Author Topic: Discussion about Open Source - Was: eCS 2.2 C API documentation  (Read 38656 times)

Dave Yeo

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4788
  • Karma: +99/-1
    • View Profile
Re: Discussion about Open Source - Was: eCS 2.2 C API documentation
« Reply #30 on: August 28, 2014, 05:37:35 am »
My nickels worth (no more pennies here)
GPL is nice, or at least the idea is nice, keeping source open. But it is restrictive, I found myself breaking the GPL due to distributing software that was linked to OpenSSL. I took it for granted that supplying all the source was good enough but its not. I've also run into problems where I have a GPL binary but no source so basically abandonedware . (luckily I got it relicensed so I could share it). For libraries it is also virus like, I prefer the LGPL so programs can be extended and fixes to the original are still shared
GPL is not good for standards. Would we have the internet if the BSD stack was the GPL stack? Lots of companies closed the BSD stack and included it in their operating systems or programs, the obvious example is our stack. Same with other software such as Zlib which is a defacto standard compression library found in all manner of software. In these cases it is usually compatibility that is important rather then sharing actual source, lots of programs interact with the internet due to having standards.
Another way to make money is to dual license your software, a GPL version and sell closed source licenses. X264 uses this model and seems to do well but the copyright has to be limited to a few people.

dbanet

  • Guest
Re: Discussion about Open Source - Was: eCS 2.2 C API documentation
« Reply #31 on: August 28, 2014, 10:48:18 am »
As for Sigurd, it is nonsense that all ecosoft sotware is 'bad'. I do use ecosoft software and am very happy with some of the software I bought from them. Especially the stuff developed by Glassman. On several occasions he has corrected minor bugs or added features, some major additions, on my request, usually very fast.

Can you please say a little bit more? What software exactly?



My nickels worth (no more pennies here)
GPL is nice, or at least the idea is nice, keeping source open. But it is restrictive, I found myself breaking the GPL due to distributing software that was linked to OpenSSL. I took it for granted that supplying all the source was good enough but its not. I've also run into problems where I have a GPL binary but no source so basically abandonedware . (luckily I got it relicensed so I could share it). For libraries it is also virus like, I prefer the LGPL so programs can be extended and fixes to the original are still shared
GPL is not good for standards. Would we have the internet if the BSD stack was the GPL stack? Lots of companies closed the BSD stack and included it in their operating systems or programs, the obvious example is our stack. Same with other software such as Zlib which is a defacto standard compression library found in all manner of software. In these cases it is usually compatibility that is important rather then sharing actual source, lots of programs interact with the internet due to having standards.
Another way to make money is to dual license your software, a GPL version and sell closed source licenses. X264 uses this model and seems to do well but the copyright has to be limited to a few people.

Agreed to everything.

Ian Manners

  • Global Moderator
  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 464
  • Karma: +10/-0
  • I am the computer, it is me.
    • View Profile
    • ComKal Networks Australia
Re: Discussion about Open Source - Was: eCS 2.2 C API documentation
« Reply #32 on: August 28, 2014, 04:08:04 pm »
Hi everyone,

I wasn't saying anything bad about Microsoft, after all, there is Microsoft supplied code
in OS/2 and eComStation, it's about there take on the Open Source model.

It should also be noted that I wasn't saying anything bad about Eugene apart from
basically telling Eugene to leave unrelated and unnecessary  comments about
others from his posts. How Eugene wants to release his code is entirely up to him,
some of us may prefer it if he did open source his (and others) code but at the
end of the day he is free to chose, that what freedom is all about :)

Eugene does on many occasions sound like a Microsoft Code jockey, that's what
that comment is about, no more, no less.

Microsoft does have this thing about code that is Open Sourced (note I didn't say
GPL'ed), they are as time progress's getting a better understanding of shared code,
and difference between the different licensing models and I note that even they are
releasing some code to non core Microsoft products these days, assuming they no longer
want to provide support for that code or program.

Personally I believe it is entirely up to those writing the code, or those paying for the code
as to which license they wish to use. I don't have a problem if someone wants to provide
a closed source code program, or an open source code program, there are reasons for
both just as there are reasons for using a modified or combined license.

Sometimes you are bound by the original code license so there is no choice, and that
applies to Mensys, unless there is a way to rewrite a lot of code..

As I get older I prefer any code I write to be open sourced simply so others can utilise
what I have written on the condition that my details will remain within the program going
forward. I also find it makes life so much easier when you can find code snippets, or
even an open source program that you can 'bend' to your purposes that is close to
what you want, and I do normally thank those people by email as they have saved
me both time, and sometimes frustration. The other thing I have always done is to
send a copy of any changes I've made to code back to the originating author(s) no
matter which license it is.

There are a couple of programs I've written that cannot have the source code released
for private reasons, some are due to ownership is to the company I write the programs for,
and one program that I use on my website that I cant release the code due to the original
authors request, and simply because others have sent me code snippets to include but
none of us are sure were some of those code snippets came from (sound familiar :)).

As I have the website code I could rewrite the program but as I'm really the only one using
it, seems a bit pointless doesn't it :)
Cheers
Ian B Manners

Martin Iturbide

  • OS2World NewsMaster
  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4714
  • Karma: +41/-1
  • Your Friend Wil Declares...
    • View Profile
    • Martin's Personal Blog
Re: Discussion about Open Source - Was: eCS 2.2 C API documentation
« Reply #33 on: August 28, 2014, 09:42:04 pm »
Sometimes I saw the software licensing model in this dumb way:

  • - One Extreme: Some corporations wants that all software is close source and charge for everything and hold back to every penny that the software can give. - Close source licenses, which is what we usually have in the late 80's and 90's. The corporation/developer owns the exclusivity.
  • - Other Extreme: All software most be open source forever and derivative works will be open forever. Copyleft licenses, as a natural responses for the software abuses on the 90's. Nobody owns the exclusivity.
  • - In the middle: You have more freedom with the source code and software. Non-Copyleft license (BSD, MIT) that allows you derivative works to be open, copyleft or close source.

But since I accept one of the extremes,  that commercial (close source) software business model should exist, why I should not accept the other extreme which is GNU GPL?
Just as a I can not call commercial software right or wrong, I can not make the same with GNU GPL.

So I started to respect GNU GPL also, because I also respect commercial close source software option. And also, because I had saw how much had linux grown with that licensing.

But In the case of a platform like OS/2, which is dying, right now it is the moment for open source software (copyleft  or not). We need to grow the platform, make it free (vendor free) (Free as in freedom) to attract people, grow the community, find niches and maybe one day we can turn into a market again with commercial software running on it, and people paying happily for application that runs over it.

But right now it is not the comment to squeeze money of the community for commercial software.
Martin Iturbide
OS2World NewsMaster
... just share the dream.

Andy Willis

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 292
  • Karma: +7/-0
    • View Profile
Re: Discussion about Open Soure - Was: eCS 2.2 C API documentation
« Reply #34 on: August 28, 2014, 10:11:40 pm »
To Martin Iturbide:

* XWorkPlace.. As I remember, there was XFile WPS extender (XFolder + WarpEnhancer + XPager). and XWorkPlace was developed with the support of Serenity Systems. It was impossible develop this project without this investments. There was D-Day, there was collaboration with eCS developers, short terms to complete the project. This is the example of open sourced program ordered and supported by the commercial company.
XWorkPlace (XWP) existed prior to Serenity Systems having a contract with IBM.  It was originally XFolder but the name changed prior to Serenity Systems.  Serenity Systems did have work done on eWorkPlace (eWP) which some of that work likely did go back into the original (though much of it was removing features not considered stable from XWP).  I used to build XWorkPlace back before eCS came out, though I never made any enhancements to it.  One of the first things I did, in fact, once I installed eCS was to replace eWP with XWP. 
Now, I don't disagree in general that much of OpenSource software got where it did due to businesses paying programmers to update it but XWP is not a good example.

Eugene Gorbunoff

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 131
  • Karma: +1/-0
    • View Profile
Re: Discussion about Open Source - Was: eCS 2.2 C API documentation
« Reply #35 on: August 28, 2014, 10:14:11 pm »
> But right now it is not the comment to squeeze money of the community for commercial software.

I don't know what is better:
a) When every user can buy registration key, so the developer supports the user, has obligations, should make efforts to keep program work better.  The developer is listening to the customers because understands that implemented features will attract new customers.

b) or when the developers of open source make noise about sponsoring. "make donations", "press Sponsor button",..  too much pressure on the users. and you see the messages even if you already have transferred sponsor money. "You have a problem with our program? Fix yourself! No, we don't want do this, no, we will not change this"

That's why eCo Software selected the model of shareware sellings. In reality all our software is created on sponsor money but we have more  civilized relations with the users.

"In the case of a platform like OS/2, which is dying, right now it is the moment for " .. and I continue: think how to use OS/2 for business purposes, how to attract engineers, how to compete with other commercial products. How to distribute OS/2 computers which execute special tasks.
« Last Edit: August 28, 2014, 10:29:05 pm by Eugene Gorbunoff »

Martin Iturbide

  • OS2World NewsMaster
  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4714
  • Karma: +41/-1
  • Your Friend Wil Declares...
    • View Profile
    • Martin's Personal Blog
Re: Discussion about Open Source - Was: eCS 2.2 C API documentation
« Reply #36 on: August 28, 2014, 10:49:16 pm »
a) When every user can buy registration key, so the developer supports the user, has obligations, should make efforts to keep program work better.  The developer is listening to the customers because understands that implemented features will attract new customers.

- What if you don't want to make the fix? The user do not have the option to change it itself, or he don't have the option to hire a developer to fix it since the source code is private.  I had seen a lot of close source software where the developers says to you "No, we don't want do this, no, we will not change this"

- What if you go out of business? Who is going to improve your software? What if you leave the community, what options will your customer have? With open source you don't have this problems.

- What will happen if you have debts and you no longer can maintain eCo Software and start working in a bank to pay your bills?

- There is also shareware that nags a lot about "Pay for the Software".."Pay the full version".

- With close source software you do the improvements that your customer ask for. If you have one customer that wants the software in red, for a single small customer, you don't do it.

- With shareware, you don't have obligation with your users, if you go out of business that is all. That's why the OS/2 users didn't have a chance to sue IBM when they dumped the platform. That is how software works. With close source software you discontinue your software and leave the users abandon.

- If a customer pays $40 for a eCo Software. Do you agreed to make whatever change he request for?

b) or when the developers of open source make noise about sponsoring. "make donations", "press Sponsor button",..  too much pressure on the users. and you see the messages even if you already have transferred sponsor money. "You have a problem with our program? Fix yourself! No, we don't want do this, no, we will not change this"

- I prefer the pressure of asking for donations, but in return having the source code public.
- ""You have a problem with our program? Fix yourself!" - The same applies to close source software.
- "Fix yourself! No, we don't want do this, no, we will not change this" - With open source software I can fork the project and fix it myself or hire someone else to do it.

Sorry Eugene, but your points against open source are very weak.



« Last Edit: August 28, 2014, 10:54:54 pm by Martin Iturbide »
Martin Iturbide
OS2World NewsMaster
... just share the dream.

guzzi

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 331
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: Discussion about Open Source - Was: eCS 2.2 C API documentation
« Reply #37 on: August 28, 2014, 11:43:06 pm »
As for Sigurd, it is nonsense that all ecosoft sotware is 'bad'. I do use ecosoft software and am very happy with some of the software I bought from them. Especially the stuff developed by Glassman. On several occasions he has corrected minor bugs or added features, some major additions, on my request, usually very fast.

Can you please say a little bit more? What software exactly?



dvd/cdtoys, zippy.

agena

  • Guest
Re: Discussion about Open Source - Was: eCS 2.2 C API documentation
« Reply #38 on: August 29, 2014, 12:34:56 am »
Hi,

> ... wrote> I'm sorry Alexander that your forum thread got hi-jacked [...]

Our current thread reminds me of what I have been enduring for the last 17 years in my professional IT business life:

IT orthology everywhere: `Agile`, `Waterfall`, `Constistence`, `Closed`, `Open`, etc.

I dare a humble philosophical Zwischenschnitt aus dem Rheinland:

In Sun VirtualBox 4.3.12 on a MacBook, I still cannot compile Agena with our eCS Demo CD with a plugged-in virtual FAT16 2GB hard disk at IDE primary slave residing my GCC 4.9.0 devenv.

Please tell me what am I doing wrong ?

Alex
http://agena.sourceforge.net


with U: everywhere changed to C:

[C:\]usr\local490\gcc490

[C:\]make

Killed by SIGSEGV
pid=0x011b ppid=0x011a tid=0x0001 slot=0x0051 pri=0x0200 mc=0x00
C:\USR\BIN\MAKE.EXE
LIBC065 0:0005dfdc
cs:eip=005b:1de9dfdc      ss:esp=0053:0014f480      ebp=0014f498
 ds=0053      es=0053      fs=150b      gs=0000     efl=00010246
eax=00000047 ebx=00027c31 ecx=00027c67 edx=00027c47 edi=00027c31
Process dumping was disabled, use DUMPPROC / PROCDUMP to enable

guzzi

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 331
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: Discussion about Open Source - Was: eCS 2.2 C API documentation
« Reply #39 on: August 29, 2014, 12:48:02 am »
Hi,

> ... wrote> I'm sorry Alexander that your forum thread got hi-jacked [...]


I dare a humble philosophical Zwischenschnitt aus dem Rheinland:

I always dare a decent Riesling aus dem Rheinland)

[C:\]usr\local490\gcc490

Not a clue if it has anything to do with it, bat afak the latest gcc we have on os/2 via yum/rpm is 4.7.3. Paul Smedley has built a 4.9.0, are you using that?


guzzi

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 331
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: Discussion about Open Source - Was: eCS 2.2 C API documentation
« Reply #40 on: August 29, 2014, 12:54:18 am »
For answers to technical questions you might want to go to  irc.freenode.net #netlabs where quite a few developers hang out.

agena

  • Guest
Re: Discussion about Open Source - Was: eCS 2.2 C API documentation
« Reply #41 on: August 29, 2014, 01:12:47 am »
guzzi,

> Not a clue if it has anything to do with it, bat afak the latest gcc we have on os/2 via yum/rpm is 4.7.3. Paul Smedley has built a 4.9.0, are you using that?

Sure I do.

alex

ivan

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1558
  • Karma: +17/-0
    • View Profile
Re: Discussion about Open Source - Was: eCS 2.2 C API documentation
« Reply #42 on: August 29, 2014, 01:16:38 am »
As for Sigurd, it is nonsense that all ecosoft sotware is 'bad'. I do use ecosoft software and am very happy with some of the software I bought from them. Especially the stuff developed by Glassman. On several occasions he has corrected minor bugs or added features, some major additions, on my request, usually very fast.

Can you please say a little bit more? What software exactly?



dvd/cdtoys, zippy.

I think those are based on GPL code.  If they are then there are some problems for someone.

dbanet

  • Guest
Re: Discussion about Open Source - Was: eCS 2.2 C API documentation
« Reply #43 on: August 29, 2014, 01:26:36 am »
As for Sigurd, it is nonsense that all ecosoft sotware is 'bad'. I do use ecosoft software and am very happy with some of the software I bought from them. Especially the stuff developed by Glassman. On several occasions he has corrected minor bugs or added features, some major additions, on my request, usually very fast.

Can you please say a little bit more? What software exactly?



dvd/cdtoys, zippy.

I agree, these are cool. There are some limitations I've noticed while using Zippy, like some d'n'd lacks and some odd GUI drawbacks, but both dvdtoys and zippy are pretty cool pieces of software.

But there is an issue regarding prices. Zippy costs 913 Russian rubles; summing it with DVD/CD toys (1248), and we get 2161 Russian rubbles; converting to USD, and we get roughly $60. eComStation 2.1 Home & Student license costs 149 USD.

Sorry I'm not ready to pay 149$ for a base operating system, and then nearly half of it to be able to burn optical media and upack compressed archives. Please remember also that eCo Software offers two software subscriptions 15$ each annually (quoting, first: "sysinfo + russification + fixpack + eCo Market + Panorama VESA", second: "png desktop + piano launchpad + virtual keyboard + file open container").

149+60+15+15 = $239.

Show me that insane person who has paid $239 for a bunch of not-that-well developed outdated software, while knowing there's a Windows 8.1 license selling at $119 which includes all these features and lots more, but costs twice as lower.



I literally interpret all the above as an attempt to squeeze the last cent from the community.



I would better pay that sum for open source software development work rather than getting a copy of middle-quality software with no rights.
« Last Edit: August 29, 2014, 01:41:35 am by Boris »

guzzi

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 331
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: Discussion about Open Source - Was: eCS 2.2 C API documentation
« Reply #44 on: August 29, 2014, 01:35:10 am »
As for Sigurd, it is nonsense that all ecosoft sotware is 'bad'. I do use ecosoft software and am very happy with some of the software I bought from them. Especially the stuff developed by Glassman. On several occasions he has corrected minor bugs or added features, some major additions, on my request, usually very fast.

Can you please say a little bit more? What software exactly?



dvd/cdtoys, zippy.

I think those are based on GPL code.  If they are then there are some problems for someone.

dvd/cd toys is a shell for cdrtools, don't see how that would be gpl code. cdrtools itself might be, but that is distributed seperately.
As for zippy, not a clue about the licensing. It only supports extraction for rar, not archiving and that goes for many other formats too. So it looks to me it conforms to all licensing requirements.