Wanted: PHP public domain projects

Tim Tyler wrote:

> Great - but let's not pretend the resulting software is "free" when there
> are legal restrictions on its use - and you can get sued for doing the
> wrong thing with it.

Nobody is pretending anything. "Free" means GPL grants you *specific*
freedoms that you otherwise would not have; it does not pretend to grant
you any and all freedoms that you can dream of. And yes, if you violate
copyright law, you may be sued for it - that's the way it works with every
other law too.

> Once in the public domain, always in the public domain. Any attempt
> to claim ownership or copyright over public domain code would be rejected
> in court.

Yes, but you can take anything from public domain, improve it with your
additions, and copyright the new work in its whole. This does no "public
good" to improve the original work if the copyright holder does not release
the additions under an open source license. Cinderella story is public
domain, but if someone writes a Cinderella book, or Disney releases a
Cinderella cartoon, those specific works are copyright by their respective
authors.

> Not /just/ credit, *ownership*. The authors typically have a range of
> right other users do not - including the ability to redistribute their
> code under other licenses - since they have retained copyright and are
> not bound to the conditions of their own license.
>
> If the software was free, all users would have the same rights.
>
> With the GPL, it isn't and they don't - the users are forced to work
> with the code under restritions that don't apply to the authors.

Great, but that's your definition of "free". Certainly with GPL, it's clear
that authors retain copyright, and all re-distributors (not simply users)
do get the same rights under it. GPL grants you some *specific* freedoms,
it does not reverse copyright law - neither does it claim or pretend to do
so. This is extremely clear if you read the license text.

> A disagreement over my use of the word "fail".
>
> I differ: Johnny can still fail his exams - even if he wasn't trying.
>
> The goal does not necessarily have to be defined by the agent shooting at
> it. In this case, I defined the goal I was talking about in my sentence:
> freedom.

OK, GPL fails to land me on the moon too - what a shock! Where do I
complain? Certainly not on comp.lang.php!

Zurab Davitiani <agt@mindless.com> wrote or quoted:
> Tim Tyler wrote:

> > Great - but let's not pretend the resulting software is "free" when
> > there are legal restrictions on its use - and you can get sued for
> > doing the wrong thing with it.
>
> Nobody is pretending anything. "Free" means GPL grants you *specific*
> freedoms that you otherwise would not have; it does not pretend to grant
> you any and all freedoms that you can dream of.

Such freedom is not freedom at all. A man who has had his ankles
unchained is not free if his neck is chill chained to the wall.

> > Once in the public domain, always in the public domain. Any attempt
> > to claim ownership or copyright over public domain code would be
> > rejected in court.
>
> Yes, but you can take anything from public domain, improve it with your
> additions, and copyright the new work in its whole.

The public domain material remains in the public domain. Material
can't be taken out of the public domain.

Those wanting to make money from software may not be very interested
in contribing to public domain software. But they are normally
not interested in contributing to GPL'd software either - since
they can't make any money from that either.

At least with the genunely free software they can at least work from
it - and become potential customers for technical support and consultancy
services from the authors in the process.

> > Not /just/ credit, *ownership*. The authors typically have a range of
> > right other users do not - including the ability to redistribute their
> > code under other licenses - since they have retained copyright and are
> > not bound to the conditions of their own license.
> >
> > If the software was free, all users would have the same rights.
> >
> > With the GPL, it isn't and they don't - the users are forced to work
> > with the code under restritions that don't apply to the authors.
>
> Great, but that's your definition of "free". [...]

Yes - but check with the dictionary:
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=free

Despite what the GPL claims, GPL'd software isn't free in the sense
of freedom. Indeed - in the case of commercial users of MySQL -
it isn't even free in the sense of free beer - since in that case,
the restrictions it leaves users to labour under creates an incentive
for them to pay money for a less encumbered version of the software.

> OK, GPL fails to land me on the moon too - what a shock! Where do I
> complain? Certainly not on comp.lang.php!

In response to my request for public domain PHP software, people tried
``to show why [they] feel GPL is the right decision for [me]''.

I've explained why I disagree:

I want genuine free software - not fake free software.
--
__________
|im |yler http://timtyler.org/ tim@tt1lock.org Remove lock to reply.

Tim Tyler wrote:
>
> In response to my request for public domain PHP software, people tried
> ``to show why [they] feel GPL is the right decision for [me]''.
>
> I've explained why I disagree:
>
> I want genuine free software - not fake free software.

Write it yourself and release it onto the public domain? What is your
problem with using GPL code? Are you planning to sell this modified CMS?
Because if you just writing it to run on your own server, you wouldn't
care if it was GPL or not since you wouldn't need to release it.

All this time spent shooting down the GPL, you could have coded a simple
CMS.

Justin Wyer <justin@isogo.co.za> wrote or quoted:
> Tim Tyler wrote:

> > In response to my request for public domain PHP software, people tried
> > ``to show why [they] feel GPL is the right decision for [me]''.
> >
> > I've explained why I disagree:
> >
> > I want genuine free software - not fake free software.
>
> Write it yourself and release it onto the public domain?

That *is* what I'm doing, yes - which is why I am in search of
CMS components in the first place.

I don't want to waste my time re-inventing the wheel if other
people have done the work for me, though.

> What is your problem with using GPL code?

As described - at some length - in the rest of the thread.

> Are you planning to sell this modified CMS?

I expect that at least one of my clients will want to
modify my public domain code - and deploy it in a manner
that involves incorporating their own business logic into it.

I have no intention of trying to get them to use code
with restrictions or prohibitions on its use that
prevent them from charging for the results - something
like that might very well lose me the whole contract.

> Because if you just writing it to run on your own server, you wouldn't
> care if it was GPL or not since you wouldn't need to release it.

Those are not my circumstances.

> All this time spent shooting down the GPL, you could have coded a simple
> CMS.

I already have a simple CMS. That doesn't seem to stop me from wanting
to use other people's code.
--
__________
|im |yler http://timtyler.org/ tim@tt1lock.org Remove lock to reply.

In message <I2Hxy5.F0o@bath.ac.uk>, Tim Tyler <tim@tt1lock.org> writes
>
>I suspect the appeal of the GPL is that it gives the authors full
>ownership and control over their own code under copyright law.

Coming a little late to the party, but...

I would think that the appeal of the GPL is the confidence that no one
else will make money from a modified version of your code where the
changes are not released.

Personally, I've always preferred the LGPL or *BSD licences because
these issues are mitigated somewhat, especially if your software has a
"plug-in" type architecture.

--
Rob...

Rob Allen <robng@the-allens.net> wrote or quoted:
> In message <I2Hxy5.F0o@bath.ac.uk>, Tim Tyler <tim@tt1lock.org> writes

> >I suspect the appeal of the GPL is that it gives the authors full
> >ownership and control over their own code under copyright law.
>
> Coming a little late to the party, but...
>
> I would think that the appeal of the GPL is the confidence that no one
> else will make money from a modified version of your code where the
> changes are not released.

I believe you're the second person who's suggested that here.

From my point of view, I want to encourage such usage. The more people
there are using my code, the more likely it is that people will
contribute to its development.

If someone decides that they can't use my code (since they can't sell
it) about the only significant effects on me is that I have lost a user -
who might have submitted bug reports, asked me for support - or
contributed in some other way.

Maybe those who favour the GPL want to prevent other people making
money from their code - since they would like to do so themselves -
perhaps by offering their code under a different license.

I can see the appeal in that - but it doesn't have much to do with
freedom or free software.
--
__________
|im |yler http://timtyler.org/ tim@tt1lock.org Remove lock to reply.

Tim Tyler wrote:

[...]

> If someone decides that they can't use my code (since they can't sell
> it) about the only significant effects on me is that I have lost a user -
> who might have submitted bug reports, asked me for support - or
> contributed in some other way.

Whereas from my point of view, people who will get a code, put somewhere
on a website, where it's clearly said they can do whatever they want
from it, they'll see if it can help them, and if it doesn't work, or
there's some bug there are 2 options left:

- They're good at PHP and work the bugs out, but as they want to get
money from it and stay competitive, they'll keep they're bug fixes for
them, and their project only.

- They'll say that coding is a piece of crap and hit the delete key.

But then again, i'm sure you'll have tons of arguments to prove that GPL
is fake free software, trying to make everyone see the light you've seen
in such a dark sky, but honnestly, for my part, i want to stay blind.

Best regards,
Sebastian

--
The most likely way for the world to be destroyed,
most experts agree, is by accident.
That's where we come in; we're computer professionals.
We cause accidents.
--Nathaniel Borenstein

Sebastian Lauwers <dacrashanddie@nospam.9online.fr> wrote or quoted:
> Tim Tyler wrote:

[...]

> > If someone decides that they can't use my code (since they can't sell
> > it) about the only significant effects on me is that I have lost a user -
> > who might have submitted bug reports, asked me for support - or
> > contributed in some other way.
>
> Whereas from my point of view, people who will get a code, put somewhere
> on a website, where it's clearly said they can do whatever they want
> from it, they'll see if it can help them, and if it doesn't work, or
> there's some bug there are 2 options left:
>
> - They're good at PHP and work the bugs out, but as they want to get
> money from it and stay competitive, they'll keep they're bug fixes for
> them, and their project only.
>
> - They'll say that coding is a piece of crap and hit the delete key.

Both the web site and the help text are good places to inform users
of their options if they encounter problems.

I have found that at least some users do contact the authors of the
software if they experience problems with it - and that feedback from
end users is fairly frequently helpful.
--
__________
|im |yler http://timtyler.org/ tim@tt1lock.org Remove lock to reply.