bperrybap:
GPL isn't a shitty license. You just don't appear to like it.
The entire linux kernel is GPL v2.
GPL v3 has some additional requirements over GPL v2 which is why many people/businesses, especially those creating commercial products don't like GPL v3.
The biggest value of GPL v3 to authors over GPL v2 is that it precludes its use in closed source projects which precludes its monetization in closed source products.
For an open source project, there will be little difference between LGPL and GPL, especially GPL v2.
In the Arduino environment it would be very difficult to avoid being at least LGPL, given that the code is linking against or inheriting from LGPL based code - which makes the code subject to LGPL licensing terms.
LOL .. so if linux is using it, then that makes it a good license. I am afraid but that reasoning might not hold up in court.. I think it is a good example though why GPL should be a no-go for anyone who has not been payed for his work already: use GPL if you want companies like Redhat to get rich based on your work without giving the authors their fair share of the spoils..
PS: I think I already mentioned that I am not talking about LGPL...
wothke:
LOL .. so if linux is using it, then that makes it a good license. I am afraid but that reasoning might not hold up in court..
Huh? Court? What?
I only brought up GPL being used on linux because you called GPL a shitty license.
There are many people out there that don't agree with your GPL license assessment and the linux community was just a well known example.
I think it is a good example though why GPL should be a no-go for anyone who has not been payed for his work already: use GPL if you want companies like Redhat to get rich based on your work without giving the authors their fair share of the spoils..
Again, GPL, particaurly GPL v3 is about trying to keep the code use restricted to open source projects.
Redhat is not making their money by using GPL code in their own closed source projects/products;
they make their money providing s/w support on open source products which is totally different.
Apple on the other hand is an example of a company that makes money by using and incorporating open source into their own closed source products.
And they can do that because the open source they are using and incorporating has more liberal licensing terms such as BSD.
Anyway, we have drifted off topic. Sorry for the diversion.
I'll refrain on any further s/w licensing comments.
while LGPL does allow the creation of a " work that uses the library" vs a derivative, the use of C++ class inheritance pushes the code into being a derivative work.
That's an interesting interpretation. Do you have a link to more detailed discussion on this? "You can't used our APIs unless you agree to our license" sounds very counter to the original intents of open source. But I may need to add this to the list of reasons not to use C++ imbedded systems
bperrybap:
I only brought up GPL being used on linux because you called GPL a shitty license.
There are many people out there that don't agree with your GPL license assessment and the linux community was just a well known example.
Fortunately truth does not depend on the number of people that believe in it But everbody is of course free to use whatever shitty license he wants to use.. or shoot himself in the foot for that matter.
bperrybap:
Again, GPL, particaurly GPL v3 is about trying to keep the code use restricted to open source projects.
..that might well be the goal but that is so completely beside the point.. (unless of course somebody does not expect more than the "fame" and an encouraging pat on the back for his work, or the satisfaction of being able to also see the derived work of other people.. nothing wrong with that) But when some multi-billion dollar cooperation exploits the fruits of some author's work (by selling it directly or offering services for it) without giving him anything in return then in most cases it is just a bad deal for the author - whether it is a BSD/Apple or a GPL/Redhat deal..
bperrybap:
Redhat is not making their money by using GPL code in their own closed source projects/products;
they make their money providing s/w support on open source products which is totally different.
Apple on the other hand is an example of a company that makes money by using and incorporating open source into their own closed source products.
And they can do that because the open source they are using and incorporating has more liberal licensing terms such as BSD.
and the sw author's share in the proceeds in both cases is exactly zilch..
bperrybap:
Anyway, we have drifted off topic. Sorry for the diversion.
I'll refrain on any further s/w licensing comments.
no problem. I guess we agree that we don't agree on the subject of licensing
wothke:
no problem. I guess we agree that we don't agree on the subject of licensing
Actually I think we probably do agree.
My view is that different licenses serve different purposes.
What is "good" depends on where you stand and what you want.
I've been on both sides of the fence. (creator of open source code vs user of open source code)
As a business owner creating high volume mass marketed products, I wanted very liberal s/w licenses so, when possible, I could leverage existing code into products, including closed source products.
As a hobbyist sharing code for essentially other hobbyists I want to license the code I'm developing and giving away as GPL v3 to restrict it from the very same uses I desired and took advantage of when I had a business.
Thanks to everyone for the kind feedback! I have managed to iron out the problems (I think it was mostly to do with not having sufficient yield() calls and some null-pointers due to having incompletely commented stuff out, also I had mixed up some IO pins where I had not been using the symbolic names). It seems to work fine now: sprinkler WiFi update.. | happy programming logbook
bperrybap:
Yes that was an improper license. I've been pushing on fm to fix this for a while.
The latest from a few weeks ago, is that fm will be correcting this by moving the library to GPL v3.0
Actually, it will be quite difficult to find any "LiquidCrstal" Arduino library that isn't already LGPL or GPL.
(I have looked at dozens over the past 10 years)
But everbody is of course free to use whatever shitty license he wants to use.. or shoot himself in the foot for that matter.