On Thu, May 08, 2008 at 07:48:26AM -0400, Olin Lathrop wrote: > Xiaofan Chen wrote: > > Just read my reply to Olin and you will know I was just talking > > based on the popular definition of "open source". > > Then you misunderstand the popular definition. (thought to self: Do I REALLY want to wade into this?) > I think the general > consensus of "open source" means you can look at it. All common definitions of open source deals with modification and redistribution. From the Wikipedia entry (emphesis mine): ---------------------------------------- Open source software is computer software for which the human-readable source code is made available under a copyright license (or arrangement such as the public domain) that meets the Open Source Definition. THIS PERMITS USERS TO USE, CHANGE, AND IMPROVE THE SOFTWARE, AND TO REDISTRIBUTE IT IN MODIFIED OR UNMODIFIED FORM. It is often developed in a public, collaborative manner. ---------------------------------------- It's not about being able to read the source. > In most cases you can > do more, usually much more. But some restrictions, like GPL or my > copyright, don't disqualify it from being "open source". Again where is your license? I couldn't find it on this page: http://www.embedinc.com/picprg/sw.htm Also I downloaded the source bundle. While the aspic files had an "any use" clause in it, I didn't see any licensing information with the .pas files. > There are probably others listening in wondering what the fuss is about. > Here is the copyright notice of the source files that do not directly > implement a programming algorithm or are part of the USB framework: > > *************************************************************** > * Copyright (C) 2008, Embed Inc (http://www.embedinc.com) * > * * > * Permission to copy this file is granted as long as this * > * copyright notice is included in its entirety at the * > * beginning of the file, whether the file is copied in whole * > * or in part and regardless of whether other information is * > * added to the copy. * > * * > * The contents of this file may be used in any way, * > * commercial or otherwise. This file is provided "as is", * > * and Embed Inc makes no claims of suitability for a * > * particular purpose nor assumes any liability resulting from * > * its use. * > *************************************************************** That's the one that I found on the top of the .aspic files. The .pas files didn't have this notice. > > Geesh guys, all I'm asking for is to be credited in the source, and you > don't even need to show it to your customers or anyone else. The latter part is usually the tipping point between the "free software" FSF style advocates and the "open source" advocates. > This is a > *way* less restrictive than the GPL. By the way, all my PIC development > environment (http://www.embedinc.com/pic) code either has this same > copyright or none at all. It's the none at all that's the real problem. Without a license, no one has any right to do anything with the source for your software. Definitely not open source by any definition. > The USBProg USB framework modules or modules that implement programming > algorithms are more restricted: > > **************************************************************** > * Copyright (C) 2008, Embed Inc (http://www.embedinc.com). * > * All rights reserved except as explicitly noted here. * > * * > * Permission to copy this file is granted as long as this * > * copyright notice is included in its entirety at the * > * beginning of the file, whether the file is copied in whole * > * or in part and regardless of whether other information is * > * added to the copy, and one of the following conditions is * > * met: * > * * > * 1 - Any executable derived from the this file is only run * > * on a Embed Inc product. * > * * > * 2 - Any device that contains executable code derived from * > * this file is not sold, not distributed for commercial * > * advantage, and not more than 10 (ten) instances of the * > * device are created. * > * * > * To copy this file otherwise requires explicit permission * > * from Embed Inc and may also require a fee. * > * * > * The information in this file is provided "as is". Embed Inc * > * makes no claims of suitability for any particular purpose * > * nor assumes any liability resulting from its use. * > **************************************************************** > > Basically I don't want my hard work coming back and competing with me, and > if someone else is going to make a buck from it I want a make some too. I'm > not trying to stop anyone that is truly doing personal projects, and note > that any hacking of a USBProg is explicitly allowed. You could even add a > feature to the USBProg and sell your modified firmware for profit without > disclosing the code, which is something you couldn't do under the GPL. But it fails the OSI definition of open source on several fronts: http://www.opensource.org/docs/osd Now I feel the need to be very clear on a couple of points. The first and most important, Olin, is that it's your code and you can license it any way that you want. I think that your are very generous to give hackers an opportunity and the code to hack on your programmers. More importantly IMO is that you've given the specifications for the host protocols so that others can develop software under other licenses if they so choose. I know a lot of free software advocates feel that all software must in fact be free. I'm not one of them. > But the main point is, restrictions or not, it's still "open source" by > common usage of that term. The only point is that because your license above specifically limits redistribution both in number of copies and the devices the code can be used on, that it isn't open source by any common definition that the open source community in general uses. So it's not open source. But frankly that's a pendantic semantic point. BAJ -- http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive View/change your membership options at http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist