Rugby licnese changed
[1/16] from: m:koopmans2:chello:nl at: 18-Jan-2002 13:14
All,
I have changed the license of Rugby from BSD to GPL to gain better control
about its redistribution.
All previous licensed Rugby licenses have been revoked under Dutch copyright
law and again granted under the new license, which is the GPL.
Other licenses can be negotiated.
--Maarten
[2/16] from: brett:codeconscious at: 19-Jan-2002 1:24
> I have changed the license of Rugby from BSD to GPL to gain better control
> about its redistribution.
All I can say is, please re-read the GPL, if you know it then please
re-consider your decision.
Brett.
[3/16] from: m::koopmans2::chello::nl at: 18-Jan-2002 17:36
I know it. If you feel uncomfortable with it you can contact me for a
different runtime redistribution license.
Fixed fee, $99 for unlimited redistribution without GPL
$249 gives you a one year subscription, effectively extending your runtime
license to all rugby versions for a year.
$4999 gives you a BSD license for the curent version
$9999 gives you a one year BSD license subscription.
Upon payment via paypal (www.paypal.com) to [m--koopmans2--chello--nl] you will
receive your license.
--Maarten
[4/16] from: petr:krenzelok:trz:cz at: 18-Jan-2002 18:20
Maarten Koopmans wrote:
>I know it. If you feel uncomfortable with it you can contact me for a
>different runtime redistribution license.
<<quoted lines omitted: 6>>
>receive your license.
>--Maarten
Why so sudden change? :-)
-pekr-
[5/16] from: m:koopmans2:chello:nl at: 18-Jan-2002 18:24
If you make free stuff that's cool!
If it costs me time and you use it to make money....
...this seemed a bit more fair to myself.
--Maarten
[6/16] from: chris:langreiter at: 18-Jan-2002 18:49
>
>If it costs me time and you use it to make money....
>...this seemed a bit more fair to myself.
>
It certainly is. The GPL won't restrict you from developing proprietary
applications with Rugby, in this case, however, it only disallows
changing Rugby _itself_ and not releasing the changes themselves
(assuming a sane definition of "linking"), so I'm not entirely sure the
license change itself will be a great incentive to pay Maarten The Big $$$.
Correct me if I'm wrong!
-- Chris
[7/16] from: m:koopmans2:chello:nl at: 18-Jan-2002 19:21
Nope, that's the LGPL.
If you publish software (including selling) that uses Rugby(as a library linking), it
is also GPL'ed unless you negotiate otherwise.
--Maarten
[8/16] from: chris:starforge at: 18-Jan-2002 19:19
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
#Friday 18 January 2002 14:24# Message from Brett Handley:
> > I have changed the license of Rugby from BSD to GPL to gain better control
> > about its redistribution.
>
> All I can say is, please re-read the GPL, if you know it then please
> re-consider your decision.
If you don't like him GPLing it, why not talk to him about you getting it
under a different license? The GPL is the only well known license which
allows the *author* to control who, where and how any commercial and/or
closed source entity uses their code, something the BSD does the opposite of.
If GPL is a problem for you company then talk to the author. If the author
wants you to use it, then it ceases to be a problem (the GPL does not prevent
individual relicensing)
Then ask why you weren't going to talk to the author about royalties for
using their code in your commercial product, or their opinion about it being
used in a closed source project, in the first place. Because you could get it
for free without asking?
Then wonder why people use the GPL instead of BSD. Code released under BSD is
open season for any company who wants to make money with your code and there
isn't a damn thing you can do about it. With the GPL it is possible to
negotiate a license under which your code can be used commercially or in a
closed product. That is the author's right. If Maarten left the code under
BSD, who knows which company or group could nick it, bastardise it and sell
it as their own (aside from Microsoft of course, not that they would do such
a thing).
IME a lot of the flak the GPL gets comes from companies who would much rather
rip off individuals or groups of coders rather than negotiate terms. It's too
much trouble for them to talk to programmers. It's not too much trouble for
them to use their code of course. These companies rather have code they can
use for free, without having to pay an experienced coder to write it. The
GPL forces them to talk, and few of them like it.
Quite frankly, I couldn't give a damn about people with that attitude, they
deserve all the trouble they get. If they behaved ethically, they wouldn't
have a problem (and don't give me that old crap about progrmmers using code
without knowing it is GPL - the GPL states that code arried by it must say so
in the comments at the top. Any programmer who can't read comments has no
business programming). Computing Ethics is quickly turning into a sick joke.
Chris
- --
.------{ http://www.starforge.co.uk }-----. .---------------------------.
=[ Explorer2260, Designer and Coder \=\ P: TexMaker, Draktar \
=[ All is well. We are not like the others. ]==[ Stack: EEOeOeOeTmTmDD---- ]
- --
May your Tongue stick to the Roof of your Mouth with the Force of a
Thousand Caramels.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org
iD8DBQE8SHVQtwxr0HXns0wRAguhAJ40Y3FTCUCamRrVKzce+uHnQGyitgCg7geb
GuV5LrMlp96suI7RtW0MBB4=XoR2
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
[9/16] from: m:koopmans2:chello:nl at: 18-Jan-2002 20:28
Thanks.
You made my point ;-)
--Maarten
[10/16] from: rotenca:telvia:it at: 18-Jan-2002 21:10
Only a curiosity.
Can the same version of a program have two different licenses?
Why to use the GPL, if exists the BSD license of the same program?
---
Ciao
Romano
[11/16] from: m:koopmans2:chello:nl at: 18-Jan-2002 21:53
The BSD license verison is revoked by me, being the copyright holder. There
will be a more stable version soon that will not have this duality
appearance problem.
--maarten
[12/16] from: rotenca:telvia:it at: 18-Jan-2002 22:53
Hi Marteens,
> The BSD license verison is revoked by me, being the copyright holder. There
> will be a more stable version soon that will not have this duality
> appearance problem.
It is only a theorical question, but i don't think that one can revoke a
license after distribuition. So licecense is not a license, it is a joke.
---
Ciao
Romano
[13/16] from: m:koopmans2:chello:nl at: 18-Jan-2002 23:01
You are probably right, but even if you are...
newer versions with improved security and bug fixes go under this license
for sure.
--Maarten
[14/16] from: brett:codeconscious at: 19-Jan-2002 10:13
> Then ask why you weren't going to talk to the author about royalties for
> using their code in your commercial product, or their opinion about it
being
> used in a closed source project, in the first place. Because you could get
it
> for free without asking?
My reasons I'll keep to myself. Thanks for your interest.
<rant snipped>
Brett.
[15/16] from: bpaddock:csonline at: 19-Jan-2002 7:10
> IME a lot of the flak the GPL gets comes from companies who would much
> rather rip off individuals or groups of coders rather than negotiate terms.
Sudden changes in license structure give the entire concept of 'open source'
a bad name, and just encourage more proprietary software to be written and
not released.
> It's too much trouble for them to talk to programmers. It's not too much
> trouble for them to use their code of course. These companies rather have
> code they can use for free, without having to pay an experienced coder to
> write it. The GPL forces them to talk, and few of them like it.
I was using a BSD product in a commercial application. Version 1.0, the
author changed the licenses when he released 2.0 to GPL.
I asked him if I could use V2 as I had been, and he knew I had been using V1
this way, he told me no. There where no money issues involved with either
version.
So I learned a valuable less not to rely on any software that I didnt' write
my self.
So I maintain V1 my self and keep using it. I don't know about Dutch law,
but in most places you can't retroactively null&void past copyrights for
works in existences. Think of what that would mean to every book that was
ever printed.
So now when I write a comercial application I look what is out there in open
source land, read the specs, then go write my own version, if the author
tells me I can't use it when I ask.
Two reasons for this, I don't know what incompatibilities the next version
will introduce since it is not under my control, and getting money out of the
'Bean Counters' to license every piece of code out there that I could use to
make my life easier is next to impossible in a cooperate environment. As
dumb as it is, they don't care if I spend 100 hours of my time reinventing
the wheel, it is a hidden indirect cost to them, but the $99 per X is some
thing that shows up on the bottom line.
Also that $dollar amount must be marked up, at least by 33% according to the
Biz. class I took, and pasted on to my customer. Such a cost increase in a
product can not be justified in many cases.
> Quite frankly, I couldn't give a damn about people with that attitude, they
> deserve all the trouble they get.
Keep that thought in mind the next time you go to buy any piece of equipment
that has software in it, from your car to your microwave...you are the one
paying the cost just as I do when I buy some thing.
[16/16] from: rotenca:telvia:it at: 19-Jan-2002 14:42
Hi Bob,
I don't want to start a religion war but your objections seem me a little
strange:
> I was using a BSD product in a commercial application. Version 1.0, the
> author changed the licenses when he released 2.0 to GPL.
> I asked him if I could use V2 as I had been, and he knew I had been using V1
> this way, he told me no. There where no money issues involved with either
> version.
Obviously, if he changed to GPL he did not want his code to be used in a
commercial application
.
> So I learned a valuable less not to rely on any software that I didnt' write
> my self.
If you write commercial software, this is the right thing to do. Stallmann
divided software world in two: commercial and GPL. When you write something,
you must decide where to be: a program can't live in both worlds. You are free
to choose.
> So I maintain V1 my self and keep using it. I don't know about Dutch law,
> but in most places you can't retroactively null&void past copyrights for
> works in existences. Think of what that would mean to every book that was
> ever printed.
I agree.
> Keep that thought in mind the next time you go to buy any piece of equipment
> that has software in it, from your car to your microwave...you are the one
> paying the cost just as I do when I buy some thing.
It is right. Work must be paid. Bill Gates is very paid for his work, why we
must not pay John Smith?
---
Ciao
Romano
Notes
- Quoted lines have been omitted from some messages.
View the message alone to see the lines that have been omitted