Licensing Opinions

[Jon]

Breaks my heart to see this thread.

I'm going to show my ignorance of both the GPL and what has gone one before in this forum and ask about how the plugins planned in the to-do list might be implemented? Would it be possible to have a GPL core binary and more restricted licensing for plug-ins?

Ah. Sorry. Past my bedtime. That wouldn't solve anything; the same code looters would have the plugin API from the core code and could use any AutoIt plugins, make their own, reverse engineer existing ones, etc. etc.

Would it work the other way? Restricted core, GPL plugins?

Plugins isn't too bad. The only code that needs to be common would be a variant like class (or a streamlined version of). That could be put under a suitable license (probably not GPL, as I wouldn't want to force a plugin writer to have to make their plugin GPL).

In summary, this wouldn't really affect the plugin stuff at all.

[Josbe]

At the moment I'm not an AutoIt Dev., only a grateful user to say it, but:

I personally agree with JP said. I hope some day to contribute with a code's portion and being a contributor.

It's for that reason that I lean for the options 3 or 4.

Just my opinion, but as Valik said:

"Whatever is decided, Jon, I support your decision."

[layer]

At the moment I'm not an AutoIt Dev., only a grateful user to say it, but:

I personally agree with JP said. I hope some day to contribute with a code's portion and being a contributor.

It's for that reason that I lean for the options 3 or 4.

Just my opinion, but as Valik said:

"Whatever is decided, Jon, I support your decision."

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

you stole the words right out of my mouth... i haven't contributed yet, but someday, i will, i know this... and i double quote on valik's quote, whatever you do decide, i will support all the way...

[alexpere]

Not crediting other people's work is indeed very low. As others have said, it is sad to see this thread.

Personally when I looked at the AutoIt source it showed me a lot about how to do modular programming which I probably wouldn't have worked out for myself previously. It's been a great learning tool in that respect and made me enthusiastic enough to want to help with the project (unfortunately I don't have the time). This is the sort of thing you will lose with a more closed source model.

What would stop a 'trusted' developer from stealing the code and repackaging it anyway? How do you define 'trusted'? How would eager developers become 'trusted'? Closed source would obviously decrease the possibility of code stealing but it could still happen unless you only have one developer.

[Angel]

Unfortunately, the GPL encourages this.  As you can see from the SlashDot article that CyberSlug posted I would be criticised for not wanting people to use the code. There appears to be no stipulation about giving credit except in the source itself - which noone except about 3 devs ever see.  I was too naive to see this particular problem when I started, and that sort of behavior goes against my priniciples. 

There is a bit of code in autoit that is a simple asm replacement for some math functions, just a header file.  It was labelled as "do what you want with it" code but I still thought it right and proper to contact and ask the author if he would be happy with me using it.  Had he said no I wouldn't have touched it.  That seems to be directly at odds with the attitude of the GPL.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Jon, what kind of program is using stolen AutoIt code (no need to tell names). If it is another GPL program then you are (partly) right. They have every right to take the code and repackage it, however they HAVE NOT the right to repackage it and NOT CREDIT you, not only on the code but also in their release notes. Even if they could that would be agains the spirit of the GPL, which is (as I understand it) to encourage "fair" trading of code (you take mine I take yours, we credit each other).

But, if the program that steals AutoIt code is NOT GPL, and they ARE FORBIDDEN by the GPL to use your code without releasing their code as well (that is the reason some closed-source programmers "fear" using GPL code) much less without giving you guys the proper credit.

So if this is the actual case (a non GPL project using your code) then I am sure that the Slashdot crowd would be all on your side, and more importantly, the EFF might want to look into it and assist you legally to solve this. In fact I think that the'd really like to attack someone that is in violation of the GPL to prove once and for all its validity on the courts.

Even if it was the 1st case (another GPL project stealing your code) I also think that the slashdot and EFF guys would on your side. Why? Because the GPL REQUIRES anyone that uses your code to GIVE YOU CREDIT for it. If the don´t they are effectively STEALING your code as they are VIOLATING YOUR LICENSE.

So I read the same slashdot discussion that was pointed to us and in that case everyone was on the side of the guy who took back code because he was after all the original coder of the original project. The guy who had forked the code had "taken" 100% of the original coder´s code and now he did not want them to take a bit of his new code. That guy clearly did not understand the GPL and had no right to complain.

This is a different case. You are the original coders of the code. Anyone that uses it MUST GIVE YOU CREDIT. If they don´t it is not a failure of the license. It is them violating it and I think they should be pursued for it.

I am not a GPL nut or anything (I don´t even use Linux anymore) but those that are agravating you are thieves (on the GPL´s terms) and that makes me quite angry .

Cheers,

Angel

[killaz219]

I am not too fond of changing how it works. I like option 3, but it is not manditory to release the source right now. Option 4 isn't bad either because it gives the creator full control over their script.

As I said above, the reason I like option 1 is because you are not needed to release the source, though it may seem like that with the new restricted uploaded file extentions.

Edited January 4, 2005 by killaz219

[Blue_Drache]

As a user, I have no interest in the source code, only the compiled program that makes the scripts work like I tell them to. The availability of the source has no bearing on what I do with the scripts I create with it. I have enough knowledge of C++ to make your computer into an alarm clock, and that's it. That being said, don't take my ignorance of the source programming language and of the GPL in general as complete cretonism.

The only two reasons I'm using AutoIt for what I do is the GPL and that it's "free for home AND commercial use." How many other programs (besides firefox) can you name are that generous? Not only with the compiled .exe but source as well? My company is so restrictive and paranoid (rightfully so...we deal with HIPPA protected health information for hundreds of companies including Federal employees.) about other programs, that I could be justifiably fired for having AutoIt installed. It's because of the "open source" and the price of the software that allows me to bypass this authoratative regime and build the tools that make the lives of 300 people (in my building alone) easier.

I do not like code theivery. It saddens me. OTOH: It would justifiably enrage me if another person took code that I wrote in AutoIt and used it as template to do something in another language and then got all the glory at work...... Not the same as wholescale code theft, to be sure, but .... porting without proper credit? I would more than likely give up on the code that I am developing, or just develop it for my own personal use.

In my opinion, options 3 and 4 seem to be the most logical steps to take, but keeping it open would be the best in the spirit of the GPL. I suggest looking into what legal actions you can take against the competitors, especially if they are closed source, and most especially if they are a commercial venture.

[this-is-me]

@Jon, my thoughts on the subject are as follows:

I use autoit at my office. I am learning C++, and I have ideas that even with DllCall, are not possible to implement without recompiling autoit. Whatever way you choose to go, I need to have the ability to take the current version of autoit, add the c++ code I need, and recompile it for the office's use without bothering the devs. I have done this before, and have needed to do it every once in awhile as time goes by. I see no alternative to having this work unless you have a "pay for code" policy that causes devs to have to pay for the code they recieve (maybe a one-time-use) that allows the following:

You may create programs from the source code of autoit for your or your businesses use as long as the code (or its derivitaves) are not sold, and as long as a copy of the original "code license" goes with the new code.

That is the only way I can see to allow the furthering of autoit without sacrificing the rights you have to your product.

[Valik]

If I would of had to pay to get the code, I'd would not have contributed. That is not an acceptable solution, in my opinion.

[this-is-me]

All I was saying is that if it has to be closed to certain people, then make a special license that allows for others to use it with the restrictions I have above.

[Insolence]

I've always thought about this.

How can you create your own 'license'. For example, I do not want anyone to profit off of my work... because I know they aren't doing it responsibly, (plus I don't even profit off of it) and I do not want them distributing it without my permission.

How do I throw that into a license, I thought you had to have some big organization backing you, like GPL?

[condoman]

It is too bad, but human nature, that some people will take advantage of anything they can given the chance. I do not expect to ever know enough about the internals of AutoIt to be able to contribute anything to the source.

I have said in the past that my reasons for using AutoIt are:

1. It does not require an install.

2. I can use it at work.

3. It can be compiled.

4. It has good support with the forum and add on tools.

5. It has a GUI interface.

I would even pay a reasonable price as I do for Ultra Edit and Beyond Compare for this tool.

I think you should look to closing the source enough to make it difficult for those that would rip it off. I would hate to see your work and that of the contributors disappear because of a small number of idiots.

Thank you for making the language and supporting the community that has grown from it.

[blakel]

I would like to comment on the first post as an outsider looking in.

I use auto-it and like it very much.

With the comments in the first post, I would suggest that it be taken off GPL.

GPL code IS to be leeched, but with CREDIT GIVEN.

If they are not giving credit, then that is not a GPL issue, that is a legal issue, and a sad one.

I beleive that everyone has a choice to do with their code as they see fit. If it is to be open source, thank you. If not, then don't release it as such, that is your perogitive, and everyone *should* respect that.

Now as an open source (GPL) advoacte, I have a few words.

I am trying to get AutoCode to leech it because

I don't have any interest in reinventing the wheel.

It is obvious the code is good by the end product.

The GPL is good for this.

And to protect form getting locked into a product.

It is about freedom of the users.

The GPL is to protect authors and their code as

any derivation is to be GPL

One last thing:

Does it give you a warm fuzzy feeling to know that there are many people who like

auto-it and that it allows them to do what you inteded? Would you not get the same warm fuzzy feeling if another project made use fo the auto-it code, giving people that same ability and the project would not be possible without auto-it code?

Thank you for your work and a awesome product.

PS could you elaborate on why the company(s) could not use a GPL product.

Edited January 14, 2005 by blakel

[Angel]

Blakel,

as you said the problem is people leeching without giving credit. Those are bastards, there is no other way to call them.

I still believe that the GPL crowd would be on Jon's side if he gave proof that another project is using AutoIt code witout giving proper credit.

Jon, have you decided what you are going to do?

Cheers,

Angel

[Jon]

Jon, have you decided what you are going to do?

Cheers,

Angel

Must admit I'm currently leaning towards closed source with a limited version of the source available for those who want to contribute. Then when trust is earned access to the full source. That is my current thinking anyway. The modular nature of the source makes this perfectly feasible.

Thinking about it more and more this isn't like like writing bison, or gcc or zlib where that code is treated as a nice sharable module that gets included in lots of programs and everyone is happy and hugs and gets a shiny GPL badge. This is a very niche piece of software that is only as good as its latest "cool" function. Those cool functions just get copied and pasted within a day of release (has actually happened many times...) and that is just a waste of the effort we spend on them.

The comment on another thread last night really hammers it home, with someone suggesting an alternative program to AutoIt while blissfully unaware that it contains myriad functions from AutoIt (I'd show the list but it would shock too much), the non GPL-compiler, the help file formatting, and probably manages to stick to the letter of the GPL by putting "portions ©AutoIt" in the helpfile. How about I stop actually _giving_ people the stick to beat me over the head with?

[CyberSlug]

Just wondering: How does someone earn trust?

[SlimShady]

I would think: someone who is active and helpful in the forums.

[DaveF]

I would think: someone who is active and helpful in the forums.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Then a crotchety old bastard like me would never get his hands on it!?

[Jon]

Then a crotchety old bastard like me would never get his hands on it!?

He he.

[JSThePatriot]

@Jon

I havent read all of the entries and posts yet.

I would say it would be best to go with option 3 or 4. I am fully behind you no matter which direction you go.

I have seen many programs get their source stolen and someone else go make it slightly different or even the exact same and just tear at the original so bad that it just hurts everyone involved. Granted it was an online game and the developers split up, but there was and is still alot of tension between several online 2D paintball games.

I am in the middle of learning C++ when I get time. I have kinda been discouraged abit because all the tutorials I get ahold of I cant quite make work with Dev C++ and I would have thought it would be a good Compiler to have. Once my job ends today I will be picking up a book to learn some more C++ and if I get to the point that I think I could be useful here I would love to help AutoIt grow.

Also if there is any way that I can help now. Let me know. I do pretty much anything with computers/websites stuff like that. I love helping out with projects and such. I dont want anyone Leeching AutoIt.

Do what you need to Jon I would have to say from what I have read so far we are all behind you in your decision.

JS