Recommendation for a CL data structures library
in [Lisp]
|
Prev: [2nd CfP] 7th European Lisp Workshop at ECOOP'10, June 21/22
Next: §§§ 2010 Cheap wholesale ED Hardy Suit, Baby Suit, Lacoste Suit ect at www.rijing-trade.com <Paypal Payment>
From: Raffael Cavallaro on 20 Mar 2010 10:28 On 2010-03-20 04:51:46 -0400, Pascal J. Bourguignon said: > Yes, I might try to do that. But I guess I'll have first to split my > libraries, for it seems that in general people only want one feature and > not the whole code base. Please post an all-code discount price as well - it might be worth my while (and others') to just purchase a single license for everything. warmest regards, Ralph -- Raffael Cavallaro
From: RG on 20 Mar 2010 13:52 In article <ho1ocd$js3$1(a)news.eternal-september.org>, Raffael Cavallaro <raffaelcavallaro(a)pas.espam.s.il.vous.plait.mac.com> wrote: > On 2010-03-20 01:08:20 -0400, RG said: > > > That's true. But that is *very* different from what you first said: > > > >> no one who currently works on a commercial, > >> published product, or who contemplates working on a commercial > >> published product in the future, can take the risk of using your > >> libraries because they are GPL licensed. > > > > Being uncompetitive is not at all the same thing as being an > > unacceptable risk. > > The one flows from the other. He presents his libraries as GPL. Many > will see this as an unacceptable risk - i.e., they will not use his > libraries for fear that one day they may find their way into a > commercial product (this has happened to commercial organizations in > the past). Anyone who rejects a GPL library as an unacceptable risk without even making the slightest attempt at mitigating that risk by, say, sending an email and asking about the availability of a commercial license, is an idiot. > Other libraries that are not GPL do exist. These libraries > will see wider use. That my well be, but that is a matter of competition, not unacceptable risk. > There is no contradiction here - GPL licensed works can also be > commercially licensed, but there is no guarantee that they will be There are never any guarantees about anything. But before one rejects a GPL library as an unacceptable risk I think it is prudent to at least make an inquiry to find out if that risk is real or just an assumption you're making. > should such works find their way into a commercial published product. > The copyright holder has every right to simply demand that the > published work be open sourced rather than grant a commercial license. Yes, that is why it is wise to make these inquiries *before* deciding to use the code. This really isn't that difficult. Here, let me show you: PB: would you be willing to license your llrbtree library to me for use in a commercial product? What would be your terms? That wasn't so hard now, was it? rg
From: Pascal J. Bourguignon on 20 Mar 2010 13:09 "Alex Mizrahi" <udodenko(a)users.sourceforge.net> writes: > PJB> I reclaim as compensation to be able to see the source of any > PJB> application using it that I might buy. Is it too high a price? > > It depends on what kind of library it is and what kind of > application. I guess usually it is too high. > > PJB> Notice that the GPL is not contradictory to commercial interests, on > PJB> the contrary. > > I think that GPL'ing application code can absolutely ruin > application's commercial viability in all but few cases. Explain how Toyota providing the sources of its buggy brake software would badly impact its sales. You have basically two cases: - the software is patented, and Tata buys a license to use it. This situation is no different than today, so Toyota distributing its sources under GPL would not change a cent of its revenue. - Tata choose to use the GPL'ed software, and as soon as it sells its first car, Toyota gets to see all the changes (since Tata must provide its derived sources GPL'ed), and correct gets the bug corrected even before the first customer is dead. --> benefit for Toyota: - no spending in damage control marketing - less spending on debugging and HR shuffling. --> benefit for Tata: - less R&D on some non-innovative part. --> benefit for the society: the good engineers at Toyota who don't have to debug the bugs of the bad engineers at Toyota, and the engineers at Tata who didn't have to redesign from scratch a brake software, but only to debug it, now have time to think about my flying car I've been promised in the 60's for 2000. Remember that contrarily to a certain misinformed American judge, corporations are not free-wheeling beings (pun intended), but should be only groups of human persons given a specific priviledge of some monetary and safety benefits against their work for the betterment of the human society. > PJB> In fact, it would be in the best interest of any commercial > PJB> endeavour to distribute the sources of their software and firmware > PJB> under the GPL license, since otherwise a competitor could patent the > PJB> core techniques. Or if the original company patents it itself, then > PJB> it will have published it already so no evil would come from giving a > PJB> copy of the source along with any product. > > This is bullshit. This is an opinion. > PJB> Now, perhaps I should explicitely state in each file that commercial > PJB> licenses are also available upon request, but I guess that if > PJB> commercial entities were interested I would have contacted with me > PJB> already. > > Ha, you see, so your "business model" depends on application vendors > _not liking_ GPL enough to pay you. > So please don't tell us that GPL is good for everyone. Not at all. This is a concession I could envisage to do. I would regretfully accept money in compensation of not bettering the human society by keeping some software secret. Actually I would be so ashamed to do so, that I would have to be paid a lot to tame my shame. Ask Judas about it! (Clearly, 30 gold coins wasn't enough; of course in the case of Jesus, no amount would have been enough). > Library developers might be interested in using GPL for their > libraries so they can demand compensation for their work. > Application developers might be interested in libraries which are not > GPLd so they can make their application for less money and have higher > profit margins. > > PJB> If I ever win big a lottery, or if I ever become a civil "servant", I > PJB> may publish my code under BSD or MIT. But until one of these unlikely > PJB> events occurs, I will stick to GPL or commercial licensing, with a > PJB> very strong favor for the former. > > Well, it's your choice, so why not. Just do not pretend that what is > good for you should be also "in the best interest of any commercial > endeavour". It is simply not true. I just haven't asked any price yet! (Other than the one put by the GPL). > I usually use LGPL (or LLGPL) for libraries I write for fun -- because > I do not expect to gain any monetary compensation for these libraries, > but if somebody takes my lib and makes some improvements -- I'd like > to see those improvements. > > Also I think LGPL is useful when library is developed by a company for > its internal use -- when other companies use this library and work on > it too, original company might enjoy improvements and bugfixes they > make. I gave a snapshot of my library under LGPL once, but I won't do it again, I definitely do not like it. It will be GPL, or make an unrejectable offer. > PJB> (*) But much less hard than Robert Sedgewick, let's thank HIM for the > PJB> really hard work, which americans did by paying his tenure, and the > PJB> other peoples of the Earth by supporting (willingly or not) the > PJB> american debt. We've already paid for his ideas. > > Oh, don't forget that Sedgewick did not invent it all by > himself. Red-black tree is inspired by B-tree by Rudolf Bayer. > And don't forget centuries of mathematical thought which made these > things possible at all. Sure, he just improved it, which was possible because it was "open source". > Also don't forget that there are other forms of self-balancing binary > trees -- e.g. AVL trees: > > "The AVL tree is more rigidly balanced than Red-Black trees, leading > to slower insertion and removal but faster retrieval." Sure, and thanks for these algorithms being "open source", we can know that Left Leaning Red-Black tree are much easier to implement and therefore their implementations are much less risky of having bugs than those of AVL trees. > So it's not like we absolutely need those red-black trees... > > AVL trees were invented by Soviet computer scientists, by the way, did > you pay them for their ideas? :) You bet! And not only with money, but with the blood of the hundred of million of people killed by the soviets. -- __Pascal Bourguignon__
From: Cor on 20 Mar 2010 13:32 Some entity, AKA RG <rNOSPAMon(a)flownet.com>, wrote this mindboggling stuff: (selectively-snipped-or-not-p) > Yes, that is why it is wise to make these inquiries *before* deciding to > use the code. This really isn't that difficult. Here, let me show you: > > PB: would you be willing to license your llrbtree library to me for use > in a commercial product? What would be your terms? I think you mean a "closed" asin non-GPL'ed commercial product. Because if the commercial product would be a GPL'ed product the GPL would cover that allready. Cor -- Join us and live in peace or face obliteration If you hate to see my gun consider a non criminal line of work I never threathen but merely state the consequences of your choice Geavanceerde politieke correctheid is niet te onderscheiden van sarcasme
From: Alex Mizrahi on 20 Mar 2010 14:15
??>> I think that GPL'ing application code can absolutely ruin ??>> application's commercial viability in all but few cases. PJB> Explain how Toyota providing the sources of its buggy brake software PJB> would badly impact its sales. Um. You should distinguish software which is a product itself from a software bundled with hardware which is product. When company's business is in selling hardware with software being only a minor component, of course it is not a problem to release software as open source. But when software is a product, releasing it into open source means that customers can just take it for free and compile it themselves. Or a competitor can just compile it and sell for less money. Sometimes companies can still make money selling an improved proprietary version, or selling support, or something like that. But that won't work for everybody. PJB> - Tata choose to use the GPL'ed software, and as soon as it sells its PJB> first car, Toyota gets to see all the changes (since Tata must PJB> provideits derived sources GPL'ed), and correct gets the bug corrected PJB> evenbefore the first customer is dead. LGPL would work same way here, by the way. |