Put the knife down and take a green herb, dude. (c) Ruffin Bailey 2001-2021

I've really disliked the break from reality that is the GPL. GPL-ing your software, quite simply, gives your work to anybody smart enough to know how to build it. I don't feel like giving away the right to be the sole source of my software. There are many arguments from the Free Software Foundation meant to combat people that feel like me. I haven't been convinced.

Here's a recent chunk of a post I wrote to the Apple Java Development list (thread initially responded to using, that's right, The Digest Handler! What a great, copyrighted application!). We were discussing recent troubles with the LGPL and Java, and the "GPL with library exception" was mentioned. I dug up this link which I thought was the exception he meant. Original poster's comments in bold.

No, that's not it at all. That's a completely different issue for the standard GPL, and it has nothing to do with the GPL with library exception.

As a special exception, if you link this library with
other files to produce an executable, this library does
not by itself cause the resulting executable to be covered
by the GNU General Public License. This exception does
not however invalidate any other reasons why the executable
file might be covered by the GNU General Public License.

Thanks for the clarification, though I'm not sure how this reads any differently with respect to creating and distributing Java applications, where you actually have to ship the library for your "executable" to run, than what's causing trouble with the LGPL. Hey, I'm reading that I can ship with LGPL jars (or the GPL with the exception above), but would prefer to get out from under all this hubbub.

Please also note that there is absolutely nothing in the GPL, LGPL, or GPL with library exception that in any way prohibits the use of the software in commercial applications. GPL software may most definitely be sold, and in fact is sold every day.

Argh. You crazy Free Software zealots who have strong alternative sources of income other than writing and selling software which doesn't require services. ;^)

The argument that you can still sell Free software commercially drives me perhaps the most crazy. Though certainly you're not lying when you say those licenses don't mean that software written with them can't be sold commercially, the issue is, as you well know, that you no longer have the right to be the *sole source* of your software. That's a huge difference than when I say "commercially" and imply "with sole copyright", though I will admit that I should have been more explicit so as not to fall into the FSF's semantic trap.

Attaching my software to GPL code wouldn't mean I couldn't sell it, but it would mean that John Schmoe, who didn't contribute second number one to my software, has the right to request my source, create a build, and sell the exact same thing for whatever price he would prefer. Hey, I'd love to grab the source to MS Word and start making builds, but I don't feel I've earned that right (and this also dovetails into my "GPL'd commercial software breeds convoluted build practices", but I'll save that rant for later). Gaining the right to sell my software simply because you understand how ant works doesn't make common sense to me, which is where I fork from the FSF.

This is why I like the LGPL -- or at least what it used to mean before all this linking jive came up. If I borrow your library do accomplish some function and you're nice enough to let me have the source to improve it or maintain it in the future or add a new feature, I certainly hope that I feel compelled to give those "improvements" back to you. The LGPL made that common courtesy official.

I do not feel, however, that if I use your library in my app, that I should be forced to open source the whole lot of what I've been doing. Then I'm giving away time, and therefore dollars, to anyone who can request source and has the savvy to make a build. I and the companies I work for don't have that luxury, nor should you have to if you prefer to be the sole seller of novel software you created *that doesn't need servicing*.

And that's why I'm a little upset that no new license that's easy for the layman to read and interpret has come about to help protect works written in Java that are meant to help people who create commercial apps to which they would like to have the sole right to release.

Though, that said, copyright lengths are much too long. I do think it's time to free Steamboat Willy. That's a travesty. And that, say, original Atari 2600 game code is still copyrighted is insane. These aren't books, fellows. Wake up and catch up, legislatures.

Thanks again,

Ruffin Bailey

--
If you subscribe to email lists, you need The Digest Handler.
http://DigestHandler.WebHop.org | digestHandler@rufwork.com

Heard on NPR yesterday a theory that Windows has so many security holes because the OS simply wasn't designed with security in mind. Specificaly, the piece said, computers used to sit in your house without being hooked up to a network or, if they were, it was for very short periods of time. Though that's more true of most Commodore 64s than Windows 95 boxes, I thought that was an interesting theory.

Of course if you extend it to Linux, you get an interesting result as well. Linux is, obviously, an OS designed for servers -- computer that, by definition, are constantly hooked to a network. The theory would make you think that Linux and other *nixes would be designed with security in mind. Sure enough, Linux has proven more secure to this point than Windows.

I think there's a factor that's missing here, however. Windows in closed source, and only a very few very biased eyes ["Let's do the minimum we can to make a buck!" -- and that's not a hit on MS; that's with most any corporation, I believe] get to look at that network code. Linux is open source, and everything's lain on the table for anyone to see. Though it would seem that MS has more resources to ensure that their code is rock solid, there's obviously not a good audit trail for holes inserted. Anyhow, I think there might be something to be said for open source helping with security -- and possible being better for server uses.

In other news an interesting feature just added to #develop, the open source .NET IDE that's, imo, not quite yet ready for prime time:

A very cool new feature is the C# to VB.NET converter based on our new Coco/R - generated parser (see Tools / Convert Buffer C# to VB.NET). Note that it sometimes must take heuristic decisions, but this will change once we convert entire projects (at issue is type lookup which is impossible without knowing all project-local and referenced types).

I'm doing a VB.NET project in my new position in the coming months. I wonder if this is good enough that I still use this to get my hands dirty with C# and still deliver a VB.NET end product...

title: Put the knife down and take a green herb, dude.	descrip: One feller's views on the state of everyday computer science & its application (and now, OTHER STUFF) who isn't rich enough to shell out for www.myfreakinfirst-andlast-name.com Using 89% of the same design the blog had in 2001.
FOR ENTERTAINMENT PURPOSES ONLY!!! Back-up your data and, when you bike, always wear white. As an Amazon Associate, I earn from qualifying purchases. Affiliate links in green.
x MarkUpDown is the best Markdown editor for professionals on Windows 10. It includes two-pane live preview, in-app uploads to imgur for image hosting, and MultiMarkdown table support. Features you won't find anywhere else include... MarkUpDown Multiline Table & Bootstrap Grid support. Beautiful Easy Actions that keep the Markdown flowing. HTML paste to paste HTML source into your documents. You've wasted more than $15 of your time looking for a great Markdown editor. Stop looking. MarkUpDown is the app you're looking for. Learn more or head over to the 'Store now!

Wednesday, August 27, 2003
I've really disliked the break from reality that is the GPL. GPL-ing your software, quite simply, gives your work to anybody smart enough to know how to build it. I don't feel like giving away the right to be the sole source of my software. There are many arguments from the Free Software Foundation meant to combat people that feel like me. I haven't been convinced. Here's a recent chunk of a post I wrote to the Apple Java Development list (thread initially responded to using, that's right, The Digest Handler! What a great, copyrighted application!). We were discussing recent troubles with the LGPL and Java, and the "GPL with library exception" was mentioned. I dug up this link which I thought was the exception he meant. Original poster's comments in bold. No, that's not it at all. That's a completely different issue for the standard GPL, and it has nothing to do with the GPL with library exception. As a special exception, if you link this library with other files to produce an executable, this library does not by itself cause the resulting executable to be covered by the GNU General Public License. This exception does not however invalidate any other reasons why the executable file might be covered by the GNU General Public License. Thanks for the clarification, though I'm not sure how this reads any differently with respect to creating and distributing Java applications, where you actually have to ship the library for your "executable" to run, than what's causing trouble with the LGPL. Hey, I'm reading that I can ship with LGPL jars (or the GPL with the exception above), but would prefer to get out from under all this hubbub. Please also note that there is absolutely nothing in the GPL, LGPL, or GPL with library exception that in any way prohibits the use of the software in commercial applications. GPL software may most definitely be sold, and in fact is sold every day. Argh. You crazy Free Software zealots who have strong alternative sources of income other than writing and selling software which doesn't require services. ;^) The argument that you can still sell Free software commercially drives me perhaps the most crazy. Though certainly you're not lying when you say those licenses don't mean that software written with them can't be sold commercially, the issue is, as you well know, that you no longer have the right to be the sole source of your software. That's a huge difference than when I say "commercially" and imply "with sole copyright", though I will admit that I should have been more explicit so as not to fall into the FSF's semantic trap. Attaching my software to GPL code wouldn't mean I couldn't sell it, but it would mean that John Schmoe, who didn't contribute second number one to my software, has the right to request my source, create a build, and sell the exact same thing for whatever price he would prefer. Hey, I'd love to grab the source to MS Word and start making builds, but I don't feel I've earned that right (and this also dovetails into my "GPL'd commercial software breeds convoluted build practices", but I'll save that rant for later). Gaining the right to sell my software simply because you understand how ant works doesn't make common sense to me, which is where I fork from the FSF. This is why I like the LGPL -- or at least what it used to mean before all this linking jive came up. If I borrow your library do accomplish some function and you're nice enough to let me have the source to improve it or maintain it in the future or add a new feature, I certainly hope that I feel compelled to give those "improvements" back to you. The LGPL made that common courtesy official. I do not feel, however, that if I use your library in my app, that I should be forced to open source the whole lot of what I've been doing. Then I'm giving away time, and therefore dollars, to anyone who can request source and has the savvy to make a build. I and the companies I work for don't have that luxury, nor should you have to if you prefer to be the sole seller of novel software you created that doesn't need servicing. And that's why I'm a little upset that no new license that's easy for the layman to read and interpret has come about to help protect works written in Java that are meant to help people who create commercial apps to which they would like to have the sole right to release. Though, that said, copyright lengths are much too long. I do think it's time to free Steamboat Willy. That's a travesty. And that, say, original Atari 2600 game code is still copyrighted is insane. These aren't books, fellows. Wake up and catch up, legislatures. Thanks again, Ruffin Bailey -- If you subscribe to email lists, you need The Digest Handler. http://DigestHandler.WebHop.org \| digestHandler@rufwork.com posted by ruffin at 8/27/2003 08:35:00 AM

Tuesday, August 26, 2003
I don't know why I can never Google this up, but here it is, the Java look and feel Graphics Repository. Sheesh posted by ruffin at 8/26/2003 11:07:00 AM

Sunday, August 24, 2003
Heard on NPR yesterday a theory that Windows has so many security holes because the OS simply wasn't designed with security in mind. Specificaly, the piece said, computers used to sit in your house without being hooked up to a network or, if they were, it was for very short periods of time. Though that's more true of most Commodore 64s than Windows 95 boxes, I thought that was an interesting theory. Of course if you extend it to Linux, you get an interesting result as well. Linux is, obviously, an OS designed for servers -- computer that, by definition, are constantly hooked to a network. The theory would make you think that Linux and other *nixes would be designed with security in mind. Sure enough, Linux has proven more secure to this point than Windows. I think there's a factor that's missing here, however. Windows in closed source, and only a very few very biased eyes ["Let's do the minimum we can to make a buck!" -- and that's not a hit on MS; that's with most any corporation, I believe] get to look at that network code. Linux is open source, and everything's lain on the table for anyone to see. Though it would seem that MS has more resources to ensure that their code is rock solid, there's obviously not a good audit trail for holes inserted. Anyhow, I think there might be something to be said for open source helping with security -- and possible being better for server uses. In other news an interesting feature just added to #develop, the open source .NET IDE that's, imo, not quite yet ready for prime time: A very cool new feature is the C# to VB.NET converter based on our new Coco/R - generated parser (see Tools / Convert Buffer C# to VB.NET). Note that it sometimes must take heuristic decisions, but this will change once we convert entire projects (at issue is type lookup which is impossible without knowing all project-local and referenced types). I'm doing a VB.NET project in my new position in the coming months. I wonder if this is good enough that I still use this to get my hands dirty with C# and still deliver a VB.NET end product... posted by ruffin at 8/24/2003 08:15:00 AM

Wednesday, August 20, 2003
Compression paper. Going through emails, and would like a method to cull out quoted material (other than just material with char prefixes). posted by ruffin at 8/20/2003 02:28:00 PM

Well said (mostly just the SCO/Linux/GPL lawsuit from some SAMBA guys. Vive la SAMBA. :^D) posted by ruffin at 8/20/2003 12:11:00 PM

Tuesday, August 19, 2003
Been reading up on REALbasic using the first version of the O'Reilly title about the language, and have reintroduced myself to Applescript. The only real use I've had for Applescript so far is a quick hack to turn resource fork (the part of a Mac file that tells the OS which application should open it) into a CodeWarrior file so that I could edit files in CodeWarrior 5 made on, say, a Windows machine. Turns out Applescript -- and I'm sorry this is so obvious to real Mac fanatics -- fits the "same evolutionary niche" as vbscript and vba in the Windows world. Though it's not quite as robust as COM automated apps imo, you can make most any Apple app that's Applescript compatible do whatever you want with Applescripting. So in my case, I should be able to create filters for Mail.app based on the contents of filters in The Digest Handler by automating Mail.app with Applescript the same way I can automate Outlook with Visual Basic. The link with REALbasic is that RB has built in support for Applescript, and they interface relatively easily from what I can tell. You lose the ability to use the same syntax -- which you don't in Windowsland, where vbscript and Visual Basic 6 are kissing cousins, and VB.NET is a decent copycat. But you can do the same stuff. Anyhow, what prompted the blog is that I've signed up for the Applescript listserv with The Digest Handler and ran across this post today, which I though was both uneducated and shortsighted (rude enough?): >This might be a good time to point out one of MacScripter.net's >recently added sections. > > ... which shows at a glance that Netscape mail is as immune to Apple Events as it ever has been. I had a look at Mozilla Thunderbird the other day and was getting slightly interested when I realised it had no dictionary at all. Straight to the trash with all the other Mozilla nonsense. One day someone's going to explain to me what the point of Mozilla is. sigh Hey folks, Applescript is cool, but it's not the be-all-end-all. posted by ruffin at 8/19/2003 08:14:00 AM

Monday, August 18, 2003
I suppose when I keep lightly slamming Mozilla for being a money-grubbing, corporation dependant project, I'm trying to say, give or take, exactly what's said in this interview:ONLamp.com: Guido van Rossum Speaks [Aug. 14, 2003] "ORN: Do you think that the open source development model has proved itself as a viable alternative to proprietary methods? Can the cathedral coexist with the bazaar? GvR: Open source development methods have absolutely proved themselves, and I don't think there's any immediate likelihood that the cathedral will be demolished. However, among open source projects, I'm a fan of those that are consciously run with a bazaar-style model. The projects where there are a lot of programmers paid by a particular company, whether it's Netscape with Mozilla or Sun with Open Office, even though they claim a lot of success in terms of downloads, are extremely hard for the average programmer to make a contribution because the code base is so enormous, and the learning curve is therefore rather steep. Projects that started out as grassroots, like Python, have developed more of a community and a process that makes it much more acceptable." posted by ruffin at 8/18/2003 02:11:00 AM

Friday, August 15, 2003
I got a comment from Edward Nilges a while back that said that IDEs should include word processors for commenting code. He was bang-on the money. Coders sometimes use the fact that block comments are hard to maintain -- aesthetic-wise -- so they shouldn't be used. No flowerboxes, etc. The code changes and the comments don't because it's too hard to keep everything looking pretty. The Eclipse and even VB6 IDEs have a tiny bit of code to help add flowerboxes a little bit more easily, Eclipse going so far as to help wrap lines and add comment delimiters as you type. But a good word processor really would be a welcome addition; as soon as you begin commenting poof, you're able to add whatever you need to help someone read the code. Very little code is actually "self-commenting". The point is that code doesn't need to be this strange, idealistic form of pure logic (if you can call what some of us bang out logic). We're humans, dang it, and need to remember that when creating our products, tangible or no. posted by ruffin at 8/15/2003 10:06:00 AM

Thursday, August 14, 2003
Had a coworker ask me about starting into Java, and I wrote enough I thought I'd smack it into here. I'd like to take a look at Java, expand my skill set a bit. Any suggestions on how to get started? Kinda depends on what you'd like to do with it. First, on IDEs: Eclipse.org has a great one with great performance. Uses a windowing toolkit (SWT) that's a little closer to the native widgets, so performance on [Linux & Windows] is quite good. Netbeans.org is a good secondary IDE. Has a decent GUI editor, but once you've gotten used to Layout Managers, you won't have much need for it. Jon tends to disagree with me there. Both are free; both have autocomplete. Sun has a decent tutorial on using/learning Java. When creating/hacking on Java GUIs in Swing, Sun's windowing toolkit, this page is invaluable to me. I've liked most any O'Reilly book on Java I've seen. Once you get going, Java in Nutshell is a must, though it really is just a hardcopy of the API. I got my start with an older version of Elliotte Rusty Harold's Java I/O and his book on network programming. Both are awfully readable books, and gets you messing with files & http, ftp, UDP, etc from the proverbial get-go. JDBC is incredibly simple. No book needed. Most any tutorial will do. The best part is that learning Java is very nearly the same as learning C#. A different set of objects, give or take, but the exact same syntax and concepts (again, give or take). Hopefully that's enough to get started. ;^) posted by ruffin at 8/14/2003 07:00:00 PM

Wednesday, August 13, 2003
Been trying out OmniWeb, and it has secured a decent spot in my daily, at-home PC use (all Mac, when I can help it). The spellcheck in the textareas makes it a great web email client. Also nice to have it keep a hold of passwords in cookies, but since I'm only going to those email sites, it won't get quite as many and mad web browsing would otherwise. Should be using it for blogging as well, but, um, I'm not. I'm not sure that's registering-level use, but for right now at least it's got a small niche. Wonder if it's worth hacking something that does the same... Posts have been quite spotty recently. Tying up loose ends at the corporate job. Not a big fan of the hardcore corporation, I'm afraid. posted by ruffin at 8/13/2003 11:27:00 PM

Tuesday, August 12, 2003
Not exactly in keeping with the typical theme here, but an interesting quote from here: However, there is a fundamental philosophical difference to how we approach 'the law': in Britain. If we don't like laws, we break them. Sometimes we break them en masse: but if you think about it, we're all very good at doing this. In the United States, if we don't like laws, we hire some lawyers to engage in an epic Talmudic battle of the intellects, with each side waving around such documents as "the Constituion" as if they were a sacred parchment, or Turin Shroud, until a victor is crowned. So rooted is this faith in the law, that constructive civil disobedience - such as having fun in the park - isn't yet embedded in the US culture. posted by ruffin at 8/12/2003 09:02:00 AM

Friday, August 08, 2003
From a review of the 12" Powerbook: The third quibble: Unless you upgrade, the 12-inch G4 includes only 256MB of RAM. I wish Apple would standardize on a much more useable 512MB. This would save me from periodically having to reboot when the machine slows to a crawl. It never crashes, mind you, just slows down enough that a reboot seems in order. Ha. That's pretty funny. CLOSE YOUR APPS!!! I would say that's a Windows user mentality there, but I don't even do that when I'm using Windows... The new OmniWeb browser is out, based on Safari's core. Very nice. No tabs on first glance, but once again I have spellcheck in text areas like this one. Very handy. It even allows you to open up the text area into another windows entirely, to move and resize however you'd like. If they'd embed VIm, I think we'd have a winner. posted by ruffin at 8/08/2003 08:54:00 PM

Tuesday, August 05, 2003
Print from web control in VB6 without prompting user: `Private Sub Command1_Click() Call Me.WebBrowser1.ExecWB(OLECMDID_PRINT, OLECMDEXECOPT_DONTPROMPTUSER) End Sub Private Sub Form_Load() Me.WebBrowser1.Navigate ("http://www.apple.com") End Sub` posted by ruffin at 8/05/2003 06:11:00 PM

Using SharpDevelop for real-world, heavy duty, COM-interop programming suckors. Wonder if VIm and the cmd line will do any better... posted by ruffin at 8/05/2003 02:14:00 PM

Found a decent list of COM/.NET interop resources. Course just diving into devArticles.com panned out pretty much as well. posted by ruffin at 8/05/2003 01:42:00 PM

Looking for automated tools to help comment VB6 code -- sorta like Javadoc does for Java. So far I've googled up VB Hyperdocs, VB DocMan and VB Dox. Thinking I need more or I'll write a quick and dirty one myself. posted by ruffin at 8/05/2003 10:29:00 AM

<< Older \| Newer >>