License question

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
26 messages Options
12
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

License question

GoSim
I have created a block diagram environment program that creates a script and
run Octave. I am done with my ideas and am looking at licenses. Basically
depending on the success of my program I would at least like to have the
possibility to sell commercial versions of it targeting certain industries
with sensor connections/sensor blocks. It's not my plan, but I would like
the possibility.

So my question is, do you have an issue with this? I am thinking of the MIT
license. Assume that GoSim grows and commercial licenses are created. GoSim
runs Matlab code with Octave. Is this something you would accept? This GoSim
variant would be a standalone program and not a package.



--
Sent from: http://octave.1599824.n4.nabble.com/Octave-Maintainers-f1638794.html

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: License question

siko1056
On Wed, Apr 3, 2019 at 7:07 AM GoSim <[hidden email]> wrote:
I have created a block diagram environment program that creates a script and
run Octave. I am done with my ideas and am looking at licenses. Basically
depending on the success of my program I would at least like to have the
possibility to sell commercial versions of it targeting certain industries
with sensor connections/sensor blocks. It's not my plan, but I would like
the possibility.

So my question is, do you have an issue with this? I am thinking of the MIT
license. Assume that GoSim grows and commercial licenses are created. GoSim
runs Matlab code with Octave. Is this something you would accept? This GoSim
variant would be a standalone program and not a package.


Octave or the GPL are in general not against earning money ;-)  Did you already take a look at these pages?


and


Best,
Kai
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: License question

GoSim
Thanks for the links, I am learning about this open source thing.....



--
Sent from: http://octave.1599824.n4.nabble.com/Octave-Maintainers-f1638794.html

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: License question

Mike Miller-4
In reply to this post by GoSim
On Tue, Apr 02, 2019 at 17:06:48 -0500, GoSim wrote:

> I have created a block diagram environment program that creates a script and
> run Octave. I am done with my ideas and am looking at licenses. Basically
> depending on the success of my program I would at least like to have the
> possibility to sell commercial versions of it targeting certain industries
> with sensor connections/sensor blocks. It's not my plan, but I would like
> the possibility.
>
> So my question is, do you have an issue with this? I am thinking of the MIT
> license. Assume that GoSim grows and commercial licenses are created. GoSim
> runs Matlab code with Octave. Is this something you would accept? This GoSim
> variant would be a standalone program and not a package.

Can you clarify, does your program run on its own and create m-files
that the user then runs in Octave? Can your program run on a system that
does not have Octave installed? Or does your program directly invoke
Octave as a subprocess? Or does your program run Octave as an embedded
intepreter as part of its normal operation? How tightly coupled is your
approach with the Octave program and/or libraries?

In addition to Kai's links, you can also have a look at

  https://www.octave.org/license.html

Thanks,

--
mike

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: License question

nrjank

  https://www.octave.org/license.html


In particular, since you mentioned you are just learning about this Free Open Source Software thing, and you are interested in commercialization of your software, I strongly recommend you look at the link on that page to the description of the GNU General Public License [1], and especially the FAQ [2] which should be able to answer many of the basic questions of what using GPL software does and doesn't permit. 

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: License question

GoSim
In reply to this post by Mike Miller-4
The program runs on its own and creates m-files that the program then runs in
Octave.

The program can run on a system that does not have Octave installed. But it
can not simulate. Everything else works.

The program only invokes Octave as a subprocess when a simulation is being
made. When the simulation is ended/interrupted this process is ended/killed.

GoSim does not run Octave as an embedded intepreter as part of its normal
operation. Octave is only run when the "simulation" button is pressed and
there is communication between the programs through the process stream (from
Octave to GoSim) and file writing/reading (from GoSim to Octave). Socket
communication will probably be added for new blocks.
The blocks have a dialogue that most of the time are strings, sometimes
other things for GoSim. These strings are parameters of the different blocks
and are basically m-code and put in the script. There is no interpreter
active at all when the blocks parameters are filled in. When the simulation
is run if there is an error Octave will tell just like to a normal user. The
script is viewable in GoSim and the line numbers are written so the error
can be found. Error messages that Octave gives is displayed in GoSim's
console.
When a simulation is run whatever Octave prints in its console is available
in GoSim and used for different things.

>How tightly coupled is your approach with the Octave program and/or
libraries?
A m-file is created and run. Nothing more. The packages like the control
package, optim, symbolic and signal packages are used in some blocks. If
this is what you mean by libraries, yes they are used just like a normal
user would. If libraries refers to deeper parts in your source code, no they
are not used. I haven't even seen your source code :-)


In all texts in GoSim it is crystal clear that Octave is the math engine.





--
Sent from: http://octave.1599824.n4.nabble.com/Octave-Maintainers-f1638794.html

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: License question

GoSim
In reply to this post by nrjank
Thanks for links again, I will look at them. The best license I have found so
far is GPL with sole copyright holder. This is the model that Qt uses and I
like it.



--
Sent from: http://octave.1599824.n4.nabble.com/Octave-Maintainers-f1638794.html

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: License question

Colin Macdonald-2
On 2019-04-03 10:33 a.m., GoSim wrote:
> Thanks for links again, I will look at them. The best license I have found so
> far is GPL with sole copyright holder. This is the model that Qt uses and I
> like it.

I agree that GPLv3+ with sole copyright holder offers the easiest route
to brokering side deals (e.g., under an alternative license.)

There is one downside: potential contributors may well be put-off by
having to assign copyright, especially given the purpose of doing so.
So it may be harder to grow a community around your project (compared to
GPLv3+ w/o assignment).

I have no data about how much this matters in practice.  I suspect
GPLv3+ w/o assignment would be fine.  Getting major contributors onboard
to a commercial opportunity later might sounds like it could be
complicated but probably isn't too hard in practice.  Again, no data,
just my feelings.

best,
Colin

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: License question

GoSim
I don't understand what you mean with "Getting major contributors onboard
to a commercial opportunity later might sounds like it could be
complicated but probably isn't too hard in practice."

Do you mean for services? If it is released as pure GPL from my
understanding you can't ever commercialize it.

Anyway, you are right about the other things you wrote. But I think it is
the most fair to me that created the software. I will promise that their
code will always be GPL. For the open source people there will be a block
diagram environment completely free and open source and if I want to I can
add some industrial sensor features and charge money for it. Simulink is
actually more expensive than Matlab which is kind of surprising but probably
reflects the demand.



--
Sent from: http://octave.1599824.n4.nabble.com/Octave-Maintainers-f1638794.html

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: License question

Jordi Gutiérrez Hermoso-2
On Wed, 2019-04-03 at 16:08 -0500, GoSim wrote:
> Do you mean for services? If it is released as pure GPL from my
> understanding you can't ever commercialize it. 

This isn't true. You can still the software even if it's GPL. Red Hat
sells GPL software. You want access to their repos full of GPL
software, you have to pay.

What you need copyright assignments for is for selling GPL exceptions.
Some people want to use your software to make non-free software, then
they have to pay to get the software under a non-copyleft license.
This is for example how fftw works: Octave gets fftw under the GPL and
the Mathworks paid for a GPL exception so they can use fftw without
having to release their source.

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: License question

GoSim
Why would anybody use red hat then when ubuntu is free?

I wasn't aware of the GPL exception model but it is interesting, it still
requires a sole copyright holder though. Forcing people to assign the
copyright to me feels kind of bad, shared copyright would be better if it
exists (?) and gave the same opportunity. It's the most fair model for the
creator though.

My main motivation is not money, but I want to at least have the
possibility.

Control toolbox and system identification toolbox will be created by me.
They are free. My gift to all control engineers out there. I guess I could
charge money for them, System ID is expensive from mathworks but I only use
free software myself so I want to give back. Only sensor connectors for
certain industries is my idea to charge money for if the opportunity would
arise.



--
Sent from: http://octave.1599824.n4.nabble.com/Octave-Maintainers-f1638794.html

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: License question

Doug Stewart-4


On Wed, Apr 10, 2019 at 7:23 AM GoSim <[hidden email]> wrote:
Why would anybody use red hat then when ubuntu is free?

I wasn't aware of the GPL exception model but it is interesting, it still
requires a sole copyright holder though. Forcing people to assign the
copyright to me feels kind of bad, shared copyright would be better if it
exists (?) and gave the same opportunity. It's the most fair model for the
creator though.

My main motivation is not money, but I want to at least have the
possibility.

Control toolbox and system identification toolbox will be created by me.
They are free. My gift to all control engineers out there.
We have a control package ---What do you mean by control toolbox? 


 
I guess I could
charge money for them, System ID is expensive from mathworks but I only use
free software myself so I want to give back. Only sensor connectors for
certain industries is my idea to charge money for if the opportunity would
arise.



--
Sent from: http://octave.1599824.n4.nabble.com/Octave-Maintainers-f1638794.html



--
DASCertificate for 206392

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: License question

Susi Lehtola
In reply to this post by GoSim
On 4/10/19 2:23 PM, GoSim wrote:
> Why would anybody use red hat then when ubuntu is free?

Red Hat actually also releases the source rpms, and supports the free
community operating system CentOS, which is identical to Red Hat
Enterprise. Red Hat are also heavily investing in Fedora, which is
completely free.

Also Ubuntu has commercial support, and non-free components. See
https://www.ubuntu.com/support

--
Susi Lehtola
Fedora Project Contributor
[hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: License question

nrjank
In reply to this post by GoSim


On Wed, Apr 10, 2019 at 7:23 AM GoSim <[hidden email]> wrote:
Why would anybody use red hat then when ubuntu is free?


because companies are willing to pay for an enterprise product with a known commercial entity for contracted support and development
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: License question

nrjank


On Wed, Apr 10, 2019 at 9:59 AM Nicholas Jankowski <[hidden email]> wrote:


On Wed, Apr 10, 2019 at 7:23 AM GoSim <[hidden email]> wrote:
Why would anybody use red hat then when ubuntu is free?


because companies are willing to pay for an enterprise product with a known commercial entity for contracted support and development

Or, put better than I can:
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: License question

GoSim
In reply to this post by Doug Stewart-4
See the pic, a blockset of control related blocks. I'm taking a break from
GoSim now but so far several SISO controllers have been implemented. MIMO's
will be implemented when I feel like it. The implementation is very similar.
Maybe I will add adaptive algorithms also, and ultimately I will add all
control algorithms that are useful.
I recently saw that the control package has a function that auto-sets
parameters to a PID controller, maybe I could create a block with that.
Control toolbox in GoSim will maybe change name to Automatic Control.


<http://octave.1599824.n4.nabble.com/file/t373066/control.png>



--
Sent from: http://octave.1599824.n4.nabble.com/Octave-Maintainers-f1638794.html

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: License question

Doug Stewart-4


On Wed, Apr 10, 2019 at 10:13 AM GoSim <[hidden email]> wrote:
See the pic, a blockset of control related blocks. I'm taking a break from
GoSim now but so far several SISO controllers have been implemented. MIMO's
will be implemented when I feel like it. The implementation is very similar.
Maybe I will add adaptive algorithms also, and ultimately I will add all
control algorithms that are useful.
I recently saw that the control package has a function that auto-sets
parameters to a PID controller, maybe I could create a block with that.
Control toolbox in GoSim will maybe change name to Automatic Control.


<http://octave.1599824.n4.nabble.com/file/t373066/control.png>



--
Sent from: http://octave.1599824.n4.nabble.com/Octave-Maintainers-f1638794.html


Where can I get gosim  to try it ?


--
DASCertificate for 206392

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: License question

GoSim
GoSim.zip <http://octave.1599824.n4.nabble.com/file/t373066/GoSim.zip>  

java -jar gosim.jar

in the directory where the file is

info section is not up to date.



--
Sent from: http://octave.1599824.n4.nabble.com/Octave-Maintainers-f1638794.html

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: License question

nrjank
On Wed, Apr 10, 2019 at 12:10 PM GoSim <[hidden email]> wrote:
GoSim.zip <http://octave.1599824.n4.nabble.com/file/t373066/GoSim.zip

java -jar gosim.jar

in the directory where the file is

info section is not up to date.


what are you recommending we do with this?   I see no documentation, license terms, readme file, etc, etc.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: License question

GoSim
it's not open source, do you accept it as non open source? I thought you
didn't accept that.

My recommendation is that you try it, give some feedback. Simulating only
works on Linux.

I would like GoSim to be a package in Octave. If you accept not open source
it will be faster for me to release, otherwise I will make it open source
with the AGPLv3 license and me as sole copyright holder soon. I have to
learn about github first and also i'm taking a break from coding this
project.

Please let me know what your conditions are. For me it is much easier to
start as non open source as I have no experience with that.

My preference: start as not open source and only for Linux 64 bit.





--
Sent from: http://octave.1599824.n4.nabble.com/Octave-Maintainers-f1638794.html

12