Thursday, April 09, 2009
Good reading: Insoshi Rails source code
I saw today that the software for the Inoshi social networking web app was re-licensed from AGPL to MIT because the company decided stop trying to monetize this system. I have read the source code to many Rails applications (customer work and sometimes just to learn new techniques). Anyway, this source code base looks clean and well written and makes a good "read" if you are into studying other people's code.
Labels: open source, Ruby Rails
Wednesday, March 21, 2007
Balancing the use of Open Source (especially GPL) and proprietary software
The GPLv3 is likely to have stronger requirements for sharing back code used in web applications. While I personally think that this is fair, it will be "interesting" for companies using GPLed components in proprietary web applications.
As a consultant, it is often frustrating when customers do not want to simply use a license like the GPL because they worry about protecting their intellectual property. I believe that in almost all cases, any proprietary code in a system should be associated with custom data handling. I am not a lawyer, but I believe that the GPL (even v3) allows GPL systems to share data with proprietary systems via a relational database (or some other type of persistent storage).
Why bother dealing with the GPL, assuming that you don't buy into the social and philosophical ideas of the FSF.org? Because it will end up saving you money! For example, using a GPLed content management system and donating improvements back to the project will save you money and effort every time there is a new release that already has your improvements incorporated.
What about maintaining a competitive advantage over competitors? Any advantage will probably be in both how well you serve your customers and in your proprietary data and data processing software.
As a consultant, it is often frustrating when customers do not want to simply use a license like the GPL because they worry about protecting their intellectual property. I believe that in almost all cases, any proprietary code in a system should be associated with custom data handling. I am not a lawyer, but I believe that the GPL (even v3) allows GPL systems to share data with proprietary systems via a relational database (or some other type of persistent storage).
Why bother dealing with the GPL, assuming that you don't buy into the social and philosophical ideas of the FSF.org? Because it will end up saving you money! For example, using a GPLed content management system and donating improvements back to the project will save you money and effort every time there is a new release that already has your improvements incorporated.
What about maintaining a competitive advantage over competitors? Any advantage will probably be in both how well you serve your customers and in your proprietary data and data processing software.
Labels: open source
Wednesday, February 14, 2007
Am I the only one who uses the old LGPL MySQL Java driver?
When I do any database work in Java, I like to support both PostgreSQL and MySQL. The MySQL drivers since 2002 have a GPL license and are not suitable at all (for license reasons) for use in non-GPL projects when you need to distribute your application (but is fine for internal projects). Thus, for non-GPL projects, I use the older LGPL MySQL driver org.gjt.mm.mysql.Driver to stay clean, license-wise.
I do notice that just about all online tutorials that use MySQL with Java use the newer GPL licensed drivers, so I would imagine that many people end up using the GPLed driver in non-GPL projects. Being an open source enthusiast also means respecting license choices of copyright owners.
The old LGPL driver does not support some things like bit values, but since the old driver is open source, I could always tweak the source code if need be. I am a little surprised that the Java community does not fork the old LGPL driver and maintain it.
I do notice that just about all online tutorials that use MySQL with Java use the newer GPL licensed drivers, so I would imagine that many people end up using the GPLed driver in non-GPL projects. Being an open source enthusiast also means respecting license choices of copyright owners.
The old LGPL driver does not support some things like bit values, but since the old driver is open source, I could always tweak the source code if need be. I am a little surprised that the Java community does not fork the old LGPL driver and maintain it.
Labels: Java, open source
Sunday, December 17, 2006
DRM and (Un)Trusted Computing: really a big deal?
I have blogged several times on how much I enjoy Apple's iTunes store, always burning any songs I buy to a CDR as MP3 as backup. I just did get burned by Apple's DRM however. This was partially carelessness on my part and partially some bad luck with hardware. You can only "authorize" 5 computers at once to work with your iTunes store account. I had a disk go bad on a Mac and had to re-install OS X without first unregistering the computer with the iTunes store. I had a similar experience recently with a Windows laptop: re-installed Windows without remembering to de-authorize that computer with the iTunes music store. Now I can't watch several Battle Star Galactica videos I purchased on my laptop. Oh well, no great loss.
(Un)Trusted Computing is a bigger deal: if I buy a computer, I want control over:
Richard Stallman and Eben Moglen of the FSF.org have been warning about loss of freedoms for computer users for many years, and unfortunately some of their dire predictions seem to be coming true.
What I think is important is that people who want Microsoft's Vista should have the right to Use Windows. Same with Apple users. People who want to use these proprietary systems will certainly be able to get "locked in" all they want.
The problem I have is for the 1% to 2% of computer users (like me!) who appreciate the advantages of running Linux, even without having access to media like DVDs, etc. I want to be "left alone", and be free to set up my Linux computer as I like it. In regards to patent issues: I see great hope because large companies like IBM are sharing part of their protective patent "umbrella" with the Linux community. Good going IBM - I will certainly give them my business when I can. Also, I hope that the courts take a fair approach to enforcing patents: patent holders like Microsoft who might want to legally attack Linux users should be made to publish which patent violations Linux is supposedly guilty of, and I believe that the Linux community will quickly get rid of any legally offending code if any such code exists in Linux.
(Un)Trusted Computing is a bigger deal: if I buy a computer, I want control over:
- What software gets installed on my computer
- When I buy a license to run an operating system, like Windows, I want to be trusted as a customer, and not have my computer (partially) disabled if Microsoft makes an error
Richard Stallman and Eben Moglen of the FSF.org have been warning about loss of freedoms for computer users for many years, and unfortunately some of their dire predictions seem to be coming true.
What I think is important is that people who want Microsoft's Vista should have the right to Use Windows. Same with Apple users. People who want to use these proprietary systems will certainly be able to get "locked in" all they want.
The problem I have is for the 1% to 2% of computer users (like me!) who appreciate the advantages of running Linux, even without having access to media like DVDs, etc. I want to be "left alone", and be free to set up my Linux computer as I like it. In regards to patent issues: I see great hope because large companies like IBM are sharing part of their protective patent "umbrella" with the Linux community. Good going IBM - I will certainly give them my business when I can. Also, I hope that the courts take a fair approach to enforcing patents: patent holders like Microsoft who might want to legally attack Linux users should be made to publish which patent violations Linux is supposedly guilty of, and I believe that the Linux community will quickly get rid of any legally offending code if any such code exists in Linux.
Labels: IT, media, open source
Monday, November 13, 2006
GPL license for Java
This is a good thing, to be sure! However, I have to wonder how this might affect Sun's revenue for Java in embedded devices, etc. Sun has a huge investment in Java and as a corporation they really do need to generate revenue from Java.
One thing that I would like to see happen is tight JRE integration with Linux systems: a mechanism for running a shared JVM instance for small Java utilities and porting Apple's contributions for sharing more memory between JVM instances running on the same system.
One thing that I would like to see happen is tight JRE integration with Linux systems: a mechanism for running a shared JVM instance for small Java utilities and porting Apple's contributions for sharing more memory between JVM instances running on the same system.
Labels: Java, open source
Tuesday, October 03, 2006
A bit of history, the Slackware 11 release, and software power
I downloaded parts of Slackware over a 2400 baud modem connection in 1993 - my start using Linux. So, I noticed the announcement of Slackware 11 with some nostalgia. I very much appreciate the fine work of Patrick Volkerding. (Even if I am now an Ubuntu user :-)
Software power: for me, Linux + other open source = Power
I am not talking about client side Linux, rather being able to build services using Linux and quality infrastructure software from the Apache Foundation, the PostgreSQL group, etc.
In the 'new economic era' of globalization and driving costs towards zero, Linux and open source play a huge role in staying competitive.
Software power: for me, Linux + other open source = Power
I am not talking about client side Linux, rather being able to build services using Linux and quality infrastructure software from the Apache Foundation, the PostgreSQL group, etc.
In the 'new economic era' of globalization and driving costs towards zero, Linux and open source play a huge role in staying competitive.
Labels: Linux, open source
Saturday, August 19, 2006
Open source, free, and commercial software
Slashdot linked an article about Eric Raymond's support for proprietary binary Linux drivers. I think that he is partially right, but I would like the freedom to choose whether to use binary only drivers on my Linux boxes.
As a software developer, I look at commercial development tools as a way of life. While I find the free Ruby + Eclipse + RDT + Radrails combination to be just fine for Ruby development, for other work the commercial tools are just a cut above.
I very much enjoy using Franz Lisp, but it is expensive: Franz has been in business for 20 years continually improving its one product (Franz Lisp), and it shows. I am using Franz right now for a large project - the licensing costs are a good investment for my customer. I hope to restart my knowledgebooks.com business next year (I have set it aside the last few years because the consulting market has been so hot) and I am going to try to justify to myself the costs of Franz because that is what I would like to use.
Another great commercial development environment is Cincom VisualWorks Smalltalk. While licensing is also expensive for VW, Cincom offers a good deal for developers (revenue sharing) that eliminates up front sticker shock - a good thing for develpers wanting to grow a new business.
The point that I am making is that writing software is expensive in time and resources so sometimes it makes sense business wise to invest in expensive tools, and sometimes it does not.
As a software developer, I look at commercial development tools as a way of life. While I find the free Ruby + Eclipse + RDT + Radrails combination to be just fine for Ruby development, for other work the commercial tools are just a cut above.
I very much enjoy using Franz Lisp, but it is expensive: Franz has been in business for 20 years continually improving its one product (Franz Lisp), and it shows. I am using Franz right now for a large project - the licensing costs are a good investment for my customer. I hope to restart my knowledgebooks.com business next year (I have set it aside the last few years because the consulting market has been so hot) and I am going to try to justify to myself the costs of Franz because that is what I would like to use.
Another great commercial development environment is Cincom VisualWorks Smalltalk. While licensing is also expensive for VW, Cincom offers a good deal for developers (revenue sharing) that eliminates up front sticker shock - a good thing for develpers wanting to grow a new business.
The point that I am making is that writing software is expensive in time and resources so sometimes it makes sense business wise to invest in expensive tools, and sometimes it does not.
Labels: commercial products, open source
Subscribe to Posts [Atom]
