How close does the Pyra's design come to respecting your freedom?

[Exophase]

I guess one question I would have for Exophase is: if there were no issues of people making bad use of a license, would you release the full source for DraStic under a license (that doesn't allow people to use the code in commercial projects, etc.) (i.e. if you knew it wouldn't affect sales, wouldn't cause customer support issues, wouldn't cause other issues)?

It's hard to say. I've released two gratis emulators before DraStic, one was open source (gpSP) and the other wasn't (Temper). I also contributed to PCSX-reARMed, but there was no question that that was ever going to be anything but GPL as that was required by the existing license.

With gpSP I was irritated because while I was heavily developing it some other people, primarily a developer from Japan but also a developer from China were releasing forks. We'd end up with divergent/incompatible features, users would badger me to implement everything the other person did like they did, and they'd complain that I didn't release an update every other day even though the fork updates were often released with partially/poorly implemented features, bugs, regressions, etc. I would generate and review diffs of the source code and found that the majority of the changes were formatting or structural modifications that had no impact on the behavior of the emulator, and it got pretty exhausting.

That's why I made Temper closed source. I figured it was niche enough that no one would really care. I said if people want the source they can ask me and I'll decide if I think they should have it. Eventually some did ask for it so they could port to Dingoo, GP32, and later on GCW-Zero. After enough time passed (where I long since stopped working on it) I told them they could go ahead and release it under GPL if they want.

These days I don't know if I'd care as much. I'd be more likely to just ignore the forks and the nagging users. Users may be more confused by splintered development but they'd just have to deal with it. But I'd probably get annoyed if people came around and started flaming me about how I wrote the code, like I've seen someone go off on byuu a few times lately. Then again, people will probably flame you more for not releasing the source at all.

But I guess it's kind of a hard thing to answer since it's so rhetorical, you just can't separate the practical reality from things. Even if I had zero interest in making money I'd still know that anything I release GPL would get sold, and a lot of the times without honoring the GPL. There's also a big potential that it'd get repackaged with ads, spyware, or worse. Sure, you can write the license to prevent all of this, but it's really hard to actually enforce licenses the world over, and frankly I wouldn't have the energy to do so. I never bothered trying to go after the many people who violated gpSP's license, at least after I stopped developing it.

In the long run, I think being open source was better for gpSP than being closed would have. I'd say that the direct benefits of being open usually far outweigh any disadvantages. But on the other hand, if there's too much disincentive to the developer then there's a lower chance they'll develop anything at all. That's always something to consider. I very much support and appreciate open source devs, I think they are often some of the most selfless and generous people around. The principle is great, but it's a lot to demand from everyone in all circumstances.

 

[comradekingu]

Do the people complaining know what they are doing? Maybe giving in to such demands without clarification, is justifying their clamouring.

To me it seems if you want incompatible features merged and aren't able to do so yourself, you pay up.

I also don't understand why someone would fork and then write incompatible things, if it is possible to mainline it.

Edit: I've seen the comment-section on google play, so I feel your pain.

 

[EvilDragon]

Well, the good thing with OpenSource forks is:

People can add stuff you don't care about (and don't really want to add), and create versions with special features.

And whenever you are not in the mood anymore to continue the project, it's pretty much seamless if there are already others working on it.

Otherwise, if you just release the sourcecode when you decide not to work on it anymore, chances are high it'll take a while before anyone picks it up again.

 

[ZXDunny]

And whenever you are not in the mood anymore to continue the project, it's pretty much seamless if there are already others working on it.

Otherwise, if you just release the sourcecode when you decide not to work on it anymore, chances are high it'll take a while before anyone picks it up again.

Surely that's not an issue? If you've decided to stop development of a project, why should you care if anyone picks it up?

D.

 

[diligentcircle]

I would consider the software being developed by Governments, businesses and the likes as being proprietary, the general consumer, nor did other businesses or organizations had access to each other's code, nor had the facility of getting at or sharing it easily. Teams of engineers would come develop the user software for the specific tasks, Since most applications of computer software back then was for business, government or research work these were typically guarded from being shared to the public. And all this was happening well before 1969.

Clearly, this argument about history isn't getting us anywhere. I get the feeling that neither of us are really familiar enough with the time period to discuss it thoroughly, because I've already said everything that I think I know about the subject (most of which comes from a combination of anecdotes and Wikipedia), and you have basically just been saying that you think it's wrong; neither of us is providing sources. Perhaps this is better clarified by someone else.

However, you can't escape this fact: people today develop a very large amount of libre software for all kinds of reasons. You could argue that the libre software movement started as a reaction to proprietary software, sure, but the overall dominance of open source over libre software today largely discredits that hypothesis. We have tons of people developing great software simply as a hobby, as a learning project, or even to profit in a different way, I don't think it's reasonable to conclude that we would be substantially worse off in our computing if proprietary software didn't exist, much less that "[t]he computing economy [would fall] apart". It might be reasonable to suppose that it might have led to slower development, and I'm personally perfectly willing to concede that, since the point is that such a small sacrifice is worth making for the sake of liberty. But Binky's tale of doom is not credible.

 

[comradekingu]

And whenever you are not in the mood anymore to continue the project, it's pretty much seamless if there are already others working on it.


Otherwise, if you just release the sourcecode when you decide not to work on it anymore, chances are high it'll take a while before anyone picks it up again.

Surely that's not an issue? If you've decided to stop development of a project, why should you care if anyone picks it up?


D.

Assuming its something worth keeping, its your legacy.

 

[TrashyMG]

Clearly, this argument about history isn't getting us anywhere. I get the feeling that neither of us are really familiar enough with the time period to discuss it thoroughly, because I've already said everything that I think I know about the subject (most of which comes from a combination of anecdotes and Wikipedia), and you have basically just been saying that you think it's wrong; neither of us is providing sources. Perhaps this is better clarified by someone else.

Well until the beginning of this month I have worked for IBM for a little over 17 years, recently my division was acquired by GlobalFoundries and now I work for them. I still work with some old timers that worked there over 40 years and have some idea how they used to roll out systems to customers and how it changed over the years. One guy still has a collection of programs he wrote on punch cards, also has a collection of core memory(ferrite bead). I work in the semiconductor fab that much of the mid to late 60's IBM Mainframe computer processors were designed and built, some of which ended up being used in the Apollo missions. DRAM was first manufactured in building that my office currently resides. So yeah I have some knowledge, that said I feel at times I work in a museum, just a couple years ago I worked with some old semiconductor test equipment that ran on a 35 year old DEC VAX/VMS system so we could push through some product that hasn't been manufactured in 12 years for a special order... We have some old dumb-terminal applications that have been running since the mid 70's, just no easy way to replace systems that been working fine for that long. I work in an odd environment where I can be working on the latest technology to something close to 4 decades old. 

 

[bzar]

This circles back quite neatly to my argument. Without any other context it is exactly as Steven says: one provides value for free ('idiot') and one gains without doing anything ('parasite').IMO the relevant question to ask is: What is it then that makes me *not* feel like an idiot when I help a single parent carry the pram up a flight of stairs?The rest is all down to the individual.

Substitute 'idiot' with 'altruist' and you'll see.