Quote: Original post by capn_midnight
A game won't practically run without its content, and you're required give everything necessary to make it run.

There is no clear definition in the license of what state the code is required to run in. The game could start up with a blank screen if no assets are found and it wouldn't change one bit that the source was GPL compliant, as the license requires. The fact that we're having these arguments to begin with is evidence of what a crappy license it is. There's a million other licenses more developer friendly that don't protect the free source any less.

Quote: Original post by capn_midnight
A game won't practically run without its content, and you're required give everything necessary to make it run.

AFAIK, "practically" isn't mentioned in the licence. No program will "run" without data, unless it doesn't compute anything at all, in which case one could question the utility of such a program. When you open a bitmap image in the GIMP, it doesn't automatically become GPL. The same is true of your game data, because you can replace the sound files, the image files, the models, etc, and the game will still run perfectly. This is unlike, say, XPM images that are embedded in the source code: it effectively can't be replaced without changing the source code.

Note, BTW, that your game won't practically run without an OS either, yet you don't have to get the Windows or Mac OS source code to make a GPL game. Likewise, it won't run without hardware, but you don't have to use GPL hardware either. If it's networked, the data it sends and receives doesn't automatically become GPL.

Now, as a former Schemer, I find the line between data and code quite blurry, so I simply plan on releasing everything under the GPL. If you're afraid of doing that, just stay away from GPL stuff, and you'll be fine. It's really that simple. [smile]

Quote: Original post by capn_midnight

Quote: Original post by owl
I find that to be kind of odd. Little guys are hurt because they are provided with high-quality solutions for free? How can they be hurt by that if the only other alternative is having to pay for everything to the big corporations you mentioned?

No, it is the reprecussions of using the library that hurts them. If the GPL gains more support, it could very easily become the ONLY license available. At that point, what choice does a small company have when reimplementation is far too costly?

If that ever happens, which I doubt it, then bussines strategies will have to change, as they do everyday. I don't really see the big problem with this particular license, as someone said above is just a crappy one which happened to be a protagonist in the open source revolution of the last years.

Quote: Original post by DrEvil
There is no clear definition in the license of what state the code is required to run in. The game could start up with a blank screen if no assets are found and it wouldn't change one bit that the source was GPL compliant, as the license requires. The fact that we're having these arguments to begin with is evidence of what a crappy license it is. There's a million other licenses more developer friendly that don't protect the free source any less.

Indeed. One point against the "assets don't count" theory, though, is the LGPL, which explicitly allows linking a program to a library without the program falling under the LGPL. Given the obvious congruence between linking a program to a library and linking a content-package to a game engine, it seems clear that the designers of the GPL intended this sort of behavior.

I think it's important to clarify what is actually being argued here - it's not simply a pro-vs-anti GPL, as there are several opposing viewpoints, some from a closed source point of view, others from a "more free" point of view (e.g., BSD). Also some criticisms don't apply to the GPL in general, just to particular circumstances.

As far as I can tell, there's:

1. The GPL is not as good/free/open as licences like BSD.
2. The GPL is not as good as closed source, and is even harmful in some way, in ways that licenses like BSD aren't.
3. GPL is a bad choice for libraries.
4. RMS is an aging hippy with silly or even dangerous political ideas.

Point 1 is perfectly reasonable. Though I don't think one should be critical of the GPL, at least no more than of closed source. Yes, it's an interesting paradox that on the one hand, the GPL is better at keeping source open, but it requires that it's "less free" from the point of view of a programmer wanting to use the code.

Point 2 I don't understand at all - I don't see how someone choosing to release their code as GPL is wrong or makes the world a worse place.

Point 3 I do see the point of - but note that many "pro GPL" people agree too, and indeed this is why we have the LGPL. In my experience, LGPL seems to be far more common than GPL for libraries anyway.

Point 4, I'm not going to debate - just to note that this is a separate issue to the merits of using the GPL licence. But as for ideology, I don't see how "Everyone should use BSD/etc, you're evil for choosing GPL" is better than "I choose to release the software I wrote under GPL" - it seems to me the only ideology actually being pushed in this thread is of the BSD/etc type.

Quote: Original post by capn_midnight
I think even Marxists can agree that this is technological communism. Communism has always hurt the little guy the most.

What has communism got to do with anything?

The GPL plays very much along with the rules of our capitalist society, and requires the concept of copyright ownership to the individual, rather than being owned by everyone.

Quote: I'll admit, I've considered violating the GPL in the past. It's a calculated risk, I feel. I doubt that the GPL will hold up in a US court, especially with some of the bad press it has received.

You are saying that _copyright violation_ won't hold up in court? That's all that matters, because if you don't accept the terms of the GPL, that's what you'll be guilty of.

Quote: Fortunately, there are very few really good, really innovative libraries that are exlusively to the GPL. Most of the time, an alternative library under the BSD-license is available, or relicensing is available from the creator.

But the LGPL would be fine too.

Quote: No, it is the reprecussions of using the library that hurts them. If the GPL gains more support, it could very easily become the ONLY license available. At that point, what choice does a small company have when reimplementation is far too costly?

Note that your argument about the little companies is exlusively an argument against using GPL for libraries (i.e., point 3 in my list). You've admitted yourself that few libraries are exclusive to the GPL - most are LGPL or other licences. So, even if the GPL and LGPL gain support, it seems highly unlikely that the GPL would be the only licence for libraries.

But even if it is, think what will happen - if there is commercial demand for non-GPL libraries, then programmers will be falling over themselves to write such libraries, because they'd make a killing in profit!

Lastly, I presume you point equal amounts of criticism at the "big companies", for not making their solutions available to the little companies?

Quote: Which is the bigger tragedy? You losing a fun development project because of a closed source library, or a small company losing a profitable devleopment project because of an open source library?

The better comparison is a small company losing a profitable development project because they can't use a proprietary library (either it's not available for licence, or the cost is too high).

Quote: If you don't want people to profit off of your hard work, then don't give your work away for free. Can I put a chair on the side of the road, with a sign that says "Free for the taking... but not if you're going to re-apholster it and sell it!" Discrimination based on philosophy, ideology, or politics is surely as bad as discrimination based on race, sex, or religion.

Discrimination?! It's as much discrimination as it is when any company lays down terms about how their libraries or code can be used. Just because some GPL advocates have some silly ideology (i.e., point 4 in my list) doesn't mean that the GPL itself is discriminating according to ideology.

The "if you can obtain it for free, you've given up your right to copyright" is also absurd - by that logic Internet Explorer and Opera are in the same situation as Firefox, but do you think I'd get away with modifying IE and reselling it? Do you think I can happily use a closed source library in a commercial product, on the basis that "If they didn't want me to use it, they shouldn't have let me download it for free"? If a music artists gives away a CD, does that mean they've revoked rights to the music and I can resell it or use it in a commercial product?

Quote: Original post by jbarcz1
But if you do that, then you can't use GPLed libraries in this version, right?

I'd have to check the licences of libraries I'm using, including non-GPL OS licences, and closed source licences. For example, there are many closed source libraries which are "free for non-commercial use".

Bearing in mind that most (that I use, anyway) libraries are actually LGPL rather than GPL, I actually am far more likely to find closed source libraries being a stumbling block to me making money.

Quote: Original post by Sneftel
On multiple occasions, this code has then been incorporated into GPLed products. This means that while they can freely use my code, I can't use their code. Nice, huh?

Yes, exactly, this is why many programmers release under the [L]GPL rather than MIT etc! Similarly, a company could swipe your code and include it in theirs, and you'd have no right at all to use it!

Quote: GPL advocates constantly throw up this fallacy. "Having to pay for everything to the big corporations you mentioned" is NOT the only other alternative. The GNU Public License was neither the first nor only open source license, nor is it the least restrictive.

But if there are other OS libraries, then the "little guys" can use those, and it's still not true that the GPL is harming them.

It is capn_midnight, not a "GPL advocate", who is painting a world where GPL is the only thing libraries are released under.

Quote: Original post by DrEvil
The fact that we're having these arguments to begin with is evidence of what a crappy license it is.

No, it's evidence that some people arguing against it don't have a clue what the GPL actually says.

Quote: There's a million other licenses more developer friendly that don't protect the free source any less.

Such as? (Not saying you're wrong, I'm curious.)

Quote: Original post by will75
The truth is that the success of our products is in the algorithms and the algorithms are easily understood from the code, so the code is not something we would give away. Those algorithm are the result of ten years of research, no one in the OSS world or even in the academic world was ever able to accomplish the same results and that's because reaching those results costs time and money.

IANAL, but couldn't you patent those algorithms?

/stupidity. Next time I should think it through all the way. :)

Quote: Original post by mdwh

Quote: Original post by Sneftel
On multiple occasions, this code has then been incorporated into GPLed products. This means that while they can freely use my code, I can't use their code. Nice, huh?

Yes, exactly, this is why many programmers release under the [L]GPL rather than MIT etc! Similarly, a company could swipe your code and include it in theirs, and you'd have no right at all to use it!

Sure-- and I have no problem with them doing that. I just think it ironic that in these circumstances, there's no difference from my perspective between GPL and closed source.

Quote:

Quote: GPL advocates constantly throw up this fallacy. "Having to pay for everything to the big corporations you mentioned" is NOT the only other alternative. The GNU Public License was neither the first nor only open source license, nor is it the least restrictive.

But if there are other OS libraries, then the "little guys" can use those, and it's still not true that the GPL is harming them.

That's the problem, though: There aren't as many such libraries. The viral nature of the GPL, combined with the popularity of Linux, has led to a situation where more library functionality is available from GPLed software than from other "free" licenses.

Quote: Original post by owl
Where did I say GPL code isn't available for everyone? The fact that people can't greedily profit from other's work doesn't mean the code isn't available for them to other kind of business like tech support, etc. Even learning!

The fact is that many companies are in a business space where they cannot afford to open up their code. You are suggesting that many companies completely change their business structure to become a support company?

That might work for some B2B companies, but not for B2C. Espcially when companies are in competition with others. Imaine a senario where you have a propriatory product, and you want to introduce new functionality.

1. Find a GPL library, open up your entire source code, and convince your company directors to change your business model.
2. Develop your own code from scratch. It will be expensive, and inferior, but you will own the code.
3. Plug in a LGPL library. Improve the library, contribute code back to the project, and retain closed source for the rest of your product.

I don't think you could find a company that would agree to 1. The open source project looses, because and potential improvements to the library won't be made, and the company looses, becuase now they have to pay to produce a propriatory library.

Option three benifits both parties. If a library gains enough traction, and is valuable enough to the company, then they will commit resources to improving it to suit their needs. The project then gets improvements that might have not otherwise been made.

Quote: Original post by kwackers

Quote: Original post by owl
Where did I say GPL code isn't available for everyone? The fact that people can't greedily profit from other's work doesn't mean the code isn't available for them to other kind of business like tech support, etc. Even learning!

The fact is that many companies are in a business space where they cannot afford to open up their code. You are suggesting that many companies completely change their business structure to become a support company?

That might work for some B2B companies, but not for B2C. Espcially when companies are in competition with others. Imaine a senario where you have a propriatory product, and you want to introduce new functionality.

I already stated 2 or 3 times in this thread that the GPL license isn't the most suitable license for companies that pretend to make greedy profit out of a product without having to developing it completely. GPL is to grant that the code will be freely available for anyone to use, modify, distribute and make profit from it between the terms of the license.

You say that sofware companies may be damaged by this, on the other hand you have ZILLONS of institutions (public and private) that won't have to pay for an operative system (and it's upgrades), develpment software, third party libraries, etc.

Personally, if I were a government, I would rather prefer to have all the programmers working everywhere creating, improving and adapting free software for whoever they are working rather than having them begging for money to a bunch of private software development companies (who will completely own the code, and would rather destroy it before even thinking to release it for free) owned by 5 fat old big asses who don't give a shit about anything but money.

Quote: Original post by kwackers
1. Find a GPL library, open up your entire source code, and convince your company directors to change your business model.
2. Develop your own code from scratch. It will be expensive, and inferior, but you will own the code.
3. Plug in a LGPL library. Improve the library, contribute code back to the project, and retain closed source for the rest of your product.

I don't think you could find a company that would agree to 1. The open source project looses, because and potential improvements to the library won't be made, and the company looses, becuase now they have to pay to produce a propriatory library.

Option three benifits both parties. If a library gains enough traction, and is valuable enough to the company, then they will commit resources to improving it to suit their needs. The project then gets improvements that might have not otherwise been made.

Agreed.

[Edited by - owl on September 15, 2006 12:58:37 AM]

Quote: Original post by Anon Mike

Quote: Original post by will75

Quote: Original post by frob

Quote: Original post by will75
Probably the rest of our industry would be doomed too

This is a tired old argument.

"no more money" is false

You don't even know what kind of software the company I'm working for produces, so how can you say that?

You made a general statement about the industry, he addressed that, not the current specific circumstances of your company in particular. Any specific company may be hurt by a change in the business climate becuase thier business model can't adapt but that doesn't mean the whole industry is doomed.

Sorry, I understand that it wasn't clear: when I said "the rest of our industry would be doomed", I didn't meant the whole software industry, but the part of software industry my company is in, and in particular the group of companies that produce the kind of softwares we are producing. I just wanted to show why the adoption of the GPL and the open source model can't be generalized: some can benefit from it, some would be hurt.
In my opinion the GPL and open source are not bad, they have a place in the world and it's the place it has right now. Everyone is benefiting from open source software every day, so there's no reason not to test it in new fields. The problem is when you try to blindly apply it where it just doesn't fit (like in the example I brought).
It's unlikely that a company will change its business model just because they want to integrate a GPL software in their products. They'll rather look for an equivalent commercial solution, if it's not available they'll build it from scratch and if that it's not feasible they'll just change direction with the products they want to make (for example in my company jit compilation would be desireable, but at the moment we just don't plan to do it). That's why I think the GPL is not a threat like someone said instead: they can try to convince you to open your code, but they can't force you.
The GPL is a problem only for people that get involved with it without fully understanding the license and its implication.