Author Topic: Change of Licensing from Version 2 (Cancelled) (Read 74631 times)

ArchaicTimeFrog · « **Reply #50 on:** August 05, 2010, 11:08 AM »

I haven't donated, but I would definitely pay for CD if it was priced reasonably.
At least if it has that launching feature I mentioned in suggestion thread.

I completely agree with being compensated for your work, and from what I've seen, CD is definitely worth something.

I'd donate now, but if you all are going to make it pay-for, I don't see much point. Especially since I'm not even using CD right now.

sgtevmckay · « **Reply #51 on:** August 05, 2010, 11:20 AM »

If I take a dead GPL'd project, and use that source and project as an inspiration to build the same project, but with my own source, is my project now GPL'd? I don't think so...
-wraith808 (August 05, 2010, 08:59 AM)

You know, I thought I had read that the source had been completely rewritten, but I couldn't find it, so wondered if I had imagined it. If so, surely that makes a difference, does it not? But then again, I must have imagined it, otherwise it surely would have been mentioned in this thread before now.

Otherwise I have embargoed myself from talking about GPL because after all these years I am still confused about it.
-daddydave (August 05, 2010, 10:04 AM)

Actaully the GPL model is so restrictive and, in many ways, unrealistic that unless you have a large programmer team and a larger support and testing team, that Using this license and intending to charge for services is pointless!
I have never in all my years of business, IT, Communications and law Enforcement have I ever seen such a restrictive contract. It is nightmarish.
Anyone intending to take over a GPL GNU Licensed project that has been abandoned, should read and re-read teh License, and get an attorney. I have a legal Adviser acquaintance who deals in contract and licensing law looking over this now, and from his immediate impression, he would advise that almost all avoid this license, unless their software has hit an end of life, and some one wants to have their work made public for posterity.

For my part I find that he license is greatly misunderstood by both the implementer and the end user.
This license guarantees Free source code and any derivatives or modifications remain so.
That is all there is "FREE" about this license.

Covering the code question and how much of Eric Wong's original code remains:
I am comfortable in saying that less than 7% of Eric's original code remains in the latest build.
I know that some folks may translate that is tongue in cheek, as they can no longer verify for them selves, for that I have no control over, but if you will all recall, Eric was in the middle of a massive re-code of the Circle Dock code, because CD was a mess and rigged together of proverbial Code Duct Tape.
To have Circle Dock do what it does now, has required massive elimination of code, and new code added just to maintain what Circle Dock does and allow for the new code.
The Circle Dock we know now, does do what Eric Wong created, but in a completely different way.
Eric Wong's code will be completely eliminate in the near future, assuming that we move forward, and the Circle Dock we know now will be gone in code, if not in function.

sgtevmckay · « **Reply #52 on:** August 05, 2010, 11:41 AM »

I haven't donated, but I would definitely pay for CD if it was priced reasonably.
At least if it has that launching feature I mentioned in suggestion thread.

I completely agree with being compensated for your work, and from what I've seen, CD is definitely worth something.

I'd donate now, but if you all are going to make it pay-for, I don't see much point. Especially since I'm not even using CD right now.
-ArchaicTimeFrog (August 05, 2010, 11:08 AM)

LOL....
I like you

Can I keep you ???

Actually Markham has already re-worked your request into the code, before all this swung the way it has.

THERE IS SOMETHING FOR EVERYONE TO KEEP IN MIND:

We are only considering licensing, Priority support, and company propitiatory Customization to business; or anyone that buys a license.
Very few of the options you have now will be eliminated.
It is also our intention to continue to receive Donations (unfortunately will have to be listed as profit if this route is taken).
If we do take up this route, general support will be available as it has always been.
Suggestions will still be taken and seriously considered, and hopefully very little will change for folks like you and me.
You can install as many copies as you want on up to two computers.
A lot of this will be on an honor system. SO I am hoping on good faith

It would be our intent to impact our current End User following as little as possible.
Anyone can buy a license, anyone can Donate, folks will still get support.

Many of you are aware of my absolute disdain of Stardork's (stardock) methods and pay to play then get ignored attitude.
It is exactly this we wish to avoid.
Dexpot has a great Business model and we have been looking to match this as much as possible. I went a little over board on some things not to long ago, and fortunately Mouser was kind enough to slap me back into reality

Oh....and if at all possible, I would have no intent of selling for $20 dollars a license. In today's global financial scheme of things this is an unholy amount of money for what many may consider a luxury. I would not be able to afford it, so I am firmly keeping this in mind as I try to move forward with an anything

rssapphire · « **Reply #53 on:** August 05, 2010, 12:55 PM »

Actaully the GPL model is so restrictive and, in many ways, unrealistic that unless you have a large programmer team and a larger support and testing team, that Using this license and intending to charge for services is pointless!
-sgtevmckay (August 05, 2010, 11:20 AM)

This is exactly why I use the GPL license. If I'm going to code something and give it away free than I want to prevent someonme else from taking my free code, extending it, and selling the end result (profiting from labor without paying me for it). The GPL prevents this -- which is exactly what I want. If someone wants to use my code as the basis for their closed source for-profit product, they'll have to come to me and work out a different license acceptable to both of us and pay me what I want for the right to use my code in their product under that license. Meanwhile, people who want to use the code in their own GPL product are free to do so without having to get permission from me.

In other words the GPL does exactly what I want it to do. It lets me release the code for my free product so that others can use it in their open source products while making it hard for someone else to use my code in their closed source commercial extension of my product without paying me whatever price I set for the use of my code in their extended version.

mouser · « **Reply #54 on:** August 05, 2010, 01:11 PM »

this is off on a tangent about the GPL, but can someone clarify if this is allowed:

If someone wants to use my code as the basis for their closed source for-profit product, they'll have to come to me and work out a different license acceptable to both of us and pay me what I want for the right to use my code in their product under that license.

if you are the author of code you release under GPL, can you in fact give "permission" to someone to release it as part of a closed source commercial application?

wraith808 · « **Reply #55 on:** August 05, 2010, 01:13 PM »

But can *you* do that once it's released? From what it seem like, once the genie is out of the bottle, there's no putting it back... *You* the creator can't take back the rights to give it to someone else for pay, since that would be a derivative work...

sgtevmckay · « **Reply #56 on:** August 05, 2010, 01:14 PM »

Oh no, and I absolutely agree with that.
Believe me when I say that I am so disappointed in myself.
VIP is only one of two people i have never been able to track down.
The other one has passed away, I know for sure. I can not find hid grave and he passed away in 1989

So; being unable to contact VIP has serious eliminated negotiations to the extent of discussion regarding the current licensing

There are times that the GPL GNU is of great service, and I am all for open source programs.
I am a walking encyclopedia of free and/or open source program spanning at least 15 years.
But I am also an advocate of intellectual property and covering potential costs.
Profit is always a hit and miss and may not even be part of the equation

sgtevmckay · « **Reply #57 on:** August 05, 2010, 01:16 PM »

this is off on a tangent about the GPL, but can someone clarify if this is allowed:
If someone wants to use my code as the basis for their closed source for-profit product, they'll have to come to me and work out a different license acceptable to both of us and pay me what I want for the right to use my code in their product under that license.

if you are the author of code you release under GPL, can you in fact give "permission" to someone to release it as part of a closed source commercial application?
-mouser (August 05, 2010, 01:11 PM)

This is true, but must be in written approval/release from "ALL" copyright holders, and any that did not give permission their code must be completely eliminate and rewritten.
There are already well documented incidents of this situation. Many Open Source Programs have had their license bought out from the Copyright holders, especially over the last 4 years

Keep in mind that the license means absolutely nothing without a proper notification of copyright.

app103 · « **Reply #58 on:** August 05, 2010, 01:29 PM »

if you are the author of code you release under GPL, can you in fact give "permission" to someone to release it as part of a closed source commercial application?
-mouser (August 05, 2010, 01:11 PM)

If the code is not 100% yours, you need the permission of every contributor, first.

If the code is 100% yours, you can, without question. You are the copyright holder. GPL is only a license. It does not change the fact you own the rights to that code. It does not take away the original developer's rights. GPL only serves to give rights to the user. You can license it to someone else under any license you want, including multiple licenses.

But, you can't take back what you have already given away, and anyone that has a copy of the code under the GPL license can still use it as long as they comply with the GPL.

scancode · « **Reply #59 on:** August 05, 2010, 01:54 PM »

If I take a dead GPL'd project, and use that source and project as an inspiration to build the same project, but with my own source, is my project now GPL'd? I don't think so...
-wraith808 (August 05, 2010, 08:59 AM)

If you use THAT SOURCE, your app is GPL'd. Period. If you recode from scratch, you're safe. They admitted to use GPL-based source, even misquoted a part of it in a previous post.

Anyway, best of luck guys.

scancode · « **Reply #60 on:** August 05, 2010, 02:06 PM »

Also, can't you do the app as a shareware/paid for/whatever and still release the source? Those who don't want to pay or want to modify it can compile the source, the rest can use the binaries [a la xchat]?

40hz · « **Reply #61 on:** August 05, 2010, 02:31 PM »

FWIW there is nothing in the GPL that requires that compiled binaries be provided free of charge. There are several GPL'd products (and some Linux distros) that charge for their binaries in order to offset expenses (or possibly even make some money) without violating the letter (or the spirit) of the GPL. So long as some provision has been made to supply source code to whoever requests it you're generally in compliance.

And while there will always be a certain few who will scream about charging for GPL-anything, nobody who actually understands what GPL is about would have any problem with that.

scancode · « **Reply #62 on:** August 05, 2010, 02:35 PM »

FWIW there is nothing in the GPL that requires that compiled binaries be provided free of charge. There are several GPL'd products (and some Linux distros) that charge for their binaries in order to offset expenses (or possibly even make some money) without violating the letter (or the spirit) of the GPL so long as some provision has been made to supply source code to whoever requests it.

And while there will always be a certain few who will scream about charging for GPL-anything, nobody who actually understands what GPL is about would have any problem with it.

-40hz (August 05, 2010, 02:31 PM)

That'd be the best solution for this in my book

sgtevmckay · « **Reply #63 on:** August 05, 2010, 03:13 PM »

Also, can't you do the app as a shareware/paid for/whatever and still release the source? Those who don't want to pay or want to modify it can compile the source, the rest can use the binaries [a la xchat]?

-scancode (August 05, 2010, 02:06 PM)

We seriously considered this for some time, and only the sales of primary support, modification, and requested features.
This was absolutely derailed by two events.
1.) We have found multiple instances of Programs that are either slightly modified versions, or exact versions of Circle Dock and Eric Wong's code. These versions are not made open source, even after approaching the "Programmers" in question, and in most cases there were attached fees for the software. In some cases Up to $50 -/+ USD
2.) Shortly after the release of v.1 and before I could get the source code up on the wikidot site. Markham and I were sent e-mails requesting the source code immediately. This individual was brilliant enough to use the e-mail for his Program for sale, which turned out to be Circle Dock under a different name. This individual not only retained a close source code, but openly admitted that is was "My Modified version of Circle Dock"

Markham and I immediately launched into some home work, and we have actually found several instances of this happening.
Although we approached these "Vendors" in an attempt to make them comply with the conditions of the copyright/left License, I was ignored at best and given terse communications at worst.
Apparently only Eric Wong can take action against a violation of his Copyright and license. Many of these individuals feel that Eric will never return, and so have proceeded to do as they will.
Some of these are now using Markhams code in their releases.

In recent considerations, we have discussed the best marketable solution and a solution that would protect Markham's intellectual rights as well as Eric's.
Unfortunately no matter how we hatch it, it all comes back to a closed source solution.
Many of Markham's solutions and code is very inventive and deserves to be protected in any way he see's fit.
That is my opinion.

That being said; now let's wait for the obvious question/comment.......

sgtevmckay · « **Reply #64 on:** August 05, 2010, 03:15 PM »

FWIW there is nothing in the GPL that requires that compiled binaries be provided free of charge. There are several GPL'd products (and some Linux distros) that charge for their binaries in order to offset expenses (or possibly even make some money) without violating the letter (or the spirit) of the GPL. So long as some provision has been made to supply source code to whoever requests it you're generally in compliance.

And while there will always be a certain few who will scream about charging for GPL-anything, nobody who actually understands what GPL is about would have any problem with that.
-40hz (August 05, 2010, 02:31 PM)

This sounds incredibly appealing, to me anyways, But I found nothing in the license that would support this. I need to go back and re-read again

I do not feel that I misquoted anything from Eric's original license agreement ???

40hz · « **Reply #65 on:** August 05, 2010, 03:24 PM »

if you are the author of code you release under GPL, can you in fact give "permission" to someone to release it as part of a closed source commercial application?
-mouser (August 05, 2010, 01:11 PM)

As copyright holder, you can do anything you want with your own code. The only problem is with the code you've previously released under GPL. Anybody could take that and make a derivative (or even competing) product out of it, and you'd have no legal recourse as long as they honored the terms of the GPL by sharing their source code.

So while it would be possible to relicense such code, it creates a real problem for a commercial code shop's legal department. Because even though you've granted them a different license, what you've sold them at that point can't come with the right to exclusive use because of the prior GPL release.

wraith808 · « **Reply #66 on:** August 05, 2010, 03:27 PM »

If I take a dead GPL'd project, and use that source and project as an inspiration to build the same project, but with my own source, is my project now GPL'd? I don't think so...
-wraith808 (August 05, 2010, 08:59 AM)

If you use THAT SOURCE, your app is GPL'd. Period. If you recode from scratch, you're safe. They admitted to use GPL-based source, even misquoted a part of it in a previous post.

Anyway, best of luck guys.
-scancode (August 05, 2010, 01:54 PM)

Look at the part that I additionally highlighted... it seems that some comprehension was missed in the post...

sgtevmckay · « **Reply #67 on:** August 05, 2010, 03:37 PM »

if you are the author of code you release under GPL, can you in fact give "permission" to someone to release it as part of a closed source commercial application?
-mouser (August 05, 2010, 01:11 PM)

As copyright holder, you can do anything you want with your own code. The only problem is with the code you've previously released under GPL. Anybody could take that and make a derivative (or even competing) product out of it, and you'd have no legal recourse as long as they honored the terms of the GPL by sharing their source code.

So while it would be possible to relicense such code, it creates a real problem for a commercial code shop's legal department. Because even though you've granted them a different license, what you've sold them at that point can't come with the right to exclusive use because of the prior GPL release.
-40hz (August 05, 2010, 03:24 PM)

Damn

So that being said, our only recourse seems to be a release of a complete re-code away from Eric's original code.

40hz · « **Reply #68 on:** August 05, 2010, 03:43 PM »

This sounds incredibly appealing, to me anyways, But I found nothing in the license that would support this. I need to go back and re-read again
-sgtevmckay (August 05, 2010, 03:15 PM)

I'm not an attorney, and I know ditz about how the law works in your jurisdiction.. But over here, the basic rule for a license or contract is: If you can think it - be sure to 'ink' it!

For the most part (in the US at least) anything not specifically covered in a legal document isn't covered by that document. The assumption is you can unless specifically told you can't - unless there's an existing law or legal precedent that covers what you want to do.

That's why so many EULAs run to ten or more pages.

sgtevmckay · « **Reply #69 on:** August 05, 2010, 03:45 PM »

That's why so many EULAs run to ten or more pages.
-40hz (August 05, 2010, 03:43 PM)

You ain't just whistl'in dixie

tomos · « **Reply #70 on:** August 05, 2010, 03:49 PM »

Damn
So that being said, our only recourse seems to be a release of a complete re-code away from Eric's original code.
-sgtevmckay (August 05, 2010, 03:37 PM)

I thought that was what ye were planning (or thinking) of doing anyway ?

sgtevmckay · « **Reply #71 on:** August 05, 2010, 03:58 PM »

Damn
So that being said, our only recourse seems to be a release of a complete re-code away from Eric's original code.
-sgtevmckay (August 05, 2010, 03:37 PM)

I thought that was what ye were planning (or thinking) of doing anyway ?
-tomos (August 05, 2010, 03:49 PM)

Let's just say we are at a crossroads where almost any consideration is examined.
I would rather find a solution that makes everyone happy, and without compromise if at all possible.
Even those that are not present or can not be a part of this conversation.

As A rule of thumb, I do not believe in compromise.
essentially compromise equates in 1+1= 1.5 , and no one will get everything they want.
If there is a way for everyone to get everything.
I will strive for it, even if the final result turns out otherwise. It does not mean that I cannot try.

Understand that I do feel incredibly stuck between a rock and a hard place.
Even if for some reason Markham throws it all out and starts again as some other project in the future, I would still prefer Forum help here, and at this time I know that that would not happen, or at least in a sense of community support.

A lot of folks are going to feel betrayed or that Eric's Legacy disgraced, no matter what happens now.

You can not un-ring a bell

40hz · « **Reply #72 on:** August 05, 2010, 04:30 PM »

Understand that I do feel incredibly stuck between a rock and a hard place.
-sgtevmckay (August 05, 2010, 03:58 PM)

Yes. Quite.

A lot of folks are going to feel betrayed or that Eric's Legacy disgraced, no matter what happens now.

People are going to believe what they want to believe no matter the facts or any actions you may take.

The important thing is for the two of you to move forward doing what you think is right while still keeping as many of your options open as possible.

It's all rather ironic when you think about it... If your dedication and hard work on CD hadn't been enough to turn it into the very popular application it has become, none of this would have ever become such a problem for you both.

Having been in a very similar "No good deed goes unpunished" situation some years ago, you have my sympathies.

-----

Addendum:

I'm probably going to have a bit more to say about GPL once I get a minute to get my thoughts in order and find something better than this iPhone to key it in on. Suffice to say, CD's situation was something that the thinking behind GPL didn't intended to create a problem for - but also, paradoxically, did intend to put a cramp on.

A lot of it goes back to the social and technical environment that spawned FOSS and GPL; the key players behind it; and some of the political beliefs from that era. Without that background, a lot of the GPL mentality can come across as being arbitrary and capricious. And then there's also the argument that a significant portion of the concerns and mentality that led to the development of the GPL has become increasingly irrelevant for much of our info-environment.

Bloody GPL. What a long, strange trip it's been...

sgtevmckay · « **Reply #73 on:** August 05, 2010, 04:33 PM »

At this time. I am going to take up mouser's suggestion and take some time away.
I am heartbroken by these events and fear the discontent that this situation has created in this community

I love this community, that's all there is to it.
Time is what is needed, and hopefully an appropriate decision will come with it.

I do invite the discussion to be continued and will look in on the comments from time to time.
Who Knows, even now my efforts to seek out VIP do not cease, or maybe even a grand suggestion that appeases all will come.

Keeping the faith
Regards
The Sarge

sgtevmckay · « **Reply #74 on:** August 05, 2010, 04:35 PM »

@ 40hz

I await to here this