user of those terms as a needlessly-pedantic individual. Sometimes it feels like Ben L is Blakeyrat if he had an insulin pump full of mood stabilizers.
That would be a terrible idea! When someone was trying to get him to blow up he could just do a bolus to assist what I can only assume would be the large basal load, it would take all the fun out of him (plus I don't know of any mood stabilizers that have side effects relating to cats).
-
@morbiuswilters said:
If the GPL people were honest and said "Yeah, our software arguably isn't any freer than Microsoft's. We impose certain mandates at gun-point, just like they do. However, we feel our mandates are better for the community and make better software. So really it's a trade-off and you have to choose which you prefer" then I'd be fine with that, but instead they're just twisting the meaning of words.
This is, I believe, where the term "Open source" and the adjective "libre" came into use, in the avoidance of the ambiguity in Stallman's preferred term "free."
-
@locallunatic said:
@FrostCat said:
@Ben L. said:
To be fair, GiB and KiB have a purpose.
Yes, they do, and the purpose is to identify the user of those terms as a needlessly-pedantic individual. Sometimes it feels like Ben L is Blakeyrat if he had an insulin pump full of mood stabilizers.
That would be a terrible idea! When someone was trying to get him to blow up he could just do a bolus to assist what I can only assume would be the large basal load, it would take all the fun out of him (plus I don't know of any mood stabilizers that have side effects relating to cats).Yes, that was my point.
-
@drurowin said:
@morbiuswilters said:
@drurowin said:
What the hell is that, their union steward?@dhromed said:
weren't those the orange guys in the willy wonka movie?@morbiuswilters said:
Yeah, that didn't stop the Herp, though, did it?
The herp derp.
You're thinking of oompa loompas:
That was the governor of Florida, the dictionary definition of RINO, who, when voted out of office by virtue of losing a primary to someone who challenged him from the right, unmasked his true affiliation by switching to the Democrat party.
IIRC they didn't want him so now he's running on the E party. That's like Independent, but the E stands for Egotistical.
-
@FrostCat said:
@The_Assimilator said:
Unless your code is open-source and/or you hire an open-source hippie who will go running to Stallman (protip: this is a good interview question), no-on who cares will ever see it.
God only knows why I'm feeling like an Aspie at the moment, but this isn't actually 100% true--there's been more than one case where people have reverse-engineered things and discovered the unmentioned use of GPLed code.
Unless drurowin is working on something enterprisey that millions of people are gonna use, I really doubt anyone has the time or inclination to disassemble whatever his company is shipping. If you're really that paranoid, run the code through an obfuscator.
-
@The_Assimilator said:
@FrostCat said:
The audit wasn't looking for F/OSS code, but it was found along the way. Someone went to Legal for an opinion, and one of our staff attorneys came down from on high and said that now that we "know" it's GPL code, we have to either comply or risk being liable for "willful infringement", and that the chances of us open-sourcing this code would have the devil looking for mittens, so start rewriting from scratch.@The_Assimilator said:
Unless your code is open-source and/or you hire an open-source hippie who will go running to Stallman (protip: this is a good interview question), no-on who cares will ever see it.
God only knows why I'm feeling like an Aspie at the moment, but this isn't actually 100% true--there's been more than one case where people have reverse-engineered things and discovered the unmentioned use of GPLed code.
Unless drurowin is working on something enterprisey that millions of people are gonna use, I really doubt anyone has the time or inclination to disassemble whatever his company is shipping. If you're really that paranoid, run the code through an obfuscator.
-
@FrostCat said:
What it boils down to is you may not be able to sell your software for money if you have to give the code away to anyone who asks for the source and is able to compile it themselves.
Yes, that's what I said.
@FrostCat said:
You're free to (attempt to) make money by selling a service contract instead, and let's face it, in the business world that's probably where you'll make most of your money anway.
Certainly at my company nobody wants to use OSS because "what do we do if there's a problem?"
Oh, good, so I put in a few thousand hours building the software, then I have to go into business as a consultant, competing against people who can jump into the market with very little ramp-up and who don't have to contribute anything to the core product. Meanwhile, I'm still contributing to the project to fix bugs, add features, etc.. while 99% of the people who use it will just download it for free and only seek out consultants if they have a problem. And then they'll probably be giving that business to somebody else because I've already sunk all of my time and money into building the fucking thing, so my competitors can all afford to pay more for AdWords. Fantastic. Thanks for this dynamite business plan.
-
@morbiuswilters said:
@FrostCat said:
What it boils down to is you may not be able to sell your software for money if you have to give the code away to anyone who asks for the source and is able to compile it themselves.
Yes, that's what I said.
@FrostCat said:
You're free to (attempt to) make money by selling a service contract instead, and let's face it, in the business world that's probably where you'll make most of your money anway.
Certainly at my company nobody wants to use OSS because "what do we do if there's a problem?"
Oh, good, so I put in a few thousand hours building the software, then I have to go into business as a consultant, competing against people who can jump into the market with very little ramp-up and who don't have to contribute anything to the core product. Meanwhile, I'm still contributing to the project to fix bugs, add features, etc.. while 99% of the people who use it will just download it for free and only seek out consultants if they have a problem. And then they'll probably be giving that business to somebody else because I've already sunk all of my time and money into building the fucking thing, so my competitors can all afford to pay more for AdWords. Fantastic. Thanks for this dynamite business plan.
Well, I never said it was a good business plan, I just described it.
One would assume if you're writing some software you intended to make money off of, it would be complex enough that anyone couldn't just download it and start using it. Like, uh, payroll software, I guess. If you don't know tax law and a bunch of stuff, you're first off not going to get people's paychecks right, and second, Uncle Sam and his little buddies in the state IRSes are going to be knocking in your door.
Obviously this model won't work for a lot of classes of thing, like MP3 players, and I honestly don't know how you could make money off an RMS-free MP3 player without just straight-up using the shareware model (only without the "pay us for the rest of the features.")
-
@FrostCat said:
One would assume if you're writing some software you intended to make money off of, it would be complex enough that anyone couldn't just download it and start using it. Like, uh, payroll software, I guess.
It seems like payroll software should be something you can just use right away. In fact, I'd say most software, if it's well-designed, should be pretty easy to get going.
-
@morbiuswilters said:
@FrostCat said:
And yet payroll departments seem to be keen on training…One would assume if you're writing some software you intended to make money off of, it would be complex enough that anyone couldn't just download it and start using it. Like, uh, payroll software, I guess.
It seems like payroll software should be something you can just use right away.
-
@dkf said:
@morbiuswilters said:
@FrostCat said:
And yet payroll departments seem to be keen on training…One would assume if you're writing some software you intended to make money off of, it would be complex enough that anyone couldn't just download it and start using it. Like, uh, payroll software, I guess.
It seems like payroll software should be something you can just use right away.Shit, man, I'm sure there's training available for Netflix if you looked around..
-
@morbiuswilters said:
@FrostCat said:
One would assume if you're writing some software you intended to make money off of, it would be complex enough that anyone couldn't just download it and start using it. Like, uh, payroll software, I guess.
It seems like payroll software should be something you can just use right away. In fact, I'd say most software, if it's well-designed, should be pretty easy to get going.
It probably is, if you're a small business. If you have employees who work in multiple states, or have multiple wage garnishments, or want endless customized reports, or have weirdass timeclock systems, or screwy incentive pay, and so on, Quickbooks probably doesn't cut it.
There's a LOT of companies like ADP (most of them probably somewhat to a LOT smaller) and if you're beyond Quickbooks, you probably need training. Not to mention wanting a support contract so you have tax updates every year.
This is what RMS, FSF, and so on are talking (probably) when they say give the software away and sell support and training. I dunno how much of a market there is in all cases and I'd imagine it won't work well for turnkey systems.
-
@FrostCat said:
This is what RMS, FSF, and so on are talking (probably) when they say give the software away and sell support and training.
No, I don't think RMS wants people making money on software at all. I mean, Jesus, the guy doesn't even think you should have kids.
-
@morbiuswilters said:
No, I don't think RMS wants people making money on software at all. I mean, Jesus, the guy doesn't even think you should have kids.
AFAIK, FSF used to sell GCC in their early days.
-
@ender said:
@morbiuswilters said:
No, I don't think RMS wants people making money on software at all. I mean, Jesus, the guy doesn't even think you should have kids.
AFAIK, FSF used to sell GCC in their early days.I think they just charged for the physical floppy disk and not the software. Internet is cheaper than postage, let alone physical media.
-
@morbiuswilters said:
No, I don't think RMS wants people making money on software at all. I mean, Jesus, the guy doesn't even think you should have kids.
I certainly hope RMS never reproduces. Imagine a flock of little Stallmans running around eating their toe jam. Shudder
