Intel Atom: pros/cons/hazzards?

On 9/20/2014 2:54 PM, Dombo wrote:
> Op 20-Sep-14 22:41, Don Y schreef:
>> On 9/20/2014 1:34 PM, rickman wrote:
>
>>> My understanding is exactly the opposite.  You can use it any way you
>>> wish on
>>> your own.  But if you share your work with others you just have to
>>> share the
>>> source code as well.  I don't see any restriction on who or how you
>>> share any
>>> of this.  :S
>>
>> It *requires* you to share it!
>>
>> Does your employer share *his* codebase with his customers?  Competitors??
>>
>> I want to make changes, improvements to a piece of code.  I don't want to
>> *have to* share it.
>
> If you want to take but not give then GPL is not for you. You are not alone in
> avoiding the GPL; the conditions stated in the GPL are often not acceptable in
> a (traditional) commercial setting and are either worked around or avoided
> altogether by choosing a product which has a licensing scheme that is more
> compatible with commercial requirements.

It's not just "take but not give".  E.g., I plan on offering all of my sources
to "anyone who wants them, to do with EXACTLY as they please" -- with the
sole requirement that they acknowledge me as the original copyright holder
and indemnify me from damages, etc.

However, if *they* don't want to share what THEY add; or, don't want to
assume responsibility for redistributing *my* sources (or even disclosing
*which* sources they used!), then they shouldn't be REQUIRED to do so!

If I deliver my sources to exactly ONE entity and then decide never to
offer them to any other entities, the first entity can LEGALLY keep them
"hidden" with no other obligations to me or any of his customers, etc.

This is how traditional licenses work -- you are free to do what you want
(and ONLY what you want!) with things that you "own".

I have no desire to "educate" potential commercial (or private) concerns
as to how they can "live within" the GPL.  I'll just avoid it entirely and
be none the worse for wear!  (because there are unencumbered alternatives)

My goal is to see my code *used*.  As it doesn't run on a generic PC,
"being used" means having people invest in creating hardware designs AND
BUILDING THOSE DESIGNS.  A big incentive for doing that is if they feel they
can PROFIT from that (moreso than a 10% markup on a "board + components")

Who wants to invest thousands of dollars in a design, marketing, support,
enhancements, etc. if you are competing with SparkFun?

In comp.arch.embedded Don Y <this@is.not.me.com> wrote:

(snip)

> Yay!  My work is my own!  (duh!)  But, if it doesn't make sense or have
> value out of context, what good is that?
 
>     In addition, mere aggregation of another work not based on the Program
>     with the Program (or with a work based on the Program) on a volume of
>     a storage or distribution medium does not bring the other work under
>     the scope of this License.

I think this is one that you are missing.

Note that if you distribute modified copies of Windows, with
or without source, you will have MS lawyers on you much faster
than GNU lawyers, and they are also paid more.
 
> <shrug>
 
>     3. You may copy and distribute the Program (or a work based on it,
>     under Section 2) in object code or executable form under the terms of
>     Sections 1 and 2 above provided that you also do one of the following:

(snip)

-- glen

On 9/20/2014 6:12 PM, Dombo wrote:
> Op 20-Sep-14 23:29, rickman schreef:
>> On 9/20/2014 4:41 PM, Don Y wrote:
>
>>> I want to make changes, improvements to a piece of code.  I don't
>>> want to
>>> *have to* share it.
>>
>> No, you don't have to share anything.  There are any number of vendors
>> who use GPL code and they have never shared any of it with me and they
>> won't even if I ask... because I haven't bought their product, so they
>> aren't obligated to share with me.
>
> True, but you do have to share it with your customers, and if they want
> to share it with the rest of the world GPL assures they are allowed to
> do exactly that. So in practical terms your modifications are open to
> the rest of the world. There is a reason why LGPL was conceived and
> licenses like BSD are a lot less controversial in commercial settings.

Yes, that is the *exact* purpose of the GPL, to allow your customers to 
have access to the entire product and be able to improve, fix or 
otherwise modify the ENTIRE product.  But it doesn't require you to 
share your work with anyone if you don't want to.  Keep it in a safe 
deposit box if you want, no one will order you to release it.

I think the LGPL still requires you to provide the source code.  My 
understanding is the difference is in *when* it is in effect.  It has 
looser rules on when your code is considered part of the LGPL code.  But 
if you modify the LGPL code you still have the same sharing issues.

-- 

Rick

On 9/20/2014 2:29 PM, rickman wrote:
> On 9/20/2014 4:41 PM, Don Y wrote:
>> On 9/20/2014 1:34 PM, rickman wrote:
>>> On 9/20/2014 3:19 PM, Don Y wrote:
>>>> On 9/20/2014 7:42 AM, David Brown wrote:
>>>>> This is exactly the sort of fight I wanted to avoid - I tried to give
>>>>> you a few
>>>>> /technical/ pointers to why Linux might do a better job for you, and
>>>>> in trying
>>>>> to battle ignorance and myths I have stupidly let myself get drawn
>>>>> in.  And for
>>>>> every point I correct, you post another three paragraphs of new
>>>>> imagined
>>>>> issues.  I simply don't have the time and energy to spend battling such
>>>>> determined fixed positions - this is why I and a good many others
>>>>> usually avoid
>>>>> many of your threads.
>>>>
>>>> David, you refuse to understand the basic issue that drives me (and
>>>> others)
>>>> away from Linux:  we want to avoid the GPL LIKE THE PLAGUE!  I have
>>>> no desire
>>>> to invest time bettering a product that I can't then use AS I
>>>> PLEASE.  And,
>>>> that I can't pass on to other "licensees" in the same way!
>>>
>>> I have trimmed this insanely long post down to one simple point so I
>>> can ask a
>>> question about it and hopefully get a simple reply.
>>>
>>> How does using GPL code like Linux prevent you from using it as you
>>> please or
>>> from passing the code on to others?
>>>
>>> My understanding is exactly the opposite.  You can use it any way you
>>> wish on
>>> your own.  But if you share your work with others you just have to
>>> share the
>>> source code as well.  I don't see any restriction on who or how you
>>> share any
>>> of this.  :S
>>
>> It *requires* you to share it!
>
> No, that is factually incorrect.  You are free to modify GPL code all day long
> and not share it with anyone at any time.  GPL talks about what you must do
> when you *do* share it.

"Sharing" meant to also include *sell* a product incorporating that code!
You can use GPL'd tools to create other works.  But, if you take those
GPL tools and derive yet another product from them (or any portion of
them), then the license terms apply to those derived works as well.

IF YOU ONLY USE THAT DERIVED WORK INTERNALLY, then you have no practical
obligations.  However, if you start selling or distributing that modified
(enhanced/derived/etc.) tool, then the license's terms apply.

>> Does your employer share *his* codebase with his customers?  Competitors??
>
> I am my employer and I don't use GPL code in my work.  But that is only because
> there is very little GPL code available in the work I do.  I mostly write my
> stuff from scratch so far.  There are processors cores for FPGAs which I might
> consider using some day.  But not so far.

If those cores are GPL'd, then you will have to conform to the GPL's terms
if you adopt one (for use in a product -- if you instead use one to create
an electronic flyswatter that you use in your office, no problems!)

>> I want to make changes, improvements to a piece of code.  I don't want to
>> *have to* share it.
>
> No, you don't have to share anything.  There are any number of vendors who use
> GPL code and they have never shared any of it with me and they won't even if I
> ask... because I haven't bought their product, so they aren't obligated to
> share with me.

Um, you might want to reread the terms of their license!  And, if, indeed,
they are NOT complying with those terms, call the FSF-police and let
them badger them into compliance.

The whole point of the GPL is to *promote* sharing -- by requiring you
to propagate the licensed code (you are encouraged to also share your
improvements but can excise them from what you distribute if they are
clearly "freestanding"

     2b) You must cause any work that you distribute or publish, that in
     whole or in part contains or is derived from the Program or any
     part thereof, to be licensed as a whole at no charge to all third
     parties under the terms of this License.

     2c) ...    These requirements apply to the modified work as a whole. If
     identifiable sections of that work are not derived from the Program,
     and can be reasonably considered independent and separate works in
     themselves, then this License, and its terms, do not apply to those
     sections when you distribute them as separate works.  But when you

So, if I excise my "patches" from the "derived/modified" work, then I
can distribute *those* as "separate works" under a different license
(of my choosing).

This only makes sense when you are building a "module" or some other
object that has merit in a free-standing manner.  NOT when you are
modifying something else and adding or altering its functionality in
some (small or large) way!

>> *I* may opt to share it;  but, someone who embraces my codebase might
>> NOT want
>> to share it or his further improvements.  E.g., a commercial entity that
>> wants
>> to exploit the work without sharing his enhancements, being called on to
>> redistribute the original sources that he received or even tipping his
>> hand as
>> to *what* codebase he based his product on!  (e.g., if my license terms
>> force
>> him to include a notice that says "Portions copyright Don Y" that doesn't
>> tell anyone *what* sources he used, which version, changes, etc.  And,
>> *I* am
>> under no obligation to provide those sources to those "other interested
>> parties", either!  I can abandon it or take it in yet another direction,
>> entirely!)
>
> A bit long winded and confusing, but this is different.  Here you are talking
> about a product that someone used GPL code in and now wants to profit by.  Yes,
> here the GPL says you must share the original code as well as your modified code.
>
> Your code would be shared though him since he is obligated to share it if he
> used it in a product.
>
> If you are describing a situation where your code was written with GPL code and
> distributed that way but you also distribute it as stand alone... I find that a
> very odd scenario and one that is very unlikely.  Certainly I have no horse in
> this race so I won't even try to figure it out.

The point is to let others accept your (my) code with as light a "touch" as is
legally possible.  I surely don't want to place things in the public domain.
I *deserve* to hold the copyright on my works.  However, telling others whom
I would like to ENCOURAGE to adopt those works that they have some "other
requirements" that they must additionally satisfy (and be prepared to defend
in a court of law) is entirely different.

I can't think of anyone who would cringe at burying a copyright notice in
some publication -- ink is practically free!

OTOH, agreeing to provide *my* sources (even WITHOUT their modifications)
to *others* -- presumably who also want to COMPETE in their market -- raises
the bar.  Not only the (reasonably trivial) responsibility of putting it
on a publicly accessible server somewhere (for some amount of time) but,
also, ANNOUNCING to those competitors that you started with THIS codebase!
(I don't think many businesses are eager to share ANYTHING about their
products or processes!  They fret when they have to disclose INGREDIENTS
on food labels -- and those say nothing about QUANTITIES, etc.)

>> David seems to think I *can* do this under the terms of the GPL.  I believe
>> he is wrong.  (read the GPL -- any version -- for yourself)
>
> I haven't seen anything by David that says this.

He has EMPHATICALLY stated that:

    "I think you totally and completely misunderstand the GPL, totally and
    completely misunderstand how it applies to an operating system like Linux,
    and totally and completely misunderstand how open source development works,
    where it is a good choice, and where it is a bad choice."

I believe I have stated what I *want* from a license.  And, why the simple
"3 paragraph" example is so much more preferable (Gee, folks complain about
the lengths of my posts -- but not the length of the GPL vs. other licenses??).

Given that he is so convinced that I "misunderstand", I would like him to
clarify how the GPL lets me -- and anyone who embraces my codebase -- do
"whatever they want" with it!  And still comply with the terms of the GPL!

Can YOU tell me how I can do this?  How I can tell a potential commercial
entity that they can freely embrace my codebase in their products JUST by
adding those 3 paragraphs to some "user manual"?  That, as long as they
have done exactly this, I will have no legal recourse to come after them
for violating the terms of the license, etc.?

On 9/20/2014 6:46 PM, Don Y wrote:
> On 9/20/2014 2:54 PM, Dombo wrote:
>> Op 20-Sep-14 22:41, Don Y schreef:
>>> On 9/20/2014 1:34 PM, rickman wrote:
>>
>>>> My understanding is exactly the opposite.  You can use it any way you
>>>> wish on
>>>> your own.  But if you share your work with others you just have to
>>>> share the
>>>> source code as well.  I don't see any restriction on who or how you
>>>> share any
>>>> of this.  :S
>>>
>>> It *requires* you to share it!
>>>
>>> Does your employer share *his* codebase with his customers?
>>> Competitors??
>>>
>>> I want to make changes, improvements to a piece of code.  I don't
>>> want to
>>> *have to* share it.
>>
>> If you want to take but not give then GPL is not for you. You are not
>> alone in
>> avoiding the GPL; the conditions stated in the GPL are often not
>> acceptable in
>> a (traditional) commercial setting and are either worked around or
>> avoided
>> altogether by choosing a product which has a licensing scheme that is
>> more
>> compatible with commercial requirements.
>
> It's not just "take but not give".  E.g., I plan on offering all of my
> sources
> to "anyone who wants them, to do with EXACTLY as they please" -- with the
> sole requirement that they acknowledge me as the original copyright holder
> and indemnify me from damages, etc.
>
> However, if *they* don't want to share what THEY add; or, don't want to
> assume responsibility for redistributing *my* sources (or even disclosing
> *which* sources they used!), then they shouldn't be REQUIRED to do so!

If you code is covered by the GPL by being part of some existing GPL 
code, how can you be sharing it without also sharing the original GPL 
code.  Is this an issue of defining *when* code must be covered by the GPL?


> If I deliver my sources to exactly ONE entity and then decide never to
> offer them to any other entities, the first entity can LEGALLY keep them
> "hidden" with no other obligations to me or any of his customers, etc.
>
> This is how traditional licenses work -- you are free to do what you want
> (and ONLY what you want!) with things that you "own".

Good luck on that one.  You "own" *NOTHING*.  Try telling the government 
that you "own" your house and you don't want to pay the taxes on it 
since it is yours and not theirs.  Or try adding a second story without 
a permit, or ...

You still "own" the code you have written even though it is covered by 
GPL.  You just are required to provide sources if you give it to anyone 
else.  As with *many* things there are limits to what you can do with 
the things you own.


> I have no desire to "educate" potential commercial (or private) concerns
> as to how they can "live within" the GPL.  I'll just avoid it entirely and
> be none the worse for wear!  (because there are unencumbered alternatives)
>
> My goal is to see my code *used*.  As it doesn't run on a generic PC,
> "being used" means having people invest in creating hardware designs AND
> BUILDING THOSE DESIGNS.  A big incentive for doing that is if they feel
> they
> can PROFIT from that (moreso than a 10% markup on a "board + components")
>
> Who wants to invest thousands of dollars in a design, marketing, support,
> enhancements, etc. if you are competing with SparkFun?

I do.  I am looking for a project I can design and produce to the 
"hobby" market with some potential for the professional market.  My 
stumbling block is the software that is required for most projects these 
days.  I've looked at the rPi and can't find an example of a decent 
driver as one example.

-- 

Rick

On 9/20/2014 4:00 PM, glen herrmannsfeldt wrote:
> In comp.arch.embedded Don Y <this@is.not.me.com> wrote:
>
> (snip)
>
>> Yay!  My work is my own!  (duh!)  But, if it doesn't make sense or have
>> value out of context, what good is that?
>
>>      In addition, mere aggregation of another work not based on the Program
>>      with the Program (or with a work based on the Program) on a volume of
>>      a storage or distribution medium does not bring the other work under
>>      the scope of this License.
>
> I think this is one that you are missing.

The above clause says I don't have to worry that adding some "other program"
(or any kind of work -- even a JPEG -- or, a program that counts butterflies)
NOT BASED ON THE PROGRAM on a volume (disk, CD, DVD) does not cause that
"other work" to be subjected to the license.

Doing so would probably make the license completely impractical -- if not
unenforceable (Hey, you distributed a copy of the Linux kernel on the
same CD that you distributed a copy of some photos that I took... what gives
you the right to TAKE AWAY my right to those photos??)

> Note that if you distribute modified copies of Windows, with
> or without source, you will have MS lawyers on you much faster
> than GNU lawyers, and they are also paid more.

You'll note that I don't distribute Windows-based products!  :>

>> <shrug>
>
>>      3. You may copy and distribute the Program (or a work based on it,
>>      under Section 2) in object code or executable form under the terms of
>>      Sections 1 and 2 above provided that you also do one of the following:
>
> (snip)
>
> -- glen
>

On 9/20/2014 4:01 PM, rickman wrote:
> On 9/20/2014 6:12 PM, Dombo wrote:
>> Op 20-Sep-14 23:29, rickman schreef:
>>> On 9/20/2014 4:41 PM, Don Y wrote:
>>
>>>> I want to make changes, improvements to a piece of code.  I don't
>>>> want to
>>>> *have to* share it.
>>>
>>> No, you don't have to share anything.  There are any number of vendors
>>> who use GPL code and they have never shared any of it with me and they
>>> won't even if I ask... because I haven't bought their product, so they
>>> aren't obligated to share with me.
>>
>> True, but you do have to share it with your customers, and if they want
>> to share it with the rest of the world GPL assures they are allowed to
>> do exactly that. So in practical terms your modifications are open to
>> the rest of the world. There is a reason why LGPL was conceived and
>> licenses like BSD are a lot less controversial in commercial settings.
>
> Yes, that is the *exact* purpose of the GPL, to allow your customers to have
> access to the entire product and be able to improve, fix or otherwise modify
> the ENTIRE product.  But it doesn't require you to share your work with anyone
> if you don't want to.  Keep it in a safe deposit box if you want, no one will
> order you to release it.

Exactly.  You (I) can use GPL'd products all day long.  And, use them to create
"independant works" (compile my own code, process my own photos, your compiled
VHDL, etc.).

But, if I am creating a PRODUCT (something that *will* be "distributed" -- even
without fee!) then I am bound by the terms of the GPL *if* I use anything
encumbered with it.

If, for example, you use a GPL'd core in one of your designs, then you are
bound by it IF YOU DISTRIBUTE THAT CORE (or the "sources" for it).

> I think the LGPL still requires you to provide the source code.  My
> understanding is the difference is in *when* it is in effect.  It has looser
> rules on when your code is considered part of the LGPL code.  But if you modify
> the LGPL code you still have the same sharing issues.

On 9/20/2014 4:09 PM, rickman wrote:
> On 9/20/2014 6:46 PM, Don Y wrote:
>> On 9/20/2014 2:54 PM, Dombo wrote:
>>> Op 20-Sep-14 22:41, Don Y schreef:
>>>> On 9/20/2014 1:34 PM, rickman wrote:
>>>
>>>>> My understanding is exactly the opposite.  You can use it any way you
>>>>> wish on
>>>>> your own.  But if you share your work with others you just have to
>>>>> share the
>>>>> source code as well.  I don't see any restriction on who or how you
>>>>> share any
>>>>> of this.  :S
>>>>
>>>> It *requires* you to share it!
>>>>
>>>> Does your employer share *his* codebase with his customers?
>>>> Competitors??
>>>>
>>>> I want to make changes, improvements to a piece of code.  I don't
>>>> want to
>>>> *have to* share it.
>>>
>>> If you want to take but not give then GPL is not for you. You are not
>>> alone in
>>> avoiding the GPL; the conditions stated in the GPL are often not
>>> acceptable in
>>> a (traditional) commercial setting and are either worked around or
>>> avoided
>>> altogether by choosing a product which has a licensing scheme that is
>>> more
>>> compatible with commercial requirements.
>>
>> It's not just "take but not give".  E.g., I plan on offering all of my
>> sources
>> to "anyone who wants them, to do with EXACTLY as they please" -- with the
>> sole requirement that they acknowledge me as the original copyright holder
>> and indemnify me from damages, etc.
>>
>> However, if *they* don't want to share what THEY add; or, don't want to
>> assume responsibility for redistributing *my* sources (or even disclosing
>> *which* sources they used!), then they shouldn't be REQUIRED to do so!
>
> If you code is covered by the GPL by being part of some existing GPL code, how
> can you be sharing it without also sharing the original GPL code.  Is this an
> issue of defining *when* code must be covered by the GPL?

Now you understand the problem?  :>

I can write something that runs *under* Linux and release it under any terms
that I want.

I can write a clever cache management algorithm and release it under any terms
that I want.

But, if that cache management algorithm is significantly integrated (dependant
upon) the kernel in which it operates (NetBSD, Linux, etc.), then trying to
extricate it from that kernel is impractical -- like selling automobile tires
without also making automobiles available for sale!

This makes sense and is "fair" -- if you buy into the GPL "religion".

Other FOSS "vendors" don't put those restrictions on the code that they
make available.  E.g., I can take my cache management algorithm and create
a BETTER performing NetBSD kernel -- and NEVER disclose it's source code
even while commercializing that kernel!  Nor do I even have to tell
folks which kernel I modified.  Or, provide the sources to that kernel
WITHOUT MY MODIFICATIONS simply to "spread the FOSS gospel".

>> If I deliver my sources to exactly ONE entity and then decide never to
>> offer them to any other entities, the first entity can LEGALLY keep them
>> "hidden" with no other obligations to me or any of his customers, etc.
>>
>> This is how traditional licenses work -- you are free to do what you want
>> (and ONLY what you want!) with things that you "own".
>
> Good luck on that one.  You "own" *NOTHING*.  Try telling the government that
> you "own" your house and you don't want to pay the taxes on it since it is
> yours and not theirs.  Or try adding a second story without a permit, or ...
>
> You still "own" the code you have written even though it is covered by GPL.
> You just are required to provide sources if you give it to anyone else.  As
> with *many* things there are limits to what you can do with the things you own.

The restrictions placed by the GPL are consequential to using code that was
originally GPL'd!  If I start with something that is NOT covered by the GPL,
then the GPL has no effect on what I can/can't do!

If the *only* "legal" way you can listen to a particular song is to download
it (pay per play) from the iTunes store -- and the terms of the license
agreement forbid you from storing it in any way -- then the only way
you will EVER hear that song is to pay for it -- EACH time you want to
hear it!

OTOH, if you can also acquire (license) a copy of the song/album (i.e., on a
CD) with more permissive license terms ("You can listen as much as you want!
But, you can't make COPIES of this!  So, in effect, you can LEND it to
your friend and still be in compliance.")

>> I have no desire to "educate" potential commercial (or private) concerns
>> as to how they can "live within" the GPL.  I'll just avoid it entirely and
>> be none the worse for wear!  (because there are unencumbered alternatives)
>>
>> My goal is to see my code *used*.  As it doesn't run on a generic PC,
>> "being used" means having people invest in creating hardware designs AND
>> BUILDING THOSE DESIGNS.  A big incentive for doing that is if they feel
>> they
>> can PROFIT from that (moreso than a 10% markup on a "board + components")
>>
>> Who wants to invest thousands of dollars in a design, marketing, support,
>> enhancements, etc. if you are competing with SparkFun?
>
> I do.  I am looking for a project I can design and produce to the "hobby"
> market with some potential for the professional market.  My stumbling block is
> the software that is required for most projects these days.  I've looked at the
> rPi and can't find an example of a decent driver as one example.

You *want* to develop a product -- and, presumably, make a profit on it -- AND,
at the same time, have "anyone" be able to come along and recreate EXACTLY
what you have created?  By buying a bare board from a fab house in China
and installing appropriate software??

What do you do when the fab house opts to sell the board WITH the "open"
software for the same price as the bare board?  LESS than you are selling
them??  Where's your investment gone?

Den s�ndag den 21. september 2014 01.09.04 UTC+2 skrev rickman:
> On 9/20/2014 6:46 PM, Don Y wrote:
> 
> > On 9/20/2014 2:54 PM, Dombo wrote:
> 
> >> Op 20-Sep-14 22:41, Don Y schreef:
> 
> >>> On 9/20/2014 1:34 PM, rickman wrote:
> 
> >>
> 
> >>>> My understanding is exactly the opposite.  You can use it any way you
> 
> >>>> wish on
> 
> >>>> your own.  But if you share your work with others you just have to
> 
> >>>> share the
> 
> >>>> source code as well.  I don't see any restriction on who or how you
> 
> >>>> share any
> 
> >>>> of this.  :S
> 
> >>>
> 
> >>> It *requires* you to share it!
> 
> >>>
> 
> >>> Does your employer share *his* codebase with his customers?
> 
> >>> Competitors??
> 
> >>>
> 
> >>> I want to make changes, improvements to a piece of code.  I don't
> 
> >>> want to
> 
> >>> *have to* share it.
> 
> >>
> 
> >> If you want to take but not give then GPL is not for you. You are not
> 
> >> alone in
> 
> >> avoiding the GPL; the conditions stated in the GPL are often not
> 
> >> acceptable in
> 
> >> a (traditional) commercial setting and are either worked around or
> 
> >> avoided
> 
> >> altogether by choosing a product which has a licensing scheme that is
> 
> >> more
> 
> >> compatible with commercial requirements.
> 
> >
> 
> > It's not just "take but not give".  E.g., I plan on offering all of my
> 
> > sources
> 
> > to "anyone who wants them, to do with EXACTLY as they please" -- with the
> 
> > sole requirement that they acknowledge me as the original copyright holder
> 
> > and indemnify me from damages, etc.
> 
> >
> 
> > However, if *they* don't want to share what THEY add; or, don't want to
> 
> > assume responsibility for redistributing *my* sources (or even disclosing
> 
> > *which* sources they used!), then they shouldn't be REQUIRED to do so!
> 
> 
> 
> If you code is covered by the GPL by being part of some existing GPL 
> 
> code, how can you be sharing it without also sharing the original GPL 
> 
> code.  Is this an issue of defining *when* code must be covered by the GPL?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> > If I deliver my sources to exactly ONE entity and then decide never to
> 
> > offer them to any other entities, the first entity can LEGALLY keep them
> 
> > "hidden" with no other obligations to me or any of his customers, etc.
> 
> >
> 
> > This is how traditional licenses work -- you are free to do what you want
> 
> > (and ONLY what you want!) with things that you "own".
> 
> 
> 
> Good luck on that one.  You "own" *NOTHING*.  Try telling the government 
> 
> that you "own" your house and you don't want to pay the taxes on it 
> 
> since it is yours and not theirs.  Or try adding a second story without 
> 
> a permit, or ...
> 
> 
> 
> You still "own" the code you have written even though it is covered by 
> 
> GPL.  You just are required to provide sources if you give it to anyone 
> 
> else.  As with *many* things there are limits to what you can do with 
> 
> the things you own.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> > I have no desire to "educate" potential commercial (or private) concerns
> 
> > as to how they can "live within" the GPL.  I'll just avoid it entirely and
> 
> > be none the worse for wear!  (because there are unencumbered alternatives)
> 
> >
> 
> > My goal is to see my code *used*.  As it doesn't run on a generic PC,
> 
> > "being used" means having people invest in creating hardware designs AND
> 
> > BUILDING THOSE DESIGNS.  A big incentive for doing that is if they feel
> 
> > they
> 
> > can PROFIT from that (moreso than a 10% markup on a "board + components")
> 
> >
> 
> > Who wants to invest thousands of dollars in a design, marketing, support,
> 
> > enhancements, etc. if you are competing with SparkFun?
> 
> 
> 
> I do.  I am looking for a project I can design and produce to the 
> 
> "hobby" market with some potential for the professional market.  My 
> 
> stumbling block is the software that is required for most projects these 
> 
> days.  I've looked at the rPi and can't find an example of a decent 
> 
> driver as one example.
> 

a driver for what? 

-Lasse

On 9/20/2014 7:09 PM, Don Y wrote:
> On 9/20/2014 2:29 PM, rickman wrote:
>> On 9/20/2014 4:41 PM, Don Y wrote:
>>> On 9/20/2014 1:34 PM, rickman wrote:
>>>> On 9/20/2014 3:19 PM, Don Y wrote:
>>>>> On 9/20/2014 7:42 AM, David Brown wrote:
>>>>>> This is exactly the sort of fight I wanted to avoid - I tried to give
>>>>>> you a few
>>>>>> /technical/ pointers to why Linux might do a better job for you, and
>>>>>> in trying
>>>>>> to battle ignorance and myths I have stupidly let myself get drawn
>>>>>> in.  And for
>>>>>> every point I correct, you post another three paragraphs of new
>>>>>> imagined
>>>>>> issues.  I simply don't have the time and energy to spend battling
>>>>>> such
>>>>>> determined fixed positions - this is why I and a good many others
>>>>>> usually avoid
>>>>>> many of your threads.
>>>>>
>>>>> David, you refuse to understand the basic issue that drives me (and
>>>>> others)
>>>>> away from Linux:  we want to avoid the GPL LIKE THE PLAGUE!  I have
>>>>> no desire
>>>>> to invest time bettering a product that I can't then use AS I
>>>>> PLEASE.  And,
>>>>> that I can't pass on to other "licensees" in the same way!
>>>>
>>>> I have trimmed this insanely long post down to one simple point so I
>>>> can ask a
>>>> question about it and hopefully get a simple reply.
>>>>
>>>> How does using GPL code like Linux prevent you from using it as you
>>>> please or
>>>> from passing the code on to others?
>>>>
>>>> My understanding is exactly the opposite.  You can use it any way you
>>>> wish on
>>>> your own.  But if you share your work with others you just have to
>>>> share the
>>>> source code as well.  I don't see any restriction on who or how you
>>>> share any
>>>> of this.  :S
>>>
>>> It *requires* you to share it!
>>
>> No, that is factually incorrect.  You are free to modify GPL code all
>> day long
>> and not share it with anyone at any time.  GPL talks about what you
>> must do
>> when you *do* share it.
>
> "Sharing" meant to also include *sell* a product incorporating that code!
> You can use GPL'd tools to create other works.  But, if you take those
> GPL tools and derive yet another product from them (or any portion of
> them), then the license terms apply to those derived works as well.
>
> IF YOU ONLY USE THAT DERIVED WORK INTERNALLY, then you have no practical
> obligations.  However, if you start selling or distributing that modified
> (enhanced/derived/etc.) tool, then the license's terms apply.

BINGO.  The point is you have not explained what is so onerous about the 
GPL.  You seem to have a problem with the fact that others will be 
subject to the same conditions if they use your work which is GPL'd. 
So?  So far you have not explained why *any* of your work would be 
covered by GPL.


>>> Does your employer share *his* codebase with his customers?
>>> Competitors??
>>
>> I am my employer and I don't use GPL code in my work.  But that is
>> only because
>> there is very little GPL code available in the work I do.  I mostly
>> write my
>> stuff from scratch so far.  There are processors cores for FPGAs which
>> I might
>> consider using some day.  But not so far.
>
> If those cores are GPL'd, then you will have to conform to the GPL's terms
> if you adopt one (for use in a product -- if you instead use one to create
> an electronic flyswatter that you use in your office, no problems!)

Yes and that only makes sense to me.


>>> I want to make changes, improvements to a piece of code.  I don't
>>> want to
>>> *have to* share it.
>>
>> No, you don't have to share anything.  There are any number of vendors
>> who use
>> GPL code and they have never shared any of it with me and they won't
>> even if I
>> ask... because I haven't bought their product, so they aren't
>> obligated to
>> share with me.
>
> Um, you might want to reread the terms of their license!  And, if, indeed,
> they are NOT complying with those terms, call the FSF-police and let
> them badger them into compliance.

No, they have no obligation to distribute source to anyone they didn't 
sell or give the binary code to.


> The whole point of the GPL is to *promote* sharing -- by requiring you
> to propagate the licensed code (you are encouraged to also share your
> improvements but can excise them from what you distribute if they are
> clearly "freestanding"
>
>      2b) You must cause any work that you distribute or publish, that in
>      whole or in part contains or is derived from the Program or any
>      part thereof, to be licensed as a whole at no charge to all third
>      parties under the terms of this License.
>
>      2c) ...    These requirements apply to the modified work as a
> whole. If
>      identifiable sections of that work are not derived from the Program,
>      and can be reasonably considered independent and separate works in
>      themselves, then this License, and its terms, do not apply to those
>      sections when you distribute them as separate works.  But when you
>
> So, if I excise my "patches" from the "derived/modified" work, then I
> can distribute *those* as "separate works" under a different license
> (of my choosing).
>
> This only makes sense when you are building a "module" or some other
> object that has merit in a free-standing manner.  NOT when you are
> modifying something else and adding or altering its functionality in
> some (small or large) way!

You get so hung up on the details you can't see the issues.


>>> *I* may opt to share it;  but, someone who embraces my codebase might
>>> NOT want
>>> to share it or his further improvements.  E.g., a commercial entity that
>>> wants
>>> to exploit the work without sharing his enhancements, being called on to
>>> redistribute the original sources that he received or even tipping his
>>> hand as
>>> to *what* codebase he based his product on!  (e.g., if my license terms
>>> force
>>> him to include a notice that says "Portions copyright Don Y" that
>>> doesn't
>>> tell anyone *what* sources he used, which version, changes, etc.  And,
>>> *I* am
>>> under no obligation to provide those sources to those "other interested
>>> parties", either!  I can abandon it or take it in yet another direction,
>>> entirely!)
>>
>> A bit long winded and confusing, but this is different.  Here you are
>> talking
>> about a product that someone used GPL code in and now wants to profit
>> by.  Yes,
>> here the GPL says you must share the original code as well as your
>> modified code.
>>
>> Your code would be shared though him since he is obligated to share it
>> if he
>> used it in a product.
>>
>> If you are describing a situation where your code was written with GPL
>> code and
>> distributed that way but you also distribute it as stand alone... I
>> find that a
>> very odd scenario and one that is very unlikely.  Certainly I have no
>> horse in
>> this race so I won't even try to figure it out.
>
> The point is to let others accept your (my) code with as light a "touch"
> as is
> legally possible.  I surely don't want to place things in the public
> domain.
> I *deserve* to hold the copyright on my works.  However, telling others
> whom
> I would like to ENCOURAGE to adopt those works that they have some "other
> requirements" that they must additionally satisfy (and be prepared to
> defend
> in a court of law) is entirely different.

None of this makes sense to me.  You say the GPL is too restrictive on 
those you share your work with but you want to retain your copyright... 
  GPL doesn't take your copyright.  It requires you to *share*.


> I can't think of anyone who would cringe at burying a copyright notice in
> some publication -- ink is practically free!
>
> OTOH, agreeing to provide *my* sources (even WITHOUT their modifications)
> to *others* -- presumably who also want to COMPETE in their market --
> raises
> the bar.  Not only the (reasonably trivial) responsibility of putting it
> on a publicly accessible server somewhere (for some amount of time) but,
> also, ANNOUNCING to those competitors that you started with THIS codebase!
> (I don't think many businesses are eager to share ANYTHING about their
> products or processes!  They fret when they have to disclose INGREDIENTS
> on food labels -- and those say nothing about QUANTITIES, etc.)

Yeah, some people don't like that, but many *do*.


>>> David seems to think I *can* do this under the terms of the GPL.  I
>>> believe
>>> he is wrong.  (read the GPL -- any version -- for yourself)
>>
>> I haven't seen anything by David that says this.
>
> He has EMPHATICALLY stated that:
>
>     "I think you totally and completely misunderstand the GPL, totally and
>     completely misunderstand how it applies to an operating system like
> Linux,
>     and totally and completely misunderstand how open source development
> works,
>     where it is a good choice, and where it is a bad choice."
>
> I believe I have stated what I *want* from a license.  And, why the simple
> "3 paragraph" example is so much more preferable (Gee, folks complain about
> the lengths of my posts -- but not the length of the GPL vs. other
> licenses??).
>
> Given that he is so convinced that I "misunderstand", I would like him to
> clarify how the GPL lets me -- and anyone who embraces my codebase -- do
> "whatever they want" with it!  And still comply with the terms of the GPL!

There is no license that lets others do "whatever they want" with your 
code other than just placing it in the public domain with no copyright 
and no restrictions.  Is that what you want?


> Can YOU tell me how I can do this?  How I can tell a potential commercial
> entity that they can freely embrace my codebase in their products JUST by
> adding those 3 paragraphs to some "user manual"?  That, as long as they
> have done exactly this, I will have no legal recourse to come after them
> for violating the terms of the license, etc.?

But you started out talking about why you didn't *use* Linux.  How is 
that related to giving away your code?

-- 

Rick