On Sun, May 11, 2008 at 06:53:30PM -0400, Herbert Graf wrote: > On Sat, 2008-05-10 at 15:01 -0500, Mark Rages wrote: > > On Sat, May 10, 2008 at 1:54 PM, Herbert Graf wrote: > > > On Sat, 2008-05-10 at 13:40 -0500, Mark Rages wrote: > > >> Can you explain how the GPL does not allow you to change the software > > >> to suit your needs? > > > > > > I suppose it depends what your needs are. > > > > > > GPL has often been considered very "virus" like, it's presence in your > > > project effects much more then just the chunk of GPL code you're using. > > > > > > If your needs are keeping your projects' code closed (i.e. a very common > > > situation is NDA agreements restricting how open you can be with your > > > code), there are very few ways you can make use of any GPL code. > > > > > > TTYL > > > > You are talking about distribution. You are still free to change the > > GPL software to suit your needs. You are required to provide source > > code only if you distribute derived works. > > Umm, ya. Basically if you want to distribute/sell your product, and it > has ANY GPL code in it, you have to release the source. For many this is > a perfect example of not being able to change the source to suit your > needs. We're living on an embedded development list, yes? Presumably the objective is to produce embedded products with firmware. So you sell a physical box with software packed into it. So what if you release the source? In order for it to be used effectively, someone would need the box. And where would they get it from. Um... you. So open source or closed source, you still sell the product. However with open source, your prodcut becomes a platform that end users can use to suit their needs. A perfect example is the Linksys WRT54G wireless router with the OpenWRT firmware. The firmware is open source, but without the router it isn't very bloody userful. I've purchased 3 Hauppauge Media MVP TV settops because there is open downloadable firmware that facilitates connecting the boxes to a MythTV server on a network. Do I plan to hack that firmware? No. But simply knowing that the source is out there make me feel better about purchasing the product. Software isn't a product. All the anti Open Source developers are so concerned about protecting their development investment. Guess what? If your software is really useful, then many users are going to obtain it without paying you anyway. It's wrong. It's awful. But that's the fact. And GPL is a straw man anyway. No significant library or OS out there is released under the GPL, but under the LGPL, BSD, ZPL, or some other less restrictive Open Source license. But even if your embedded product were GPL, it would protect you as the original developer. You now have access to all the code that everyone else generates and can leverage it in your product. We all buy products every day. Rarely do we choose a product or vendor because of exclusivity, because they are the only purveryor. Often products are choosen because of customer service, or because we have a relationship and trust with the vendor. Often it's because of price. In an Open Source world, software is a service. You sell your product literally by being more responsive and nicer to your customers than the other guy, not because you're the only one who has the product I want. Stop worring about if some other guy is going to undercut your price. Make sure you present the best product with the best service, and being Open Source will attract more business than it'll reject because as I and others have pointed out in this thread, being open source engenders trust. > FWIW, I'm a BIG fan of open source, but I've NEVER liked the GPL, that's > just my personal opinion though. Straw man. It really is. BAJ -- http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive View/change your membership options at http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist