00:00:00 --- log: started forth/07.01.22 00:15:27 morning 00:17:42 morning 00:17:51 I really wanna write something that composes music for you 00:18:08 and play around with all the dynamics that make music interesting 00:18:39 well, it is a mathematical process, so i guess it's possible... 00:19:11 at the synth level, it's quite easy of course 00:20:36 but tune generation - i dunno - it needs a creative spark... 00:21:20 it's all in the code :) 00:21:50 someone was telling me about some project, where they tried to get a computer to compose like mozzart 00:22:02 they hacked away, and they fed it lots of mozzart music 00:22:58 they'd have the computer spit out a new piece, and play that allongside a real mozzart piece (presumably not a real well-known one) and people often though that the computer one was the real mozzart piece 00:23:40 not that I'm terribly into mozzart... but the story is encouraging 00:24:11 well, i think they'd have more luck generating the likes of early pink floyd... 00:24:35 (and i'm a bit of a mozart and pink floyd fan) 00:25:10 --- join: ecraven (n=nex@eutyche.swe.uni-linz.ac.at) joined #forth 00:28:23 * grub_booter stacks up some more olde worlde doctor who vids for (ahem) testing... 00:28:29 * grub_booter likes testing 00:31:21 --- quit: madgarden (Read error: 104 (Connection reset by peer)) 01:59:29 --- quit: slava () 02:15:18 synthesizer systems, puh I don't think I would like to code stuff in lisp to get some sounds 03:26:02 --- join: Jenn5 (i=UNXI@74-132-206-111.dhcp.insightbb.com) joined #forth 03:58:45 lo 04:20:49 --- join: arke (n=chris@pD9E061DA.dip.t-dialin.net) joined #forth 04:20:49 --- mode: ChanServ set +o arke 04:47:30 --- quit: Cheery (Remote closed the connection) 04:53:18 --- join: tathi (n=josh@pdpc/supporter/bronze/tathi) joined #forth 04:53:19 --- mode: ChanServ set +o tathi 05:20:39 --- join: Cheery (n=Cheery@a81-197-54-146.elisa-laajakaista.fi) joined #forth 05:43:24 --- join: timlarson_ (n=timlarso@65.116.199.19) joined #forth 06:13:20 hey 06:16:53 hey 06:22:21 --- join: vatic (n=chatzill@pool-162-84-209-238.ny5030.east.verizon.net) joined #forth 06:29:23 how goes it? 06:30:17 ok 06:30:25 still playing around with the meteor puzzle 06:30:27 you? 06:41:37 nice speedup yesterday 06:41:56 I'm working away on less interesting things :) 06:44:25 --- join: jacereda (n=jacereda@81-202-227-62.user.ono.com) joined #forth 06:44:28 ah 06:44:34 hi 06:44:50 hi 06:58:00 --- join: Ray_work (n=Raystm2@199.227.227.26) joined #forth 07:00:48 --- join: Raystm2- (n=NanRay@adsl-69-149-57-117.dsl.rcsntx.swbell.net) joined #forth 07:10:21 --- quit: ecraven ("bbl") 07:15:24 --- quit: Raystm2 (Read error: 110 (Connection timed out)) 07:20:11 --- quit: Quartus_ (Read error: 104 (Connection reset by peer)) 08:37:22 --- join: Quartus_ (n=Quartus_@209.167.5.1) joined #forth 08:37:23 --- mode: ChanServ set +o Quartus_ 08:42:15 --- join: neceve (n=Clau@unaffiliated/neceve) joined #forth 08:48:29 --- join: crest_ (n=crest@p5489611C.dip.t-dialin.net) joined #forth 08:57:47 --- quit: Crest (Read error: 110 (Connection timed out)) 09:00:58 --- quit: Snoopy42 (Read error: 145 (Connection timed out)) 09:08:01 --- quit: Jenn5 (Remote closed the connection) 09:18:57 --- quit: crest_ ("Leaving") 09:36:17 * Ray_work is running... 09:36:23 See me running? 09:36:31 Man we are busy today. 09:48:12 --- nick: Raystm2- -> nanstm 10:11:46 busy? I just woke up lol 10:14:06 been playing with my new camera yesterday. 10:15:03 we had my grandfather's funeral 2:00 PM 10:15:32 --- join: Snoopy42 (i=snoopy_1@dslb-084-058-157-036.pools.arcor-ip.net) joined #forth 10:15:39 hi snoopy 10:19:18 hi, whats up? 10:20:44 oh, just waking up. 10:20:56 had my granpa's funeral yesterday 10:21:14 sorry to hear that 10:21:31 he had a long life. he was 96, and had cancer 10:22:10 wow, thats long indeed! 10:23:52 my grandmother survived him. She's 94 10:25:39 I guess you inherited some good genes then ;-) 10:30:11 --- quit: snowrichard (Remote closed the connection) 10:44:09 --- quit: Quartus_ (Read error: 104 (Connection reset by peer)) 12:01:01 --- join: arke_ (n=chris@pD9E07A32.dip.t-dialin.net) joined #forth 12:03:16 --- join: zpg (n=user@soup.linux.pwf.cam.ac.uk) joined #forth 12:17:38 --- quit: arke (Read error: 110 (Connection timed out)) 12:27:38 --- quit: Cheery ("Download Gaim: http://gaim.sourceforge.net/") 12:35:34 --- quit: zpg (Remote closed the connection) 12:50:38 --- nick: arke_ -> arke 12:51:49 --- join: snowrichard (n=richard@12.18.108.130) joined #forth 12:52:21 hi 13:00:43 --- join: Ray-work (n=Raystm2@199.227.227.26) joined #forth 13:01:04 hi 13:01:15 Hey there grub_booter. :) 13:01:21 What do you know good? 13:01:47 heh - just adjusting to life in the house with a second kid 13:02:38 almost a week old - he's got the hiccups right now 13:03:33 Man, they don't stay that old forever, unfortunately. 13:03:49 read about your loss above - you have my condolences 13:03:51 hiccups heh bet thats kinda cute. 13:03:55 loss? 13:04:05 ah - sorry - wrong guy 13:04:08 * Ray-work has forgotten about lossage. :) 13:04:10 okay cool. 13:04:14 np :-) 13:04:29 yeah - well, he had hiccups before he was out of the womb 13:04:42 was a regular thing 13:04:42 --- quit: Ray_work (Connection timed out) 13:06:34 just suffering lots of sleep deprivation at the moment - normal stuff i guess, but much less than with the first kid 13:06:59 so what's up with you? 13:15:10 real busy at work. :) 13:15:35 I wanna know where these people were in December. 13:15:41 :-) 13:16:36 i've got a month off 13:17:07 oh, maturnity leave? 13:17:21 must be nice to be in a company with benefits. 13:17:33 well, should say 'taking a month off' - not getting paid during it (such is the life of a contractor) 13:17:41 Ok. :) 13:17:48 paternity in my case :-) 13:17:48 contractor? builder? 13:17:52 hehe. :) 13:17:59 nope - software 13:18:05 grr 13:18:07 doh! ;) 13:18:11 :-) 13:18:28 hi tathi? whats got you frustrated? 13:19:25 my island detection code 13:20:20 but that's what I get for trying to write complicated stuff without testing it along the way 13:20:38 what's the context? 13:21:11 http://shootout.alioth.debian.org/gp4/benchmark.php?test=meteor&lang=all 13:21:21 well, http://www-128.ibm.com/developerworks/java/library/j-javaopt/ 13:22:56 ah - k 13:23:10 basically a flood-fill on a hexagonal grid 13:23:34 except I was trying to take some shortcuts because I only need a little bit of functionality 13:23:49 and apparently I took too many shortcuts, because it doesn't work :) 13:24:48 or...maybe I just can't tell the difference between LSHIFT and RSHIFT :) 13:26:17 heh 13:28:12 well, I did take too many shortcuts. But that was the bug which was driving me crazy. 13:33:04 --- quit: timlarson_ ("Leaving") 14:03:55 --- join: Quartus_ (n=Quartus_@209.167.5.1) joined #forth 14:03:56 --- mode: ChanServ set +o Quartus_ 14:19:39 --- quit: timlarson (Read error: 104 (Connection reset by peer)) 14:20:21 --- join: timlarson (n=timlarso@user-12l325b.cable.mindspring.com) joined #forth 14:20:42 --- quit: vatic ("*poof*") 14:32:06 --- join: cat_boilingpoint (n=gschuett@4.38.41.141) joined #forth 14:32:06 --- mode: ChanServ set +b *!*@4.38.41.* 14:32:06 --- part: cat_boilingpoint left #forth 14:49:06 --- join: slava (n=slava@CPE0080ad77a020-CM000e5cdfda14.cpe.net.cable.rogers.com) joined #forth 14:49:06 --- mode: ChanServ set +o slava 14:49:18 --- quit: Baughn ("Restarting") 14:49:46 --- join: Baughn (n=svein@195134062077.customer.alfanett.no) joined #forth 15:10:31 --- quit: Ray-work (Read error: 104 (Connection reset by peer)) 15:25:44 hey hey 15:27:23 hey 15:28:05 it's a werty-free day 15:28:21 --- quit: neceve (Read error: 104 (Connection reset by peer)) 15:28:40 --- join: neceve (n=Clau@unaffiliated/neceve) joined #forth 15:35:54 --- join: skas (n=sszukals@202-90-54-135.static.linearg.net) joined #forth 15:36:17 --- part: skas left #forth 15:37:03 --- join: arke_ (n=chris@pD9E06F19.dip.t-dialin.net) joined #forth 15:38:00 --- quit: jacereda (Read error: 110 (Connection timed out)) 15:42:43 --- quit: virl ("Verlassend") 15:44:49 blist 15:46:05 blister 15:48:00 blistered. 15:48:06 oops 15:48:13 blistest 15:48:25 --- nick: nanstm -> Raystm2 15:48:42 blistex 15:49:32 Daughter says 15:49:44 "You guys are nerds." 15:49:47 gavino just doesn't give up, does he? 15:49:54 c.l.f? 15:50:01 here. 15:50:03 or trying to get in here 15:50:05 ya. 15:50:10 Little toad keeps joining the channel. 15:50:21 I believe Neal has his number, literally. 15:50:26 ha. 15:50:39 He's burned his bridges. 15:50:57 That's not a pun, right 15:50:58 ? 15:51:10 If you like, but true nonetheless. 15:51:30 This time he didn't send me a message with a ? in it. 15:51:35 Perhaps he's getting the hint. 15:53:42 I think, I may be wrong, I've been wrong before... but I think i'm the only tolerated troll around these parts. It's cuz I keep the troll-dom down to a minimum being that i'm a minimalist. 15:54:17 and I never get in the way of a real conversation. 15:54:18 You'd have to work at it far more to get to the level of the trolls we do tolerate here. 15:54:34 cool. elbow room. 15:55:00 For instance, pick an emotional state, preferably negative, and wheel it out anytime you can, or just when the channel is quiet. 15:55:17 Or have a trigger word (or words) that sets you off on a wild rant. 15:55:35 I take pills for that. 15:55:41 Would that everyone did. :) 15:55:52 I don't have enough to share ... 15:56:40 --- quit: arke (Read error: 110 (Connection timed out)) 15:57:02 The worst part of it all is when people find out, or I tell them about it. They tend to say, "I knew there was something wrong with you!" or "Ya, man, I like you much better now." hehe 15:57:15 he 15:58:58 Today was the busiest day I've had at Casters of Forth Wort in the 2-3 years i've been back. From the moment the door opened, till I locked it and left. 15:59:11 Builds character. 16:00:37 anybody clearer than me on the GPL? 16:00:45 I've read it several times 16:01:08 What's cloudy? 16:01:10 and I don't get the deal with libraries 16:01:19 why it's a problem sometimes that a library is GPL 16:01:39 I wrote a bunch of handy little PHP scripts 16:01:51 bundled them together, called it wfpl, and released under the GNU GPL 16:01:57 If a library is GPL, then programs that use it include it as they run. 16:02:18 so? 16:02:26 So thus the programs must also be under the GPL. 16:02:28 that makes them derivative works? 16:02:33 why? 16:02:46 It's what the license demands. 16:03:04 I've heard that, but I can't find any part of the license that says that 16:03:12 It's supposed to put pressure on users so that they'll make free software. 16:03:23 someone else writes a program that calls some functions defined in my GPL lib 16:03:24 http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#TOCIfLibraryIsGPL 16:03:24 the bit about anything distributed with it in a way that is at most a mere aggregation 16:05:55 says: Yes, because the program as it is actually run includes the library. 16:06:05 right. 16:06:26 I don't see what that's got to do with it 16:06:43 --- join: Jenn5 (i=UNXI@74-132-206-111.dhcp.insightbb.com) joined #forth 16:06:53 Is it that you don't understand their logic in so saying, or that you don't think the answer is relevant to your situatin? 16:07:11 I don't understand their logic 16:07:15 Isn't there like a lesser licence that covers your situation, JasonWoof? 16:07:54 I guess I feel like your program relies on an API. my GPL lib implements that API. 16:07:56 Well, when you run a program that uses a GPL'd library, the library code is effectively part of the program when it runs, and so the license requires that the caller of the library also be under GPL. 16:08:26 but... the API could just as easily be implemented by a non-gpl library 16:08:37 so it is not required to run your program 16:08:40 therefor not part of it 16:08:45 In which case you would be subject to the conditions of that library instead. 16:09:47 I don't think so 16:10:02 --- join: madgarden (n=madgarde@bas2-kitchener06-1096668571.dsl.bell.ca) joined #forth 16:10:06 What is it you don't think? 16:10:14 here's an example: I write this code: : foo bar baz ; 16:10:38 now, just because there's a GPLed implementation of bar and baz out there that my work happens to be compatible with 16:10:43 Have a look at this: http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#IfInterpreterIsGPL 16:10:47 doesn't mean I have to release my work (abov) under the GPL 16:11:34 JasonWoof: LGPL doesn't cover your situation? 16:12:01 And what about PD? 16:12:02 Raystm2: I believe that LGPL is designed to allow libraries to be linked to. I'm just trying to understand _how_ GPL doesn't allow this 16:12:14 It doesn't allow it by simply stating that it doesn't allow it. 16:12:47 Ask me, it's to force the GPL on any software it can. 16:12:48 ok, but I don't understand where in the license it states this 16:13:39 Which version of the GPL are you seeking it in? 16:13:45 2 16:14:28 "This General Public License does not permit incorporating your program into proprietary programs." 16:17:02 ok, here's my GPL library: : bar ." bar" ; : baz ." baz" ; 16:17:06 it's available on my website 16:17:42 JoeS releases this under some other license, and distributes it on his site: : foo bar baz ; 16:17:56 I don't see a problem with this 16:17:59 lost me with the JoeS thing 16:18:10 he's some other guy 16:18:15 he wrote : foo bar baz ; 16:18:15 who does what, exactly? 16:18:27 this is hypathetical 16:18:46 ok. If his code depends on your GPL'd code, he's in violation of your license. If you don't care about that, LGPL is probably what you want. 16:18:54 now Mary downloads my code, and JoeS's code and runs them together, on her webserver 16:19:12 it doesn't depend on my code, just on the API 16:19:37 which could be implemented by any library that implements the same API 16:20:27 http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#IfInterpreterIsGPL is relevant. 16:20:33 ok 16:23:43 yeah, that's very clear about what you're allowed to do and such. I just don't understand why. I don't see anywhere in the license that says that 16:23:54 "This General Public License does not permit incorporating your program into proprietary programs." 16:24:05 calling a function that is defined in another file is not incorporating that file into your program 16:24:19 especially when your source code doesn't even specify what file the function is defined in 16:24:20 It is, as at run-time, the GPL'd library code is part of the running program. 16:24:35 the gpl is geared to staatic languages 16:24:46 who cares what happens at runtime? 16:24:50 The GPL people do. 16:24:58 I thought the gpl says you can do what you like with it on your own computer 16:25:14 It doesn't. It's a rather restrictive license geared toward furthering the free software movement. 16:27:48 from section 0: 16:27:49 Activities other than copying, distribution and modification are not 16:27:49 covered by this License; they are outside its scope. The act of 16:27:52 running the Program is not restricted 16:27:56 [...] 16:28:24 the gpl assumes the developer does the linking, not the user 16:28:29 so its very ambiguous when it comes to runtime linking 16:28:33 The act of running the specific program under license is not restricted. The act of incorporating into proprietary software is restricted. 16:30:09 crc has weighed this problem before and I believe he went totally PD. 16:30:40 right. and to me saying in your proprietary code "go download something that implements the wfpl API, eg wfpl... " is not incorporating wfpl. 16:30:42 What's the QuartusForth licence? 16:30:44 i chose the bsd license for factor, for the same resaon 16:30:45 If you don't care, and don't want to convert others to the Church of Software Must Be Free, give it away. 16:30:53 Raystm2, Quartus Forth has its own license. 16:30:56 It's in the manual. 16:31:03 quartus forth is proprietary 16:31:44 * Raystm2 knew that was the answer. 16:32:13 * Raystm2 just checking out what tathi has been contending with. 16:32:24 I can't see how this would be a "derivative work" or "incorperating the program" 16:32:32 s/program/work/ 16:32:33 remember what I said about the GPL, and C 16:33:00 back when the GPL was invented, pot used to cost 5 dollars per pound, and C only supported static linking on most platforms. 16:33:07 put the two together, and you get the GPL. 16:33:19 lid 16:33:25 I remember lids 16:34:00 JasonWoof, you don't choose GPL because you're hoping to make someone's life easier. You choose it because Software Must Be Free. 16:34:11 If you don't want it, don't use it, but that's what it's for. 16:34:53 well, it's just a matter of what you think would benifit society more 16:34:53 Don't rely on gray areas or perceived loopholes; just choose a license more applicable to your purposes. 16:35:11 most software doesn't benefit society at all, regradless of license. 16:35:18 hehe 16:35:24 i have no illusions that anything i've ever done has benefited society at large. 16:35:24 heh 16:35:28 werty probably thinks he has. 16:35:47 The whole notion of the seventeen-thousandth MP3 player on SourceForge carefully being placed under GPL for the benefit of the commonweal is just ridiculous, really. 16:35:53 slava Here! Here! 16:36:31 Quartus: or the whole thing about 'evil corporations' stealing your code 16:36:37 Indeed. 16:36:39 i used to care about that, when i was 14. 16:37:19 If it's good, or central software, it will get re-engineered anyway... 16:38:33 * Raystm2 opens the QuartusForth manual. 16:39:00 Licenses in general are a kind of voodoo incantation. 16:39:23 the simpler your license, the more people benefit from your software, really. 16:39:33 You hope to weave a certain spell of protection around your software. They do nothing to prevent transgression, of course, but you have potential recourse under the law. 16:40:00 Only if you have the valuta to proceed. 16:40:41 A license is a line in the sand; you're saying that you'll fight if it gets stepped over. Or that you might, anyway. 16:47:57 Quartus: Your licence makes sense to me. 16:48:20 Good to hear. :) 16:49:45 I can pretty much do as I wish with it so long as I don't do anything to what you did to it, AND i can't just give your work away with out your permission... is pretty much what I got out of it. 16:49:56 Give or take. 16:50:12 You can't change it to Raystm2 Forth, for instance, and claim it's yours. 16:50:31 * Raystm2 cancels the website. 16:50:39 :) 16:52:23 hi 16:52:37 plus if it stains your carpet, it's not my fault. That sort of thing. 16:56:18 hi snowrichard: sorry to read about your grandfather. 16:57:27 * JasonWoof thinks and thinks 16:57:32 I do think that all software should be free 16:57:45 question is, what's my attitude towards people who are writing non-free software 16:58:06 should it be "sure, go ahead, but if you won't share with me, I won't share with you (GPL accomplishes this nicely.)" 16:58:35 lez a faire. 16:58:47 and hoping that it encourages people to go GPL ("hey, if you're willing to release your work under GPL you can use all this nice code. yum!") 16:59:05 What ever the traffic will bear. 17:00:27 Frankly, I don't see any licence stopping any individual or company from doing as they please anyway. ( maybe shouldn't say this too loud with Neal in the room) 17:00:57 the FSF has enforced their license several times 17:01:00 When it's time to sell, it won't look anything like previously liecened code. 17:01:14 licenced even. 17:02:22 AND you'd only ever sue a M$ anyway so... 17:03:07 Raystm2: ahh... interesting story, but that's not the way it's been happening 17:03:35 JasonWoof: ahh... okay, point me in a new direction, please. :) 17:03:49 I have given away quite a lot of sofware. Nothing GPL'd, as I don't care to force a particular political view on anyone else. If you don't want to buy my proprietary software, that's fine; don't use it. 17:04:11 several companies have gotten caught using large portions of GPL code (like bash) without providing the source 17:04:25 and have been contacted by the FSF Lawyer Molgen 17:04:49 Lazy. 17:04:59 They deserve every bit of what they get. 17:06:32 I don't have the same real world problems. Stuff I see has been in production ( some for many, many hundreds of years) that you wanna knock off a dollie -- have at it. 17:06:47 doh! see should read sell. 17:08:34 If the wheel isn't the first invention, it's damn close. 17:09:34 Moglen 17:09:41 ? 17:09:47 * Raystm2 googles 17:10:02 his name is Eben Moglen, not Molgen 17:10:11 Eben ya. 17:11:30 oops, thanks for the correction 17:13:55 The people popped by Eben Moglen are lazy if you ask me. I haven't seen your code yet JasonWoof, but I'm assuming that the way you are approaching the problem it solves is not the only what to implement the solution. Like i've said, I've been wrong before. 17:16:18 But if I do start with your code, then build it into something completely different, achieveing the same solution, who is to know? 17:17:11 The laziness appears in the "completely different" phrase. 17:39:41 I have no problem with proprietary software, nor did I before I started selling it. 17:39:49 sure, you could make it different 17:40:06 but why bother? why not just write your own, or find something that is in a license where you don't have to hide it 17:40:14 the time saved is usually not worth the added liability 17:40:25 I have no problem with people being paid for writing, either, or painting, or drafting, or what-have-you. 17:40:28 managers don't want to be responsible for choosing the more actionable route 17:41:09 Oh, I'm totally into being paid to write code 17:41:15 I get paid to write code a lot 17:41:38 cool my shift key makes delete backspace. 17:41:41 So. Your political stance is bendy. :) 17:41:53 but I see no _nice_ reason why other people shouldn't be allowed to use the code I write too 17:42:03 Well, it's not up to you. It's up to your patron. 17:42:35 they pay me to make them a website 17:42:44 I do that 17:42:55 along the way I write some nice code snippets that I share with the world 17:43:29 That's marvellous. Therefore you can eat, and still feel that you're Setting Software Free. 17:43:40 setting? 17:43:44 oh 17:43:55 yeah, I think it works nicely 17:43:56 The capitals are significant. :) 17:44:46 JasonWoof, have you ever worked for someone who considers what you create belonging to them for their money? 17:45:00 It's a spendid thing to proclaim that all software should be free, typing furiously into UseNet just before Mom calls you for dinner. There's nothing wrong with selling software, either, though. 17:45:07 Or, would you, even? 17:45:38 If one's bills are being paid in some other way, I think the most any person can reasonably proclaim is that their *own* sofware should Be Free. 17:45:51 Raystm2: sure, presumably all my customers figure they own their site 17:45:57 Raystm2: the files and all that 17:46:27 Raystm2: but just because I installed a copy of some file in their site doesn't mean they are the only people on earth that get to use that file 17:46:37 that copy is theirs 17:46:56 I'm not talking about a copy. 17:47:08 Copyright. 17:47:53 I've never had a customer tell me that they didn't want me using functions I wrote during the process of getting their site working in other projects 17:48:08 i've worked on projects where i had to sign NDAs 17:48:11 that would be stupid 17:48:13 Because they don't perceive website design as software development, and they don't actually care. 17:48:26 POINT Quartus! yeah. 17:48:32 and they are nice people 17:48:32 that's where i'm heading. 17:48:38 rigth that too. 17:48:51 nice means much. 17:48:59 Bits of PHP written to make a website go 'bing' aren't the sort of thing that sell well at any rate. 17:49:22 So, the question have you ever? no. Would you? 17:49:55 if someone says to me "you can't use anything you wrote for my project on anything else" then I'll say "OK, I'll grant you a non-GPL license to my library code for $10,000" 17:50:16 :) 17:50:20 sweet. 17:50:32 JasonWoof: often code you write becomes the property of your employer, not you 17:50:56 slava: yeah, I know, I'm careful to keep it seperate 17:51:11 I was about to say... If'n you worked for me, everything you do on my dime is mine. 17:51:15 it's a little fudgy I guess 17:51:15 On the other hand, if your customer's laywers knew you were using GPL'd code to support their website, and that thus the code of their website was also constrained by the GPL (with the concomitant requirements for source availability, etc.), they might have an issue. 17:51:47 true 17:51:53 if I thought they cared, I'd talk to them about it. 17:52:03 sign a piece of paper or something 17:52:05 but it's a total non-issue 17:52:30 I should probably go LGPL with this though 17:52:33 So it's not that they understand the issue, agree with your politics and goals, and are thus 'nice'; it's that they're completely unaware, and would have to have it carefully explained to them before they could even have an opinion. 17:52:38 because I really don't think you should have to be GPL to call my functions 17:53:03 Heck, does that mean... I'm using an Apache server, the pages have JasonWoof's well executed GPL'd coded website that runs the proprietary web ap. The ap suddently must be GPL'd? 17:53:58 Raystm2, I lost track of your referents in there. What do you think would require GPLing? 17:54:16 * Raystm2 thinks faster then he types... 17:55:07 I have a proprietary ap. I hire Jason to build a website to host the ap. He uses some GPL code in there somewhere. 17:55:14 Quartus: they are just kind, level-headed folks. I don't think their entire sites should have to be GPL, I guess I need to change the license to LGPL 17:55:31 one of my clients has phpbb on their site 17:55:33 that's GPL 17:55:35 no problem their 17:55:38 JasonWoof, the implication is that if I were to write (or hire to be written) code that I don't wish to GPL, that I'm not nice. 17:55:43 he had me fix something in phpBB 17:55:50 he's paying me, and it's clearly GPL 17:56:11 Raystm2, if the GPL'd code is part of the app, then the app would need to be GPL under the terms of the license. 17:56:32 I don't see how that's so different from a client paying me to improve a code library I use 17:58:22 * Raystm2 nods* 17:58:55 But you can fork or exec GPL'd code without incurring the wrath of the Aztec Hippies. 17:59:18 Quartus: I can see how it could look that way, but what I mean is more like: it's not nice to say "please make me a site" and not mention that I am expressly dissalowed to use anything I write during the writing of your site for any other purpose. 17:59:37 I pick up my guitar and play/ just like yesterday/ and I get on my knees and pray / we don't get fooled again NO! No! 18:00:04 JasonWoof, fair enough. I just bristle at the notion that I'm branded 'not nice' or 'not level-headed' because I choose to occasionally decide for myself how my money is spent or earned. 18:00:42 I can't seem to get accross that I have no intentions of forcing the site-specific code in websites I make to be GPL 18:00:47 that's not my intention 18:00:59 and I still don't believe that the GPL says that it does this 18:01:12 but that's what the FSF says the GPL does, so that's enough to scare people 18:01:24 and therefore I should use LGPL which is more explicit about allowing this 18:01:29 It really does, though. Intent is huge; the FAQ makes it clear even if the legalese of the document is less than transparent to a layman. 18:01:59 If your intent differs, it's not the license for you. 18:02:30 I think you'd have a pretty damn hard time convincing a judge that calling a function by name that is defined in a different file makes your work a derivative of that other file, or that it incorperates that other file 18:03:05 right, it's my intention that you can use this library in your site, without your site being GPL 18:03:17 It's easy to illustrate that it incorporates the library code at runtime, and that the library code is deliberately licensed with GPL, which has the intent of prohibiting what you're doing. 18:03:34 no 18:03:38 the GPL is about distributing 18:03:48 that's the thing with the websites too 18:03:55 my customers aren't distributing my library 18:04:05 Well, you can disagree with it all you wish, but it's written in the license, and it's written in plain english in the FAQ. 18:04:11 the license grants them the right to execute it how they like 18:04:59 Sure, they can execute it like mad. Just not as part of another application. 18:05:14 in that case, you can have yourself a rider that will execute the thing the way YOU want when you are working on other peoples code, if you can get them to sign it. 18:05:22 It's written in plain english in the FAQ. It also says quite clearly that it would be up to a judge to decide what constitunes "incorperated" or "work based on" 18:06:58 If your client is ok with "might be a problem, might not, let's see what a judge says", then go for it. 18:07:23 from the faq: 18:07:26 What constitutes combining two parts into one program? This is a legal question, which ultimately judges will decide. We 18:07:29 believe that a proper criterion depends both on the mechanism of communication (exec, pipes, rpc, function calls within a 18:07:32 shared address space, etc.) and the semantics of the communication (what kinds of information are interchanged). 18:07:59 Yes, and they leave things like interpreters with a lot of room to breathe. 18:08:09 Which probably covers your ground as regards PHP and other toy web-dealies. 18:09:22 But maybe not, as regards applications that use library code. Certainly not if the intent of the license authors is to be respected; probably not if it's a matter for a judge, but maybe you'd squeak through. 18:11:48 ok, so I'll probably switch it to LGPL 18:11:53 lets figure I did that already 18:11:58 Somehow I doubt your clients want to become test cases. :) 18:11:58 how should I handle my customers? 18:13:04 I'm not as familiar with the restrictions of the LGPL. I understand there's less hippie in it. 18:13:06 should I sit down and talk about licenses if they don't bring it up? 18:13:35 If you have to paint them into a license corner, I'd talk to them. 18:13:37 Otherwise, no. 18:14:07 say stuff like "I can make your site way faster and cheaper if I can use some existing code that's LGPL, but that does come with some restrictions if you ever want to distribute modified versions of that code" 18:14:35 Maybe put in your contract that you retain copyright over the code you write. 18:14:44 right 18:15:00 if I ever have a contract, that should be in there 18:15:13 Which is quite reasonable, really. If you decide to then release your code under some license, it's yours to do so. 18:15:23 that they get a copy of whatever I write for them, and they can do as they wish with it, but it's not an exclusive. 18:15:28 I can also do what I want with it. 18:16:10 Which is all nicely covered when you say you retain copyright. 18:16:15 when I make an html document for somebody, it's theirs exclusively 18:16:27 That's work-for-hire, as I think they call it in the US. 18:16:28 I'm not going to publish it or anything unless they pay me to 18:17:21 A lot of places push for work-for-hire, which as I recall entails ownership. 18:17:26 Of work product. 18:17:32 but when someone asks me to add some functionality to their site, I assume that they don't think they are going to be the only one in the world with that functionality working exactly that way 18:18:08 right. If I had any suspicion that my client figures he has exclusive ownership of the code I write I'd talk about it. 18:18:21 Well, that's what contracts are for. You outline that the work you're being hired for does not include giving them exclusive rights to the code. 18:18:23 we'd work it out. 18:18:31