|
My answer: "In rare cases."
In my current job I have to access data from a number of sources (including MySQL) with SSIS, and for one source I use some software I got off CodePlex.
About ten years ago I found a bug in MySQL, but because I had the source I was able to implement a fix and report it. That certainly was convenient.
I try to avoid all third-party software when I can; open/closed source really isn't much of a factor.
You'll never get very far if all you do is follow instructions.
|
|
|
|
|
MySQL is being superseded in the Open Source community by MariaDB[^]
Same original guy that created MySQL and is a drop in replacement for MySQL.
|
|
|
|
|
The risk of an IP-based legal challenge is too great to use GPL-licensed software in a commercial application. The only open source I've used in our products have been two libraries whose licenses explicitly state that they may be used in commercial applications, unencumbered by the viral source code distribution clauses of the GPL and its variants.
Just because Richard Stallman wants to steal my hard work doesn't mean I have to make it easy for him  .
Software Zen: delete this;
|
|
|
|
|
That's one of the most asinine comments I've seen on codeproject.com in a long time. Richard Stallman and the rest of the OSS world aren't out there being IP trolls. Is that your world?
|
|
|
|
|
The GPL and its variants require that you publish your source code if you include GPL-licensed code in your application. You therefore have no means of securing your investment of time and money (not to mention blood, sweat, and tears) in developing your product.
How can you sell your product for a profit if you have to distribute the unique means of manufacturing that product with the product itself?
Stallman and his cohorts would have you believe that profiting from your work is somehow immoral, and that you should be willing to give it away for free. He must think we're stupid.
Software Zen: delete this;
|
|
|
|
|
Hi, Gary - thanks for your reasoned response.
In my small forays into product development I usually find that an OSS component is not bound into the whole product but is rather one of several procedural steps. Perhaps if we are talking about binding objects/link libraries your point makes sense for me.
I've also found, as have other commenters, that the OSS versions of many software components is superior to that offered by commercial firms, it comes with source code, it usually has a willing and able support group (authors, contributors, forum participants.)
What I have seen with close-source/commercial offerings is usually the opposite. Support takes a long time, usually costs money, and the commercial company does what it can to limit open discussions on its usually moderated message boards.
Personally, I gladly spend the $s to buy a product that is open source - not always GPL/APL/MIT - and have the ability to see how things work.
|
|
|
|
|
True, there is an obligation to make a product using GPL code iteself GPL. Where's the problem with that? If you don't like the license, just don't use it.
To accuse them of trying to steal your IP is just silly. The idea is that by contributing you volunteer your IP. I think their problem is when you try to profit from their work, after they give it away - that seems fair enough to me.
You may also note that some of these OSS folks somehow earn a decent living in spite of giving away their code. They just do it through other avenues - consulting, publishing, etc.
"If you don't fail at least 90 percent of the time, you're not aiming high enough."
Alan Kay.
|
|
|
|
|
Rob Grainger wrote: True, there is an obligation to make a product using GPL code iteself GPL. Where's the problem with that? If you don't like the license, just don't use it
Not true. The GPL is invasive. It requires that applications that incorporate GPL-licensed code are licensed implicitly under the GPL themselves. This is the legal opinion of one of our lawyers, who I consulted a while back when we were thinking of using open source in one of our products.
Rob Grainger wrote: To accuse them of trying to steal your IP is just silly
Perhaps. I always wonder why Stallman insists that everyone make their source code available to him for free.
Rob Grainger wrote: You may also note that some of these OSS folks somehow earn a decent living in spite of giving away their code
I'm not faulting open source. My problem is with the notion that you can 'freely' use it in commercial applications. You cannot, if you intend to protect your intellectual property.
Software Zen: delete this;
|
|
|
|
|
I may be really naive, but I thought that as long as you're not "taking" the code and using the source in your app you're good. If you just import the libraries, you're fine. Like using a NuGet package. I'm not distributing the code, I'm not modifying and I'm not incorporating the lines of code into my project, only a reference. Am I under the wrong impression?
|
|
|
|
|
The assumption is that you take the source and incorporate it into your application. The technological means of doing so (using the source directly or a compiled library) doesn't really matter.
Our lawyer opted for a conservative interpretation of the license, given that you can't depend on having a court that is technically sophisticated enough to understand the differences between source code and a compiled library.
Software Zen: delete this;
|
|
|
|
|
deanofharvard wrote: I may be really naive, but I thought that as long as you're not "taking" the code and using the source in your app you're good. If you just import the libraries, you're fine. Like using a NuGet package. I'm not distributing the code, I'm not modifying and I'm not incorporating the lines of code into my project, only a reference. Am I under the wrong impression?
Yes, if the code in question is GPL, you would be naive and wrong.
Fortunately, virtually nobody in their right mind licenses libraries and Nuget packages as GPL.
There are many different open source licenses (LGPL / Ms-PL, BSD / MIT style) that do not want to force you to open source all your code in exchange for linking against a GPL library.
When I see an article on CodeProject, or some fancy open source project, I often scroll down to the license, check whether if it is GPL. If it is GPL, my response has to be "you're dead to me." And I move on, pretending the software doesn't exist. Maybe it helps some people who live in the hippie communes of the world, or people who write command line utilities for Linux, but unfortunately it's not useful to me.
I am now trying to educate people of the perils of using the LGPL license. I have always thought it was fair enough: if you tweak the library, you have to release your changes. Fine. But there are provisions that basically make it impossible to use LGPL software on mobile app stores or consoles, so I have been prodding library developers about whether they really want to limit their audience this way. One lesser known license that may work better for some people instead of the LGPL is the Mozilla License, which works on a source code file basis, and is missing some of the limiting aspects of the LGPL.
|
|
|
|
|
Gary Wheeler wrote: intellectual property
There is no such thing as "intellectual property".
You'll never get very far if all you do is follow instructions.
|
|
|
|
|
Source code, design drawings, notes, schematics - call it what you will. The GPL requires that you surrender your rights to protect that material.
Software Zen: delete this;
|
|
|
|
|
Which is fine, just don't use it.
Just have you have a right to decide how to license your IP, I don't see why you're intent of denying others the right to exercise theirs. If you're not happy with the terms, just avoid it and there's no problem.
Personally, I'm happy there is a variety of licenses. Without the efforts of the GPL chaps, there would be very little FOSS, as most of it relies on gcc, Linux and other parts of the GNU ecosystem to get built at all.
"If you don't fail at least 90 percent of the time, you're not aiming high enough."
Alan Kay.
|
|
|
|
|
My point is that the GPL folks would have you believe that you can use it and maintain the rights to the work you've done. You can't.
Software Zen: delete this;
|
|
|
|
|
I have to agree with you, in my opinion forcing you to open your source code defeats the whole concept of open. How can something be open if its not open to allow you to use it however you want?
I think the magic of OSS is when its bundled with permissive licenses like CPOL here in CP or MIT and licenses alike. We contribute because we like and and we get support of lots of people who like doing the same.
I'm glad when people find my code useful and use in their own projects, the way they like. I find that a lot of people also help make my code become better and it becomes our code and I also benefit because I learn from it. I don't need to force anyone to share their code, specially because in many cases they can't, like when they are working on closed enterprise projects.
I am totally pro OSS, whenever its not tied to GPL.
To alcohol! The cause of, and solution to, all of life's problems - Homer Simpson
----
Our heads are round so our thoughts can change direction - Francis Picabia
|
|
|
|
|
If you mean by that - it does what I need, than definitely yes!
I'm not questioning your powers of observation; I'm merely remarking upon the paradox of asking a masked man who he is. (V)
|
|
|
|
|
in my 2 years of software development experience itself, I have seen a number of open source libraries which are much better than their enterprise counterparts.
Whether I think I can, or think I can't, I am always bloody right!
modified 14-Jul-14 5:56am.
|
|
|
|
|
I found the "Whenever it makes sense" option a bit strange.
Being open source was never an issue or a synonym of lower quality.
Actually it's a guarantee that I can put my hands in and fix whatever but it might appear.
Also it's a guarantee that I can look into the source to clearly know what's going on.
As I'm writing this I'm mainly thinking about JavaScript but the same applies, and also applied to me, in other environments.
Mostly we need to be more careful with their updates and look around in the communities if people are using it and if their problems relate to us, other than that, in most cases, open source is as good as any other piece of software.
P.S.: I didn't forget about the support, which some open source projects also have, but I've have issues with or without support that were or weren't solved no matter what...
Cheers!
|
|
|
|
|
AlexCode wrote: found the "Whenever it makes sense" option a bit strange.
Not it's not. Options 1, 3, 4, and 5 are religious choices. 2 and 6 are the only ones that aren't.
Did you ever see history portrayed as an old man with a wise brow and pulseless heart, waging all things in the balance of reason?
Is not rather the genius of history like an eternal, imploring maiden, full of fire, with a burning heart and flaming soul, humanly warm and humanly beautiful?
--Zachris Topelius
Training a telescope on one’s own belly button will only reveal lint. You like that? You go right on staring at it. I prefer looking at galaxies.
-- Sarah Hoyt
|
|
|
|
|
For me it's not a matter as sense to use Open Source or not.
It's a matter of suiting the needs as a tool or not.
I mean, for me using a tool makes sense if it suites my needs, not if it's open source or not.
Now that I'm thinking a bit more about it, maybe it might apply if I'm developing an Opens Source solution.
Then it would in fact make sense to use an Open Source library to make the whole final solution, Open Source.
Ok, so it might make sense after all... :p
|
|
|
|
|
But the license of a piece of software is one of the factors in whether it suits your needs. If it is GPL, and you're writing closed-source, commercial software, it doesn't suit your needs. If it is MIT-licensed, then it may. If you have no budget for purchasing a tool, or if your needs involve being able to see how the tool works, then open source as a whole is going to be likely a good way to meet your needs and worth looking into. "When it makes sense" includes all of the factors-- it makes sense if it matches what you need in functionality, availability, licensing, and cost. So I think "when it make sense" is a perfectly valid option for the question.
|
|
|
|
|
There is a big difference between 'using' software part of an open source project (and maybe without acknowledgement) and linking libraries like boost..
I think that most professional C++ projects use at least a couple of open source libs.
modified 14-Jul-14 7:01am.
|
|
|
|
|
Davide Zaccanti wrote: I think that most professional projects use at least a couple of open source
libs
Only the poor bastards writing asp.net UIs HAVE to use 3rd party libraries (to get any productivity and in some cases to even work). Winforms, WPF and Silverlight are perfectly usable without them.
Never underestimate the power of human stupidity
RAH
|
|
|
|
|
We are strongly discouraged from using open source code - management want someone they can beat on if the tool goes wrong, besides us minions that is.
Yes, when there aren't any other sensible options
This does seem to imply that open source is NOT a sensible option, just saying.
Never underestimate the power of human stupidity
RAH
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
