Re: [alexb@ufl.edu: Re: support requirement]
> I don't see any gotcha. > > I would probably not need Vendor X's documentation and/or output > to reimplement the program. You might if they were sufficiently clever. I can think of several pieces of software where the vendor has managed to implement something in a non-obvious way that has significantly improved performance over the naive implementation and that there are no competitive free software clones of for that reason (at least none that I know of and I've looked in some cases). If you can't think of any non-free software for which there are no free alternatives, you are missing a lot of software (and perhaps you are lucky enough not to need it). The best example I can think of comes from the EDA industry. There are a handful of commmercial simulator vendors that dominate the market and charge big-bucks for their tools, and have done so for some time. As far as I can tell, there is no effective free software in that market--and that's despite the fact that there are standard documents describing the simulation languages, which should mean that someone could just "implement the spec" and come up with a free tool. I think part of the reason is that the obvious implementation performs too poorly (hours of simulation time versus minutes) and the vendors have carefully tied their customers hands with NDA's so that the customers can't go to a free software developer and say "we would like you to make a free version with the following optimization" since the knowledge of the optimization is covered by the NDA. -Chris
Re: [alexb@ufl.edu: Re: support requirement]
Chris F Clark wrote: > > > In a perfect world I would get to work with all free software. I > > don't want to work with code unless it's free. If I need code and > > the only code out there is available under Vendor X's license and I > > have the time and ability to reimplement that code and place it > > under the GPL, I will do it. > > There is one gotcha in that. The current Vendor X license may > prohibit you from using it (including its documentation and/or output) > to implement a competing version. They could put such a stipulation > in a closed-source license. It is a simple variation on an NDA. If > Vendor X has something they consider unique enough, they may attempt > to protect their "ip" that way. This does not appear to be this > vendor's motivation, since it sounds like they are actively > considering distributing their software in an open source form (and > hoping that their software will become the default in its niche). I don't see any gotcha. I would probably not need Vendor X's documentation and/or output to reimplement the program. The possible exception to that statement is that I would be seeking compatibility with Vendor X's protocol or file format. If the license prohibited me from achieving that compatibility with a GPL'd work, I would write my own competing file format or protocol. In the past such open protocols and open file formats have either succeeded in replacing the closed format or in pressuring the owner of the closed format to open it. Even if Vendor X tied itself to proprietary hardware, people would just reimplement the hardware. A good example to site here is the GNU/Linux user boycott on the Logitech QuickCams and that community's migration to the Panasonic Egg Cam and other alternative open hardware. The GPL is a very unique animal in that it has grown beyond just a license into the embodiment of a community (a small subset of what most people consider the free software community - but a very significant subset none the less). The GPL has in fact become "magic pixie dust" as it was termed. - VAB --- V. Alex Brennen[[EMAIL PROTECTED]] [http://www.metanet.org/people/vab/] Systems Administrator/Sys. Prgr Pediatric Oncology Group [http://www.pog.ufl.edu/] Statistical Office University Of Florida 352.392.5198 x303 352.392.8162 Fax
[alexb@ufl.edu: Re: support requirement]
> In a perfect world I would get to work with all free software. I > don't want to work with code unless it's free. If I need code and > the only code out there is available under Vendor X's license and I > have the time and ability to reimplement that code and place it > under the GPL, I will do it. There is one gotcha in that. The current Vendor X license may prohibit you from using it (including its documentation and/or output) to implement a competing version. They could put such a stipulation in a closed-source license. It is a simple variation on an NDA. If Vendor X has something they consider unique enough, they may attempt to protect their "ip" that way. This does not appear to be this vendor's motivation, since it sounds like they are actively considering distributing their software in an open source form (and hoping that their software will become the default in its niche). -Chris * Chris ClarkInternet : [EMAIL PROTECTED] Compiler Resources, Inc. CompuServe : 74252,1375 3 Proctor Street voice : (508) 435-5016 Hopkinton, MA 01748 USA fax: (508) 435-4847 (24 hours) -- Web Site in Progress: Web Site : http://world.std.com/~compres --
