Brad Ideas - Technology - Comments

Proposing and using

brad — Wed, 17 Mar 2010 11:12:49 -0700

Yes, my main goal is to stimulate discussion of

whether it’s a good idea
what terms would be likely to entice owners of Windows packages to release their code to the FOSS world
what terms would be likely to encourage or discourage FOSS programmers from contributing to such packages

And see where people think the balance lies. The big barrier, unfortunately, is probably that vendors of proprietary programs might feel that they are giving away their crown jewels if they put the source out there.

Ah yes, Motif

brad — Wed, 17 Mar 2010 11:10:45 -0700

I had forgotten about that one. BTW, I don’t think the GPL forbids having a linux distro that includes proprietary software, but some people seem to so they always make it download the proprietary code to keep people happy.

OpenMotif

Adam Sampson — Wed, 17 Mar 2010 09:03:28 -0700

The OpenMotif license is another example of an existing software license that's intended to work this way (and that apparently works well enough for some Linux distributions to ship it).

"I promise"

Phillip Helbig — Wed, 17 Mar 2010 05:14:04 -0700

Someone pointed out that in a sentence like "I promise", the deed being described by the sentence is identical with the sentence itself. Saying "I eat" is not the same thing as eating, but saying "I promise" is the same thing as promising. (Saying "I regret" is the same thing as regretting, but it is possible to regret without saying so.)

"What I propose is a GPL-like licence" is almost in the same category. All you have to do is draw it up and post it on the web and it exists. Whether or not anyone uses it, of course, is a different matter.

Some projects will work on all platforms

brad — Wed, 17 Mar 2010 01:01:08 -0700

Of course there are projects that are big enough and important enough that people develop them for all platforms, like Firefox. Is QT a huge success? Perhaps not, but it is not a failure.

So what other proposal would you put forward to get these Windows packages ported to Linux? The companies don’t want to do it, and only for a few of them is the FOSS community ready to do a Firefox like effort to duplicate them.

Not DRM, Not EULAs

brad — Wed, 17 Mar 2010 00:59:03 -0700

No, it’s not a DRM. A DRM is a technology to make sure something only works on an authorized player. You will need to explain to me what in here is like a DRM.

As for EULAs this is very definitely not that. The GPL essentially works by saying, “You may only copy this if you obey the following rules” and gives rules about requiring you to publish source, and pass the rights on to all you copy to. This would work the same way — “you may only modify this code for purposes other than running on Windows.” If somebody makes a modified version of the code (a derivative work) including a compiled binary, and it is for Windows, they are not given permission to make the work, and so it is as much a copyright violation as an unpaid WAREZ version of the official Windows binary would be.

Those who don't know history are doomed to repeat it

Felix Plesoianu — Tue, 16 Mar 2010 22:40:28 -0700

No offense, but bwahahahaha. Qt was just like that initially: free and open source, but only on Linux and similar platforms. The result? Hardly anyone used it at all. And Firefox? How exactly do you figure they competed with IE? By running on the same platform: Windows. Duuuh! Want more examples? Open Office.

"plan b" sounds more like

openuniverse — Tue, 16 Mar 2010 22:09:08 -0700

"plan b" sounds more like some kind of drm... nasty

plan a reeks of eula's. this kind of thinking probably wouldn't even exist if people had the sense to stop making people click on dialogs where they "agree" to the gpl as a prerequisite to installing. the gpl doesn't require compliance until you try to REDISTRIBUTE the software, eh?

You've lost me

brad — Tue, 16 Mar 2010 18:47:46 -0700

The AFPL, as far as I read it, is a no-commercial-distribution licence.

What I’m talking about is a licence that tries to say, “Versions that run on Windows are the province of the original software author. On FOSS platforms, treat it like GPL.”

That is definitely not what AFPL says.

As to whether people will use it, I think the following are true:

There’s lots of good software found on Windows which is not available on Linux and for which the vendor has decided they do not want to sell to the Linux market.
Some of those vendors might be happy with letting the FOSS community port their systems to Linux, *BSD etc. as long as it doesn’t hurt their Windows market very much, or in particular actually helps them (by providing more community, bug fixes, enhancements etc.)
There is some set of terms that will convince vendors to do this, the question is, are those terms too onerous to the FOSS community to attract developers?

I think we would all love it if Adobe would let the Linux community port Photoshop to Linux. Is there something that could make that happen?

already exists, not used

Russ Nelson — Tue, 16 Mar 2010 18:00:08 -0700

The license you're talking about already exists, but it's hardly used at all. It's the Aladdin Free Public License. It doesn't allow you to distribute the software on the same media as any proprietary software. As far as I know, Ghostscript is the only package that uses it. It's been around for about twenty years now. If your idea was a good one, someone would have likely picked up the AFPL.

All due respect, you are wrong

Kevin D — Tue, 16 Feb 2010 20:45:32 -0800

"...it's not a matter of opinion. The buyer's sole obligation is to pay on time."

Uhhh... that would be your opinion. I find it pretty funny how some people think they can call the views of someone they disagree with 'just an opinion', and their own view a 'matter of fact'. In my opinion, if the buyer's only obligation was to pay (on time.. ha), then there should be a check box that says simply 'paid'. The system automatically checks it off if paid via Paypal, or the seller checks it if paid another way. And the buyer's feedback would only say "paid" for each transaction. Now, think this through. If that were the system, and there was not a choice to say things like "Fast payment, great eBayer A+++++", or some other clever compliment, I believe this would be true to your idea that that is the only responsibility of the buyer. However, this would probably destroy any chance of sellers receiving positive feedback. Why? Because what reason would a buyer have for leaving some witty positive compliment if the item was just what it was supposed to be and all their feedback says is "Paid". If this were the case, then most of the feedback that will be left for sellers will be negative for when things go wrong. When things go right, so what, half the people don't bother now, they certainly won't bother if they don't get anything but a 'paid' sticker.

The point is, eBay's feedback has more to do with good will, manners, and being polite to one another. It is intended to be community concept, not an objective record. It is purely a practice of subjective opinion. A give-and-take sort of thing. Additionally, the buyer has not only the responsibility of paying (on time mind you), but also they have the responsibility of being reasonable, communicative, respectful, and decent. No?

When you leave a store after buying a product, do you ever say "thank you" to the cashier? Why? They are just doing their job, no thanks required. Or maybe your are just being polite.. hey... what a concept! They usually thank you for not only paying, but being a nice customer that they welcome back. But if you after pay for the item in the store, you then call the cashier an idiot because she dropped your change, then tell the customer standing next to you, "I guess only retards get hired here". Then drop the F* bomb to the old lady that wanted to check your receipt on your way out. Should you get a good report since, after all, you paid for the item... right?

Back to eBay. Did you know that after 9 years of selling on ebay only 55% of buyers left me any feedback at all? Why? Because many don't really care about it. So, why should I bother leaving feedback for someone who doesn't care enough to leave it for me? Feedback is 1000% more important to sellers than buyers.

Within the last year or so, seller's cannot leave anything BUT positive feedback or no feedback for the buyer on eBay. Those are the only two choices. So now even if a buyer does NOT pay, we cannot leave negative feedback. Fair... eh? There is no more retaliatory feedback. But the topic is not moot. The ONLY way we sellers have any way of protecting our butts is to not leave any feedback until we know the deal is good and completed. The only way we know that is if the buyer either leaves positive feedback or contacts us to complain. We cannot warn people about non-paying bidders. We cannot warn people about chargeback fraudsters. We cannot warn people about buyers who return broken merchandise in exchange for the new one they got from us, but now want a refund (that's stealing btw). No, we can't do anything to fight against bad buyers except block them on our own blocklist and file a claim for non-payment in order to get our fees refunded. This change is dumb. It is correct that sellers make eBay profitable, buyers pay nothing. Yet eBay makes it harder and harder to sell unless you are some large wholesale buyer, or a big chain, or a criminal. Regular folks get screwed, as usual.

So, the bottom line is, eBay feedback is a subjective matter of opinion users share about their dealings so that others can learn more about the members they are dealing with. It is based on mutual respect and manners. If a person does not say 'thank you' when appropriate, then I don't say 'your welcome' in reply... that would be stupid. Remember kiddies, always watch your P's and Q's, even on eBay.

leaving feedback

Michael Anderson — Tue, 02 Feb 2010 17:15:53 -0800

I can't really understand the back and forth here, as it's not a matter of opinion. The buyer's sole obligation is to pay on time. If a seller doesn't understand that, I can put it another way: There is NOTHING a buyer can do, besides pay, to make his end of the transaction work properly. He can't reach over the internet and pack the item better of get it to UPS a day earlier. He can't look at the item before it goes in the box to make sure it's what he ordered or in the condition described. A buyer is paying for something that he has only seen a picture of. The fact that most things arrive on time and as described is a testament to the basic good intentions of most people, and to a lesser extent the feedback system on ebay. If nothing else happens after the package arrives safely and on time, the fact remains that the buyer finished his obligation first and therefore must receive feedback first. I would still buy from a seller who violated this basic concept, but I wouldn't leave feedback. Or if I did, I would be more likely to leave negative feedback simply because the seller has such a poor policy that misunderstands the nature of the transaction. It makes that seller a bad SELLER, even if the item was right. (But not necessarily cool to call this guy names just because he happens to be wrong.)

Please, don't use capitals

Anonymous — Mon, 25 Jan 2010 11:23:37 -0800

Please, don't use capitals unnecessarily. Beside being considered as rude, it makes your post difficult to read.

That is incorrect. It has

NotTrue — Sat, 23 Jan 2010 07:58:50 -0800

That is incorrect.

It has and always has been the SELLER'S responsibility to buy insurance.

The item is YOUR (the Seller's) responsibility until it is in the buyer's hands.

If the buyer has to send the widget back to you, it is the buyer's responsibility for the package until it reaches them and thus it is the buyer's responsibility to buy insurance.

A buyer

Anonymous — Fri, 08 Jan 2010 20:25:39 -0800

I do nothing but buy on ebay, Ive sold in the past with no issues, but now I just buy. Nothing annoys me more than paying for an item immediatley after the auction ends, and seeing that the seller got my money and did not leave me positive feedback directly afterward.

In the real world when you buy something at a store, your only obligation is to pay them. Nothing more, nothing less. If you need to return something, its no hassle.
On ebay most sellers wont leave feedback unless I leave it first, which is BULL. I had one guy who I paid immediatley, who never left me feedback on my prompt payment. In the packages he added a long letter and stressed how vitally improtant it was I leave positive feedback, and once I did that, he'd do the same. Seeing that the transaction went well, I left him 5 star positive feedback and never heard from him again. I never got positive feedback in return, which is just shady.

I don't care about the seller to be honest with you. I have no established connection, same as Walmart or Target. Their job is to sell me goods, my job to buy them. If the product sucks, or an employee sucked, I return the item, or report the employee. I've never been retaliated against for such things, but on Ebay you have sellers who seem to think that their customers, who PAY them, are obligated to beckon to their 5 star demmands.

Its this simple. If I do not get positive feedback from a seller before they get my feedback, I never buy from them again. A good merchant knows how to keep buyers coming back, the rest fade away.