gnupic: Thread: gpal fork

and another one...

Begin forwarded message:

> From: Michiel Boerman ####@####.####
> Date: March 9, 2004 2:19:03 PM CET
> To: Byron A Jeff ####@####.####
> Subject: Re: gpal fork
>
> Don't agree with you on this one. Sometimes it takes a commercial 
> initiative to get things moving a bit. I'm a Mac user. I'm very happy 
> with the connection they made with the open-souce-universe. But I'm 
> equally happy with their proprietary user interface which they guard 
> as a hellhound. Helps to set a standard (and a high quality one in my 
> opinion). And that is the achilles heel of the open source world. too 
> many little islands doing their own thing.
> The oopic thing is just  the wrong combination of both worlds. Yet 
> another island with little added value from the commercial push.
>
> Michiel
>
>
> On Mar 9, 2004, at 1:27 PM, Byron A Jeff wrote:
>
>> What closed source authors have not yet figured out is that there 
>> really isn't
>> a constituency that exists anymore that benefits from the closed 
>> source model.
>> There used to be a time where it was a viable profit model. It just 
>> isn't
>> anymore. Here's what's going to happen: Developers won't use it 
>> because it
>> won't meet their needs. Someone will need a Mac or FreeBSD or other 
>> kind of
>> port. Others will need better performance or a specialized interface. 
>> But
>> in the closed source model only one person (or a small group) can 
>> fulfill
>> all of these requests. So it'll move slowly.
>

Point taken.

just a thing about Apple though. I haven't really worked out for myself 
wether i find their way in this issue 100% ethical. It's on another 
scale  -certainly- but it does feel a bit like what the oopic dudes are 
doing.

Michiel

On Mar 9, 2004, at 3:28 PM, Byron A Jeff wrote:

> On Tue, Mar 09, 2004 at 02:19:03PM +0100, Michiel Boerman wrote:
>> Don't agree with you on this one. Sometimes it takes a commercial
>> initiative to get things moving a bit. I'm a Mac user. I'm very happy
>> with the connection they made with the open-souce-universe. But I'm
>> equally happy with their proprietary user interface which they guard 
>> as
>> a hellhound. Helps to set a standard (and a high quality one in my
>> opinion). And that is the achilles heel of the open source world. too
>> many little islands doing their own thing.
>> The oopic thing is just  the wrong combination of both worlds. Yet
>> another island with little added value from the commercial push.
>
> But the two concepts of closed source and commercial are orthogonal. 
> RedHat
> makes millions every year selling distributions and services that can 
> be
> freely downloaded.
>
> BTW Apple is like apples and gorillas in this argument primarily 
> because
> they are a well established enough concern that they can be responsive 
> to
> their customers needs. The other thing is that in a lot of ways their 
> base
> OS is firmware tied to their hardware.
>
> All I'm saying is that the forker can easily make a value added package
> putting together Open Source software and selling the packages. In 
> every market
> there is a group who simply want to be users. You can always sell to 
> them and
> they will happily buy. They have no interest in redistributing. They 
> just want
> to use it. They are happy to pay for the convenience.
>
> The bottom line is that the scarcity model of closed source 
> development is
> going the way of the dodo bird. And those who cling to it instead of 
> adapting
> to the new software market are going to find themselves in the same 
> spot as
> the bird: extinct.
>
> BAJ
>
>>
>> Michiel
>>
>>
>> On Mar 9, 2004, at 1:27 PM, Byron A Jeff wrote:
>>
>>> What closed source authors have not yet figured out is that there
>>> really isn't
>>> a constituency that exists anymore that benefits from the closed
>>> source model.
>>> There used to be a time where it was a viable profit model. It just
>>> isn't
>>> anymore. Here's what's going to happen: Developers won't use it
>>> because it
>>> won't meet their needs. Someone will need a Mac or FreeBSD or other
>>> kind of
>>> port. Others will need better performance or a specialized interface.
>>> But
>>> in the closed source model only one person (or a small group) can
>>> fulfill
>>> all of these requests. So it'll move slowly.
>

On Tue, Mar 09, 2004 at 04:21:32PM +0100, Michiel Boerman wrote:
> Point taken.
> 
> just a thing about Apple though. I haven't really worked out for myself 
> wether i find their way in this issue 100% ethical.

I have. It is. No problem. The BSD license specificall allows for what Apple
is doing. And Apple has given a whole bunch back. No problem at all.

> It's on another 
> scale  -certainly- but it does feel a bit like what the oopic dudes are 
> doing.

I don't think so. Craig amde gpal GPL specifically so that in the natural 
course of things it would be Open Source and a collaborative effort. The forker
is specifically circumventing the sprit of the GPL by packaging the closed
source of his project away from the GPL gpal by not linking or including
source. It's correct to the letter of the license, but violates its sprit.
That's why Craig is annoyed.

But this is a survival of the fittest situation. The best way to combat such
forks is simply to put the best product you can out there and let the users
decide.

BAJ
> 
> Michiel
> 
> On Mar 9, 2004, at 3:28 PM, Byron A Jeff wrote:
> 
> >On Tue, Mar 09, 2004 at 02:19:03PM +0100, Michiel Boerman wrote:
> >>Don't agree with you on this one. Sometimes it takes a commercial
> >>initiative to get things moving a bit. I'm a Mac user. I'm very happy
> >>with the connection they made with the open-souce-universe. But I'm
> >>equally happy with their proprietary user interface which they guard 
> >>as
> >>a hellhound. Helps to set a standard (and a high quality one in my
> >>opinion). And that is the achilles heel of the open source world. too
> >>many little islands doing their own thing.
> >>The oopic thing is just  the wrong combination of both worlds. Yet
> >>another island with little added value from the commercial push.
> >
> >But the two concepts of closed source and commercial are orthogonal. 
> >RedHat
> >makes millions every year selling distributions and services that can 
> >be
> >freely downloaded.
> >
> >BTW Apple is like apples and gorillas in this argument primarily 
> >because
> >they are a well established enough concern that they can be responsive 
> >to
> >their customers needs. The other thing is that in a lot of ways their 
> >base
> >OS is firmware tied to their hardware.
> >
> >All I'm saying is that the forker can easily make a value added package
> >putting together Open Source software and selling the packages. In 
> >every market
> >there is a group who simply want to be users. You can always sell to 
> >them and
> >they will happily buy. They have no interest in redistributing. They 
> >just want
> >to use it. They are happy to pay for the convenience.
> >
> >The bottom line is that the scarcity model of closed source 
> >development is
> >going the way of the dodo bird. And those who cling to it instead of 
> >adapting
> >to the new software market are going to find themselves in the same 
> >spot as
> >the bird: extinct.
> >
> >BAJ
> >
> >>
> >>Michiel
> >>
> >>
> >>On Mar 9, 2004, at 1:27 PM, Byron A Jeff wrote:
> >>
> >>>What closed source authors have not yet figured out is that there
> >>>really isn't
> >>>a constituency that exists anymore that benefits from the closed
> >>>source model.
> >>>There used to be a time where it was a viable profit model. It just
> >>>isn't
> >>>anymore. Here's what's going to happen: Developers won't use it
> >>>because it
> >>>won't meet their needs. Someone will need a Mac or FreeBSD or other
> >>>kind of
> >>>port. Others will need better performance or a specialized interface.
> >>>But
> >>>in the closed source model only one person (or a small group) can
> >>>fulfill
> >>>all of these requests. So it'll move slowly.
> >
> 
> 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: ####@####.####
> For additional commands, e-mail: ####@####.####

Michiel Boerman wrote:
> Hmm, I find this thing that when you reply to a message from the gnupic 
> list it only gets sent to the original poster quite annoying. Can't that 
> be changed?

I'm not sure if you were intentionally trolling or not (I've seen far 
too many flame wars fought over this issue), but the answer is no, I'm 
definitely not going to enable reply-to munging. If you want me to go 
into more detail about why I'm opposed to it, ask me off-list.

-- 
------------ Alex Holden - http://www.linuxhacker.org ------------
If it doesn't work, you're not hitting it with a big enough hammer

The decision was choosen to not fork a open source gpal branch.
The source tree is removed from the disk's.
If someone want a copy of it, it's can be requested to recive a backup 
copy until the end of this month. The backup copy will be be delivered
after the QSO have screened the sources.
It's has to be noted, that the orginal author have pronunciate it's
dissense to most of the source changes or coding decisions.
Albeit the compiler is full functional to the specifications given
by the orginal author. In addition, it's have macro capability, variable 
and static bitfields with slices greather then a bit, float types and 
integer up to 32 bytes with full math support. Arrays to structures of 
bits different sizes is supported. The code generator supports pic 
micros from 12xxx
to the new 18xxx series including the popular 16xxx types.

Cri

On Tue, Mar 09, 2004 at 10:01:17PM +0100, pic00 wrote:
> The decision was choosen to not fork a open source gpal branch.

I cannot see why not.  Your reasons for the decision are not clear to
me.  Forks of open source are quite acceptable microevolutionary 
outcomes.  It seems to me that you had good reasons to fork.

> The source tree is removed from the disk's.
> If someone want a copy of it, it's can be requested to recive a backup 
> copy until the end of this month. 

I don't recall if you're talking about GPL source or not.  If you are,
then the GPL doesn't limit how long it has to be available for.  If this
is not GPL source, then I'm not concerned.  Nobody would want source that
they cannot use; there'd be the risk of infection.

> The backup copy will be be delivered
> after the QSO have screened the sources.

I've probably missed something.  I've no idea who QSO is.  Sorry about that.

> It's has to be noted, that the orginal author have pronunciate it's
> dissense to most of the source changes or coding decisions.

Nothing wrong with that.  If you didn't listen (adapt) to why the 
original author pronounced dissent, then it's no wonder you have ended 
up with a fork.  But that doesn't at all relate to the licensing issue.
It would be disingenous to suggest it does.

> Albeit the compiler is full functional to the specifications given
> by the orginal author. In addition, it's have macro capability, variable 
> and static bitfields with slices greather then a bit, float types and 
> integer up to 32 bytes with full math support. Arrays to structures of 
> bits different sizes is supported. The code generator supports pic 
> micros from 12xxx
> to the new 18xxx series including the popular 16xxx types.

But you're just quibbling over features.  I'm sure if they were needed 
they would eventually be done in the open source author's base sources,
though perhaps not the way you envisaged.  To me the development process
is more important than mere features.  Arguing from the features to the
license or fork decision is improper.

Craig: I'm curious, I've been developing open source in many projects 
over the past ten years, and I understand the accept/reject algorithm 
that the original author has to go through ... would you like to show 
me an example of the changes these guys were suggesting?  Privately. ;-)

All: I observed at the Linux.Conf.Au conference in January that the 
microcontroller community in general contains far more people who do 
not understand open source, and that I felt conflicts would occur more 
frequently on gnupic than on other mailing lists.  The frequency has 
been low until now; kinda well done?

When a project of mine forks into two or three variants, *then* I am 
pleased that I have created something with sufficient community interest
that the community is able to divide *itself* into focus groups.

p.s. keep the reply to sender, reply to list drives me up the wall.  ;-)
If reply to sender drives you up the wall, use Reply-All, or whatever
your mail client calls it.  If you know when you are posting where you
think the conversation should go, add a Reply-To header.  If your mail
software can do neither of these, upgrade it.

-- 
James Cameron    ####@####.####     http://quozl.netrek.org/

+++
  the responses:

 > The source tree is removed from the disk's.
 > If someone want a copy of it, it's can be requested to recive a backup
 > copy until the end of this month.


I don't recall if you're talking about GPL source or not.
+++
The License will be LGPL.

If you are,
then the GPL doesn't limit how long it has to be available for.
The space on the RAID system is limited and the commercial cvs we are 
using need a lot of it. The source remain on the backup system.


  If this
is not GPL source, then I'm not concerned.  Nobody would want source that
they cannot use; there'd be the risk of infection.

 > The backup copy will be be delivered
 > after the QSO have screened the sources.

I've probably missed something.  I've no idea who QSO is.  Sorry about that.
+++
I'm not english speaking, it's a abbreviation of a local language word.
The license, comments and docs must be revised prior to give out sources 
and library's. Other open source parts was used to improve this branch, 
so it's must be controlled accuratly, for licence and copyrigth issues.

 > It's has to be noted, that the orginal author have pronunciate it's
 > dissense to most of the source changes or coding decisions.

Nothing wrong with that.  If you didn't listen (adapt) to why the
original author pronounced dissent, then it's no wonder you have ended
up with a fork.  But that doesn't at all relate to the licensing issue.
It would be disingenous to suggest it does.
+++
It's suggest it, but the licence don't matter. The final product is a
case tool for micro programming (not only pic micro). The so called 
oogpal is only a (open source) backend on the whole software that is 
integrated into other backends. Small C for the lite version, C for the
full and so on. The SW uses other open source Software (scripting 
engine, data exchange interfaces) and free available (source) licensed 
SW and it's clearly marked out in the planned manual and in the SW. To 
most authors or copyright holder is establisht a email correspondece. 
The agreement differ from case to case, from coding certain parts, 
sponsoring coding or paying a on time licence fee or donation if the 
product start up.Personlly I have contributed to many open source project.
Crayg have trasmitted a certain angry of using his software or part in a
commercial product. Initially 10-30% of the orginal software was planned 
to use.The software in the actual state it's not functionally compared 
to the specification of the Author (Crayg).  After a detailed analysis 
including precoding, 8% (400-700 lines of bison code) is left over from 
the orginal code or modifyed orginal. The percentual values is related 
to the amount of orginal source code, not the new one.
After a disput with Craig, and viewd the amount of orginal code,
one have advanced the propose to recoding it from scatch and don't use 
the open source code.
The other thing, is, that Craig have given opposite answer to us and to
the mailing list or private mail into the mailing list and that hi ...
After that, I have annunciate a new fork on the list and telled the 
question, if someone is interrested.
I have not got any real positive response from the mailing list.
Why try to post and support a open source pice of software that noone 
wants or that it's not used?.
This was the reason to abbandone the open source version of oopal
(name will be changed) and close/disapper the sources from the open
source community.Open source is not only open the source but support it,
document it, advertise it, share it ... .
For a certain amount of time, we give the possibility to request the 
source if somene will test it or make somewath with it ( respecting the
licence LGPL or GPL)

 > Albeit the compiler is full functional to the specifications given
 > by the orginal author. In addition, it's have macro capability, 
variable
 > and static bitfields with slices greather then a bit, float types and
 > integer up to 32 bytes with full math support. Arrays to structures of
 > bits different sizes is supported. The code generator supports pic
 > micros from 12xxx
 > to the new 18xxx series including the popular 16xxx types.

But you're just quibbling over features.  I'm sure if they were needed
they would eventually be done in the open source author's base sources,
though perhaps not the way you envisaged.  To me the development process
is more important than mere features.  Arguing from the features to the
license or fork decision is improper.
+++
oogpal was planned only as backend. Initially the idea was to use the
official source with some minor Patches or to improve the official
source remaining 100% compatible. This was not possible for different
reasons. So a fork was the direct consecution.

Craig: I'm curious, I've been developing open source in many projects
over the past ten years, and I understand the accept/reject algorithm
that the original author has to go through ... would you like to show
me an example of the changes these guys were suggesting?  Privately. ;-)

All: I observed at the Linux.Conf.Au conference in January that the
microcontroller community in general contains far more people who do
not understand open source, and that I felt conflicts would occur more
frequently on gnupic than on other mailing lists.  The frequency has
been low until now; kinda well done?

When a project of mine forks into two or three variants, *then* I am
pleased that I have created something with sufficient community interest
that the community is able to divide *itself* into focus groups.

p.s. keep the reply to sender, reply to list drives me up the wall.  ;-)
If reply to sender drives you up the wall, use Reply-All, or whatever
your mail client calls it.  If you know when you are posting where you
think the conversation should go, add a Reply-To header.  If your mail
software can do neither of these, upgrade it.

-- 
James Cameron    ####@####.####     http://quozl.netrek.org/

Msg by: [<- thread ->] [<- time ->] [<- author ->] | [Threads] [Home]
####@####.####
(c) 1999 Lin-De, Inc