No. It doesn't screw anyone. If your code is good like Linus's code, Firefox's code, etc, then you will have a reputation.
The original creator benefits from reputation and someone to continue his work. Afterall, your code will only be used if people deem it as "good." If someone forks your code, it means your original code is good, but could be better. If no one forks your code and a bunch of people use it, then your code is super good. If no one forks your code and barely anyone uses it, then your code sucks.
The community/users benefit because they are part of the process. They can contribute ideas/code. The software can also survive even if the original creator quits.
Jeff Wrote:No. It doesn't screw anyone. If your code is good like Linus's code, Firefox's code, etc, then you will have a reputation.
You mean the best. The only reason Linux, Firefox, etc are good is because they are one of the best in their class. So my original statement still stands. Screw you if your not the best.
You don't need to be best... but of course, the better you are, the more successful..
There are countless minor projects that are successful as well, just not that widely known. Silverstripe versus Drupal. Both are CMS but you can't tell which is "best" because each has its own respective field. Both OOP CMS Silverstripe versus XOOP, you can't tell which is "best" because one focuses on extendability and the other focuses on content. I could go on and on...
Operating systems nowadays are so big that only two groups can afford to maintain it: "community" or "giant corporation." This will soon get to the average software. Now you see the benefit of community.
Jeff Wrote:HarryWx Wrote:Point is they can at ANYTIME lift/steal the work and then CHANGE the License and or add their own and then do with it as they see fit. As mentioned earlier this is sorta how IPB got it's start. If i recall correctly it was a fork off of IB. ( Ikonboard i believe it's name was )
Matt M. and a couple of others left IB and started Invision which was free at first ( was promised to always remain that way too ) and we see how that turned out.
Sorry but thats not cool and why i have a issue with a GPL license. I highly suspect that is what is gonna happen to this punbb deal too. And that will suck for all of those who poured all of their time and effort into that project making it what it is. And i sure as hell would not like to have the same happen here.
The GPL prohibits people to redistribute software with a more restrictive license. So no, they can't change the license or add their own, unless it's less restrictive. Therefore, I think you might've got the IPB and Ikonboard thing mixed up.
Edit: After doing some research, Ikonboard was/is not under GPL.
Tikitiki Wrote:The thing about GPL is it turns a lot of people off once they read about what could happen to their work. If someone took your sweat and blood that you put into your work and called it their own, then I would be pretty upset. There are only a select few out of the whole world who 1) wouldn't care if their work was given up like that and 2) would actually succeed into something reputable (like Linux).
The GPL promotes BETTER software. If someone takes your code and makes it better, its good for the general will. It sends the original creator a message that they need to improve. Furthermore, if it is REALLY good, then you'll end up like Linus.
If someone takes your code and makes it worse, people will still come back to the original creator. People will know who is the original creator if your software is good enough. If I fork out Firefox and call it my own, people will just call me a scumbag.
Long term speaking, if you quit and your software is closed source, it won't be any better even if someone else takes it up, because it's not their baby. If it's open source, it's the community's property, so it will have a chance to be (even more) successful.
Scratch my remarks. BOTH IPB and IB always had their own license. However Matt M. did start out at IkonBoard before he started invision.
Talk about some irony though. lol
http://www.sitepoint.com/print/matt-mecham-ibforums
Again we see how that worked out. As well leaves alot of doubts about why Matt did leave Ikonboard.
Matt M Wrote:I've released little scripts before and in almost all cases, to most, open source merely means "I can remove the copyright, rename it and release it as my script" which, of course, isn't the case -- I got tired of seeing my work re-badged.
This is where I have a disagreement with many people. If people constantly take your script and release it, it tells you that you are a damn good coder. What else do you want? Everyone to link to you?
People already recognize you as a good programmer, which is why they come to you for code. People don't see it that way though.
Jeff Wrote:Matt M Wrote:I've released little scripts before and in almost all cases, to most, open source merely means "I can remove the copyright, rename it and release it as my script" which, of course, isn't the case -- I got tired of seeing my work re-badged.
This is where I have a disagreement with many people. If people constantly take your script and release it, it tells you that you are a damn good coder. What else do you want? Everyone to link to you?
People already recognize you as a good programmer, which is why they come to you for code. People don't see it that way though.
In HIS case i dont feel the least bit sorry for him. He lost that when he broke his promise with IB. To say all of what he did in that interview about why he left Ikonboard and all the rest and then turn around and DO the EXACT thing he "claimed" to loathe about Ikonboard doesnt say a whole heck of alot about him. That man made ALOT of promises to get people to go to Invision which that article clearly shows. Ask me and i think Matt knew EXACTLY what he was doing from day 1. Not hard to figure out with his bouncing around from system to system and plucking people off for what would eventually become IPB. Talk about a shady person. He gives a whole new meaning to that.
Tikitiki Wrote:And that is EXACTLY why I don't like the GPL. It's sending a message to people that it's ok to just take someone's code and call it their own and then piss all over the original creator. How will our future generation of programmers ever improve if all that happens is someone takes it and rewrites it? They will never get better if they don't have the experience and neither the practice. Humans aren't born smart. They're made smart; through mistakes and challenges and experience. You take away those elements and you've got a huge problem on your hands.
They cannot claim it as their own code unless they modify it substantially. It's practical to include original author's name and then modifier's name if there are petty changes. If there are no changes at all, then they have no right to alter any credits anywhere in the code or other files.
Moreover, they cannot remove the original copyrights that came with the code such as those in header comments of a php file.
Quote:I want to get credit for my work. I want people to know what I wrote. Can I still get credit if I use the GPL?
You can certainly get credit for the work. Part of releasing a program under the GPL is writing a copyright notice in your own name (assuming you are the copyright holder). The GPL requires all copies to carry an appropriate copyright notice.
GPL has a FAQ here:
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html
CC-GPL:
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/GPL/2.0/
Creative Commons is never a good site to use for software licensing (since they are not supposed to be used as such, only literary and media works) even if the license itself is a proper Open Source one.
Better to look at the OSI:
http://www.opensource.org/licenses/bsd-license.php
The BSD license is probably the most liberal open source license out there.. it says "take my work and do whatever you want, and putting on your own license too is fine"