Author Topic: Change of Licensing from Version 2 (Cancelled) (Read 68387 times)

mouser · « **Reply #75 on:** August 05, 2010, 05:23 PM »

I am going to take up mouser's suggestion and take some time away.

just to clarify -- my suggestion was to take a break from stressing over and going 100mph on this CircleDock stuff, and just to try clear your mind and get some perspective on it. we all need to do that every once in a while.

[don't want it to sound like im trying to telling you to take a break from participating on DC and the forum (though if that's what it takes to clear your mind that's ok too)].

Josh · « **Reply #76 on:** August 05, 2010, 05:24 PM »

Everyone needs a break from mouser, take it from me and my fellow IRC addicts.

40hz · « **Reply #77 on:** August 05, 2010, 05:36 PM »

+1 w/Mouser

I don't think the GPL issue was brought up to criticize or condemn anything you or Mack are doing. I think it was more motivated by concern some had for the hassles you've let youself in for by adopting a GPL'd project.

I'm a big advocate for FOSS. But I have no quarrel with your feelings about this situation nor do I have any issues with your looking for a way to recoup something for your involvement with CD.

I'm sure there's a fairly simple solution. I think I have one. I just need to vet it with some people that know more about the legal niceties of GPL than I do.

Stay tuned.

ps: pls 'scuze any typos. Frighin' iPhone and it's braindead autocomplete/spellcheck.

wraith808 · « **Reply #78 on:** August 05, 2010, 07:18 PM »

Heh. I feel you

. Whoever coded this @&$!& spellcheck belongs in the same hell as the person who coded the windows recycle bin defaults and uac!

Markham · « **Reply #79 on:** August 06, 2010, 01:41 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!
-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.
-rssapphire (August 05, 2010, 12:55 PM)

GPL type and derivative licenses offer no real protection to the author unless the author is prepared and can afford to enforce it. Let me illustrate that with a hypothetical example. Suppose I take the source to one of your programs, tinker with it slightly, possibly change its name and then start to sell it on a UK-hosted site. As I live in the UK and therefore outside the jurisdiction of an American Court of Law, your only option is to sue me in an English High Court. For that you'd need two quite separate types of lawyer: a Solicitor who'd prepare all the groundwork and at least one Barrister who'd present your case in Court. High Court cases are notoriously expensive to mount and those involving IPR particularly so. Your upfront legal fees would not be less than $25,000 and, should it go to trial, you can bank on at least a further $10,000 per day. My legal fees, by comparison, would be far more modest since I'd simply let you take me to trial - so maybe $100-250. Assuming you were to win - by no means a certainty - it would be a Pyrrhic victory as I could argue - with a better than 50% chance of success - that your losses are zero, since by releasing your stuff as GPL, you're not expecting any financial return. Would you spend around $40,000-50,000 just to prove a point? Now that was an easy example, it would be far more difficult (and expensive) to mount a similar case in (say) China, the Ukraine or Iran.

Mark

Markham · « **Reply #80 on:** August 06, 2010, 02:13 AM »

Icon Orbit

Orbit Dock

OrbiDock
-wraith808 (August 05, 2010, 09:21 PM)

Orbit Dock was a fore-runner to Circle Dock and inspired Eric Wong to design his program. In fact, his (C# coded) releases all included DLLs (compiled libraries) taken straight from Orbit Dock. My v1 Release was the first Circle Dock release that doesn't include any of that code.

Circle Dock does use one or two third-party libraries but we have assiduously checked their licenses to see if there're any restrictions about their usage in commercial or non-commercial software. There are no such restrictions.

Circle Dock's new name might be in Welsh: "Cylch Penfro" (Circle Dock), "Ddoc Cylch" (Dock of Circles) and "Cylch Doc" (Circle Dock) are all Welsh for "Circle Dock". Welsh, however, is a mutating language, hence the different forms which depend on how the name is used. The first form would be used as a 'standalone' name, the other forms would be used when the name appears in a sentence. That could be awfully confusing for users, so maybe not!

Mark

scancode · « **Reply #81 on:** August 06, 2010, 06:40 AM »

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)

If I use a piece of software that has been obtained under the GNU GPL, am I allowed to modify the original code into a new program, then distribute and sell that new program commercially?
You are allowed to sell copies of the modified program commercially, but only under the terms of the GNU GPL. Thus, for instance, you must make the source code available to the users of the program as described in the GPL, and they must be allowed to redistribute and modify it as described in the GPL.

These requirements are the condition for including the GPL-covered code you received in a program of your own.
-http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#GPLCommercially

I do not feel that I misquoted anything from Eric's original license agreement ???
-sgtevmckay (August 05, 2010, 03:15 PM)

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.

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.
-sgtevmckay (August 03, 2010, 11:34 PM)

That quote was pretty selectively picked. The paragraph above it reads:

You may convey verbatim copies of the Program's source code as you
receive it, in any medium, provided that you conspicuously and
appropriately publish on each copy an appropriate copyright notice;
keep intact all notices stating that this License and any
non-permissive terms added in accord with section 7 apply to the code;
keep intact all notices of the absence of any warranty; and give all
recipients a copy of this License along with the Program.

That means you can charge for it, but the program is still GPL'd.

GPL type and derivative licenses offer no real protection to the author unless the author is prepared and can afford to enforce it. Let me illustrate that with a hypothetical example. Suppose I take the source to one of your programs, tinker with it slightly, possibly change its name and then start to sell it on a UK-hosted site. As I live in the UK and therefore outside the jurisdiction of an American Court of Law, your only option is to sue me in an English High Court.
-Markham (August 06, 2010, 01:41 AM)

That kind of comments scare me. What happened to the honor system?

I apologize if I sounded a little too harsh in my previous posts.
Rock on guys!

PS: I still don't get why the commercial binary with sourcecode release is that troublesome >.>

phitsc · « **Reply #82 on:** August 06, 2010, 06:50 AM »

PS: I still don't get why the commercial binary with sourcecode release is that troublesome >.>
-scancode (August 06, 2010, 06:40 AM)

because of this:

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.
-sgtevmckay (August 05, 2010, 03:13 PM)

scancode · « **Reply #83 on:** August 06, 2010, 06:53 AM »

PS: I still don't get why the commercial binary with sourcecode release is that troublesome >.>
-scancode (August 06, 2010, 06:40 AM)

because of this:

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.
-sgtevmckay (August 05, 2010, 03:13 PM)
-phitsc (August 06, 2010, 06:50 AM)

That individual is actually doing the same CD is doing. They take GPL code, modify it, try to sell it and keep it closed source. Why is it wrong for them, then?

phitsc · « **Reply #84 on:** August 06, 2010, 07:00 AM »

PS: I still don't get why the commercial binary with sourcecode release is that troublesome >.>
-scancode (August 06, 2010, 06:40 AM)

because of this:

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.
-sgtevmckay (August 05, 2010, 03:13 PM)
-phitsc (August 06, 2010, 06:50 AM)

That individual is actually doing the same CD is doing. They take GPL code, modify it, try to sell it and keep it closed source. Why is it wrong for them, then?
-scancode (August 06, 2010, 06:53 AM)

It wouldn't be wrong if they would start from Eric's initial CD code, then add tons of features to it, then get rid of all of Eric's code, and then charge money for that. It wouldn't be wrong if they would start from Markham's code, add no features to it, then get rid of all of Eric's and Markham's code, and then charge money for that.

scancode · « **Reply #85 on:** August 06, 2010, 09:30 AM »

It wouldn't be wrong if they would start from Eric's initial CD code, then add tons of features to it, then get rid of all of Eric's code, and then charge money for that.
-phitsc (August 06, 2010, 07:00 AM)

Nope, it wouldn't be wrong. Key part is "get rid of all of Eric's code". Complete rewrite != GPL.
Of course you would have to refrain from releasing anything until you're 100% free from GPL'd code. You know, you release the binaries you have to release the sources.

It wouldn't be wrong if they would start from Markham's code, add no features to it, then get rid of all of Eric's and Markham's code, and then charge money for that.
-phitsc (August 06, 2010, 07:00 AM)

Same as above.

Unfortunately, that didn't happen. They still have GPL'd code in there. Both the CD team and the "chinese pirates".

tomos · « **Reply #86 on:** August 06, 2010, 01:44 PM »

It wouldn't be wrong if they would start from Markham's code, add no features to it, then get rid of all of Eric's and Markham's code, and then charge money for that.
-phitsc (August 06, 2010, 07:00 AM)
Same as above.

Unfortunately, that didn't happen. They still have GPL'd code in there. Both the CD team and the "chinese pirates".
-scancode (August 06, 2010, 09:30 AM)

I think that seem's pretty clear - that the GPL'd code should go if it's going to be commercialised

scancode · « **Reply #87 on:** August 06, 2010, 05:19 PM »

Is it just me, or there was a massive post deletion?

wraith808 · « **Reply #88 on:** August 06, 2010, 05:22 PM »

Is it just me, or there was a massive post deletion?
-scancode (August 06, 2010, 05:19 PM)

No, mouser moved/merged the last posts with this thread. I think he took a few that should have stayed here...

mouser · « **Reply #89 on:** August 06, 2010, 05:27 PM »

yeah i split and merged and i misfiled a few.. hopefully i've put them in the right threads now.. let's try to stay on topic.

40hz · « **Reply #90 on:** August 08, 2010, 09:44 PM »

GPL type and derivative licenses offer no real protection to the author unless the author is prepared and can afford to enforce it.

-Markham (August 06, 2010, 01:41 AM)

Minor point of information:

Not necessarily true...

You could always assign the copyright on the code to the FSF. Since only the copyright holder can assert their rights under law, unless you have deep pockets it's generally best (assuming you're really serious about licensing under GPL and not just toying with the idea) to assign it to the Foundation. Once they have the legal right to take action, they're very good at pursuing violations of the GPL.

If Eric had done that instead of just announcing he was putting his version of Circle Dock out under GPL, none of this might have happened.

I wouldn't have kept people from requesting source or making derivative works based on your continuation of Eric's work. But it would have prevented these characters from using it as part of a closed commercial product and then defying anybody (other than the missing Eric) to do anything about it.

Some people may balk at signing over their copyright. But since releasing under GPL is basically non-rescindable, it shouldn't really matter if you understand what going that route means.

f0dder · « **Reply #91 on:** August 09, 2010, 12:31 AM »

Wouldn't handing over your copyright to the EFF remove the possibility of doing dual-licensing etc?

40hz · « **Reply #92 on:** August 09, 2010, 09:35 AM »

^Don't really know. But if you wanted to do that, why bother with the GPL to begin with? Just do up your own license, with whatever terms and conditions you want, and be done with it. Nobody gets forced to use GPL.

------

Note: it's FSF not the EFF that is in charge of GPL. Two different organizations. Both good ones too!

justice · « **Reply #93 on:** August 09, 2010, 10:25 AM »

Just do up your own license

I would have thought it takes a lot of time, effort, money and expertise to 'just' do up your own licence

mouser · « **Reply #94 on:** August 09, 2010, 10:32 AM »

I wish my tfdocs.com project had caught on

If so then this open source license generator would be fleshed out and useful:
http://www.tfdocs.com/form/bsd-license

40hz · « **Reply #95 on:** August 09, 2010, 11:32 AM »

Just do up your own license
I would have thought it takes a lot of time, effort, money and expertise to 'just' do up your own licence
-justice (August 09, 2010, 10:25 AM)

It doesn't have to. Most licenses get cobbled together out of bits and pieces of other licenses.

Getting them vetted to be sure they comply with local statutes could cost money if you actually felt the need to go that far. Most people don't.

The problem of expense comes if you attempt to enforce your bespoke license. Since this usually falls under contract law, your ability to enforce your license is only as good as your attorney and pocketbook.

You do have some very strong rights under copyright laws. But without somebody (like FSF or a commercial enterprise) to back you up, ANY license is basically worthless if someone bigger than you decides to abuse it.

Such is the way of the world. $:-\$

superboyac · « **Reply #96 on:** August 09, 2010, 12:09 PM »

Just do up your own license
I would have thought it takes a lot of time, effort, money and expertise to 'just' do up your own licence
-justice (August 09, 2010, 10:25 AM)

It doesn't have to. Most licenses get cobbled together out of bits and pieces of other licenses.

Getting them vetted to be sure they comply with local statutes could cost money if you actually felt the need to go that far. Most people don't.

The problem of expense comes if you attempt to enforce your bespoke license. Since this usually falls under contract law, your ability to enforce your license is only as good as your attorney and pocketbook.

You do have some very strong rights under copyright laws. But without somebody (like FSF or a commercial enterprise) to back you up, ANY license is basically worthless if someone bigger than you decides to abuse it.

Such is the way of the world. $:-\$

-40hz (August 09, 2010, 11:32 AM)

Ugh...the cold truth. But so very true.

mouser · « **Reply #97 on:** August 10, 2010, 04:30 PM »

It's been pointed out, both here and in personal messages, that to honor the gpl open source license that eric chose to license circle dock under, new binaries should not be released without the corresponding source code.

Because of that, we've temporarily removed the new binaries until markham and stgevmckay decide whether they want to release the corresponding source code, or whether we should revert back to the last version for which source code was available.

40hz · « **Reply #98 on:** August 10, 2010, 05:41 PM »

Probably wouldn't be a bad idea to go back to the previous version binaries/source until they decide what their next step will be. There is no obligation on their part to continue supplying the source if they are not actively distributing the software. That doesn't stop someone else from sharing it if they already have it however. But my understanding is the obligation goes with distributing the software. No distribution, no requirement.

I've got a call into FSF's licensing wonks about this quandry. I'll keep people posted about what I find out.

-----/

Addendum: AFAIK, although it's generally considered "good form" to supply the source with the binaries, the only requirement is that it be made available upon request. It doesn't have to be included. And you can charge for it. But the price charged for the source code can't exceed the price charged for executables.

One more reason to charge something. The "free" in free software means "free to use as you see fit." It doesn't mean "to be provided to the public at no cost."

sgtevmckay · « **Reply #99 on:** August 10, 2010, 05:49 PM »

Thanks 40hz. I am waiting patiently.

also Eric's legacy is ensured.

http://sourceforge.n...projects/circledock/
That is all I can offer, as it is what I have.

I figure I will have access to the account in about 80days or so.