DonationCoder.com Software > Circle Dock

Change of Licensing from Version 2 (Cancelled)

<< < (2/21) > >>

sgtevmckay:
Jimminy Christmas!!!

I really do not want to be an enemy of fun here.
As much as I love being an A$$Hole, this is not one of them  :-[
I love all the folks that use and help support Circle Dock.
Please realize that many limits are being hit based on the software that is currently being used, and certain software products must be obtained in order to develop towards some of the requests that have been, and are being, made.
Want to advance Circle Dock, but apparently have hit various financial limits.
Many here at DC and Circle Dock Donations have been great and open, many donating more than they can afford. I know, I am one of these.
Know that Markham and I are not absolutely happy with moving in this direction, but we are feeling very limited by the current choices at present.
I have done some serious research into Eric's license, as I was asked if I can justify what we are doing, and do so in clear conscience.
The immediate answer is no.  :-[ ,But what alternatives exist?
That being said; I see no reason that we would not consider alternatives or modifications to what Markham has already outlined.
At this time, as far as I know, nothing is absolutely carved in stone, so Options and suggestions are advised, over criticism.
We can not ask more than the DC Community already gives, and we now all know what the problems are.
Solutions are what are needed, thoughtful and forward moving, not Complaints. I do not say this angrily at all  :-[
I understand you positions. But costs need to met and in the immediate future

Please observe the following quotes from Eric's License.

You may charge any price or no price for each copy that you convey, and you may offer support or warranty protection for a fee.
--- End quote ---

This is not derivative taken out of context, but a complete paragraph.
I have not modified this in any way. I am too lazy.
But I request that you research the license again, before jumping towards incorrect conclusions, again no insult is meant by this statement.  :-[

I am of two minds in this.
1) Protecting VIP's Legacy
2) allowing Markham to protect his intellectual rights and be able to afford teh necessary software to expand on Circle Dock's capabilities.

I do not at all wish to alienate any users, but if any one has a better solution, or licensing concept.
We will listen.

My immediate thinking would be allowing a limit on computers installed over an install limit on a single system.

Thoughts

scancode:
Um, wasn't CD GPL'd?

Circle Dock is open source software licensed under GNU GENERAL PUBLIC LICENSE V3. Use it as you wish, but you must share your source code under the terms of use of the license.-Original CD License
--- End quote ---

Unless the original author gave you another license in written, you're required to release source to all binaries/modified versions. You _CAN_ charge what you want and add all limits you want, but we should be able to recompile without them.

[for an example shareware GPL'd app, see http://www.verypdf.com/pdf2word/index.html]

Cheers.

mouser:
I think sgtevmckay and Markham may have to step back and take a deep breath here and think over how they want to move forward.

Both of them have worked long and hard supporting and improving CircleDock, for no other reason than the pleasure and satisfaction of improving it for others. And then I think they've just gotten to the point where it's hard hard to keep up with all of the requests for support and improvements without having to think about finding a way to re-coupe some money to offset their time.  I've found myself in that very tricky position and i can tell you there is no easy solution.  I know their intentions are completely honorable.

As others have pointed out, Eric Wong created Circle Dock and made it open source, and his intentions and licenses must be given the highest consideration, and i know this is a learning experience for everyone.  It may be that the enthusiasm for improving Circle Dock needs to be tempered with the realities of how hard it may be to raise money to fund its continued development, i don't know.  i think everyone may just need to step back a bit and get a fresh perspective on this stuff.

There are people here who understand the GPL (both its legal technicalities and the rationale for them) much better than me and it would be wise to seek out their advice and bounce ideas off them.

app103:
If I distribute GPL'd software for a fee, am I required to also make it available to the public without a charge?

    No. However, if someone pays your fee and gets a copy, the GPL gives them the freedom to release it to the public, with or without a fee. For example, someone could pay your fee, and then put her copy on a web site for the general public.
--- End quote ---

Anyone that doesn't like your new license terms can pay for the commercial version of CD and then subsequently offer it for free (with a copy of the source that you must provide to them when they purchase it) on their own website. Or they could decide to charge money for it, just like you. You can not stop them.

I'd like to license my code under the GPL, but I'd also like to make it clear that it can't be used for military and/or commercial uses. Can I do this?

    No, because those two goals contradict each other. The GNU GPL is designed specifically to prevent the addition of further restrictions. GPLv3 allows a very limited set of them, in section 7, but any other added restriction can be removed by the user.

--- End quote ---

In other words, you can't restrict the free version of CD to only personal use. And I don't think you can limit the number of copies a user is allowed to install.

Does the GPL allow me to require that anyone who receives the software must pay me a fee and/or notify me?

    No. In fact, a requirement like that would make the program non-free. If people have to pay when they get a copy of a program, or if they have to notify anyone in particular, then the program is not free. See the definition of free software.

    The GPL is a free software license, and therefore it permits people to use and even redistribute the software without being required to pay anyone a fee for doing so.
--- End quote ---

Anyone that decides to offer your commercial version for free on their website, anyone that downloads it from their site and uses it, does not have to tell you or pay you for the right to use it. And if someone decides to charge for copies (even for your free version), they don't have to share that money with you, nor tell you about it, nor does their users have to pay you anything.

I understand and sympathize with sgtevmckay and Markham, but the GPL is the GPL, and since that was what Eric released his original under, you have to understand and comply with the GPL.

And if you don't like the GPL license, your only alternative is to not contribute to a GPL project.

Markham already made one mistake by adding to a GPL project and releasing his versions under the Microsoft Public License (Ms-PL), which is listed as incompatible with the GPL. That means Markham's license is incompatible with Eric's license, and by all rights, Markham shouldn't have the right to use Eric's GPL'd code in his version of CD.

Please proceed very carefully, or you could put the entire project in jeopardy, and then there will be no more CD for anyone, except for Eric's original version.

phitsc:
This is one of the reasons why I'm so hesitant to release any of my stuff as open source. It all becomes so complicated.

It might not be the most trivial of solutions: maybe Eric's part can be re-implemented? I don't really know if that would solve the problem, nor how different a re-implementation would have to be to count as such.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page