DragonBox OpenSource Coding Competition - Rules (DRAFT!)

[pmprog]

Everyone's gotta love BACON!!!!!


Seriously though, if this is an OpenSource compo, stick with the original plan. Or give closedsourcers their own categories that have no or community-sourced prizes.

 

[Linux-SWAT]

We didn't talk about Z-state source.

 

[TrashyMG]

We didn't talk about Z-state source.

 

[graupelschauer]

In all honesty, if this discussion had never happened and there was no mention of open source vs. closed source, I would have participated anyway, even if nonfree software was accepted to the competition

So onpon4 just now realized that he is a vegan?


And what happened to the bike factory analogy?


I still prefer solution 1) but could live with 2) and 3)


And I have no clue what Z-state source is

 

[elwing]

And I have no clue what Z-state source is

is it related to Zottd?

 

[crow_riot]

Seriously though, if this is an OpenSource compo, stick with the original plan. Or give closedsourcers their own categories that have no or community-sourced prizes.

+1

 

[ekianjo]

That solution wouldn't work for me. I consider nonfree software to be illegitimate. Giving "open source" some extra money from the community would still convey that "closed source" software is legitimate.

So I guess you never played games in your life ? Or stopped playing ?


Even RMS says that having closed-sources games may not be right but that it's not important because they are non-critical applications.

 

[ekianjo]

I think this is one of the big problems that wouldn't exist if we would live on the optimal world that the FSF wants.

In the optimal world of the FSF nobody could code and make a living with it. That's the question RMS usually faces and he said it's not his problem if it destroys your means of living. Somehow that's the ultimate weak point of some of the FSF concepts - if you cannot make profit from your code, how do we expect to find time to code? Doing it from 11 to 12 everyday? That's hardly productive.


The only means to do source code and still make a living is to sell support for the code - but that's hardly what everyone can do.

 

[Ziz]

Earning money with closed code for THIS competition shouldn't be the topic. -_-


This should be a contest of having fun, not doing a job and getting money...

 

[_wb_]

@ekianjo: Are you kidding? Even most closed-source software companies get most of their profits from support and consultancy. You can make a very profitable business based on open source software.


If I would be a company and need to get something coded, I would hire coders to make an open source solution for me, not pay them to produce some binaries for me. I need the code myself, so I can modify stuff without having to ask them, and so I can make sure it still works in 20 years without needing 10 layers of emulation. I need others to have access to the code, so they can also improve it and fix bugs. I need the code to be GPL'ed, so that if my competitors improve things, I get those improvements as well.


It makes perfect sense from a business point of view to do that, and the only reason why so many companies are still using the closed-source model, is that their managers are misguided idiots who think that this will give them a competitive edge. It usually doesn't, and they just end up chaining themselves to the software company, which tends to produce shitty software and which eventually always ends up charging as much as it wants for small bug fixes or feature requests, or even just ignores those requests or disappears, leaving the customer company with a legacy solution that is no longer maintained. You would be surprised to know how many companies are still using ancient COBOL programs (often with the sources long gone), run in several layers of emulators, with loads of ugly workarounds to keep the beast alive.

 

[pmprog]

If I would be a company and need to get something coded, I would hire coders to make an open source solution for me, not pay them to produce some binaries for me. I need the code myself, so I can modify stuff without having to ask them, and so I can make sure it still works in 20 years without needing 10 layers of emulation.

I write software for other companies, and they get source code; however, even though they are able to do whatever they want with it, that doesn't make the product open source by default.


But enough of this. I'm just going to wait to see ED's final decision, if I write something, my source will be open anyway.

 

[mcobit]

What about this:


You hire people who code gpl stuff for you, that you need to run your company. Of course you need to pay them to develop this code.


Now one of your employees quits and creates a new company, that uses the same code, as it is under the gpl.


He can now instantly do the same services you are doing but perhaps with a lower pricepoint, as you need to accomodate the initial development costs and of course he gets every update your company does to the code for free...


Even if he never will improve the code and you get those improvements back, he still can do the same thing you are doing, but without any costs for further developement.

 

[elwing]

closed source is just as needed as open source. whether it's liked or not

​

 

[_wb_]

What about this:


You hire people who code gpl stuff for you, that you need to run your company. Of course you need to pay them to develop this code.


Now one of your employees quits and creates a new company, that uses the same code, as it is under the gpl.


He can now instantly do the same services you are doing but perhaps with a lower pricepoint, as you need to accomodate the initial development costs and of course he gets every update your company does to the code for free...


Even if he never will improve the code and you get those improvements back, he still can do the same thing you are doing, but without any costs for further developement.

Well yes, if all your company does is making people pay for you to run some program for them (without any human intervention needed), then this wouldn't work, and you're probably better off keeping that program very secret. I wouldn't like such a company very much.


Usually though, programs are tools and you still need talented people to operate those tools. E.g. if you have a business that produces CGI animations, then your animators need software to make their 3D models and render them etc. It makes sense to make those tools Open Source (like e.g. Pixar actually did with some of its code), even if that means your competitors can also use them. Your competitive edge would come from having more talented artists, not from having more productive tools. In the end the whole industry benefits, because everybody gets the most productive tools and doesn't have to constantly reinvent the wheel.

 

[Znirk]

What about this:


You hire people who code gpl stuff for you, that you need to run your company. Of course you need to pay them to develop this code.

I'm assuming you mean code which integrates published GPL code; otherwise (if it's all new) I have no reason to place any license on that software. Anyway: under most legislations the copyright in any new code they've written now belongs to my company ("work made for hire"). This means that the company, not the coder, decides whether or not to release anything.

Now one of your employees quits and creates a new company, that uses the same code, as it is under the gpl.

How would he have that code, if I choose not to distribute it?

He can now instantly do the same services you are doing but perhaps with a lower pricepoint, as you need to accomodate the initial development costs

... whereas he needs to accommodate the legal costs associated with theft and violation of trade secrets, plus whatever damages I manage to sue him for. Not necessarily cheaper than doing your own software development.

and of course he gets every update your company does to the code for free...

Nope. Why would I suddenly start releasing my formerly confidential software in that scenario?

 

[elwing]

and of course he gets every update your company does to the code for free...

Nope. Why would I suddenly start releasing my formerly confidential software in that scenario?

if it's wholly your work you're right, but aren't you obliged to publish your source if your project repose on other GPL code?


Edit: not entering the flamewar, just trying to discover informations..

 

[pmprog]

if it's wholly your work you're right, but aren't you obliged to publish your source if your project repose on other GPL code?

Yes, and no... It depends how you implement the GPL code. If people didn't want to open up their own application, they'll turn the GPL portion into a .so/.dll library for linking. That way the GPL portion can comply with GPL rules, without worrying about spilling your propriety intrests.

 

[crow_riot]

if it's wholly your work you're right, but aren't you obliged to publish your source if your project repose on other GPL code?

Yes, and no... It depends how you implement the GPL code. If people didn't want to open up their own application, they'll turn the GPL portion into a .so/.dll library for linking. That way the GPL portion can comply with GPL rules, without worrying about spilling your propriety intrests.

IANAL - but that only applies for LGPL and not GPL. with GPL you could do IPC but not dynamically linking.

 

[Znirk]

and of course he gets every update your company does to the code for free...

Nope. Why would I suddenly start releasing my formerly confidential software in that scenario?

if it's wholly your work you're right, but aren't you obliged to publish your source if your project repose on other GPL code?

If your use other GPL code in your project, then your whole project may not be distributed under any license other than the GPL. That doesn't mean you have to distribute it; it only restricts your options if you do choose to distribute. And even the people who write the FAQ over on gnu.org are of the opinion that deploying software within the company whose employees wrote the code isn't distribution.


Edit: What pmprog and crow_riot are talking about applies if you do release your software. If the project is under the GPL, then you may distribute compiled versions if you wish, but must also supply or at least offer source code to everyone who got the binaries directly from you.

 

[pmprog]

if it's wholly your work you're right, but aren't you obliged to publish your source if your project repose on other GPL code?

Yes, and no... It depends how you implement the GPL code. If people didn't want to open up their own application, they'll turn the GPL portion into a .so/.dll library for linking. That way the GPL portion can comply with GPL rules, without worrying about spilling your propriety intrests.

IANAL - but that only applies for LGPL and not GPL. with GPL you could do IPC but not dynamically linking.

http://stackoverflow...rce-application


So, dynamically linked libraries are okay as far as I can tell


Edit: Well, rereading, it depends in which manner you use GPL code.

The GPL does require that proprietary and GPL'ed programs "are not combined in a way that would make them effectively a single program." If your program is completely dependent upon GPL'ed executables, such that it wouldn't be usable without them even though it is a standalone binary, then that might place you on shakier ground. (And it's probably time to consult your lawyer to find out for sure.)