Digg this topic Add to my del.icio.us Submit to SlashDot  
Reply to this topicStart new topic
> Winbuilder Licensing
rt10k
post Sep 30 2007, 04:35 AM
Post #1


Member
**

Group: Members
Posts: 11
Joined: 23-September 07
From: Livermore, CA, USA
Member No.: 10,782


United States


Is there any good reason why WinBuilder.exe isn't open source?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Nuno Brito
post Sep 30 2007, 11:54 AM
Post #2


Advanced Member
***

Group: .script developer
Posts: 4,153
Joined: 13-July 06
From: Azores
Member No.: 1


Portugal


Why should it be open source? (IMG:../forums/style_emoticons/default/huh.gif)

It's quite demotivating to have so much effort applied on a free WinBuilder.exe and see others recompiling the code with commercial intentions or unethical behaviors - not mentioning the confusions from forks and branches with different "tastes" this would only bring more confusion and wasted time to get things done.

Not wanting to get off topic - I'm quite a big fan of open source code - as you might notice from my previous works which all have their code available.

I guess that there are a few good members at the moment that could support wb codings which would be up for this task.

Being wb the exception to the previous open source releases - When I cannot spend any more time working on wb then I hope it becomes time for some trusted member to come into place and continue this quest with the same non-profitable policy to keep wb's spirit alive and well.

This behavior doesn't include wb related projects or scripts since each author has a valid word about their own work and personal perspective - it's applied to winbuilder.exe

(IMG:../forums/style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)



Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
rt10k
post Sep 30 2007, 04:29 PM
Post #3


Member
**

Group: Members
Posts: 11
Joined: 23-September 07
From: Livermore, CA, USA
Member No.: 10,782


United States


Software Evolution
I think coders tend to:
* Love supporting the creation and evolution of things they like (If you can improve on a piece of software you like: Why not do it?)
* Only reinvent the wheel when they feel like they have to (Why create another project if there's a good option already available?)
* Support others' efforts to help evolve their software in ways they like (Bart helped you with WinBuilder, didn't he?)
* Understand that you can't sell something you can easily get for free, or which is the property of others

BartPE existed: You made WinBuilder
WinBuilder existed: h7se made H7PluginBuilder

Why would h7se make H7PluginBuilder a seperate project unless WinBuilder was closed source?

By being closed source, what any given person percieves as shortcomings in WinBuilder's functionality are forced into being covered up with the use of seperate programs. That makes the software less intuitive to use, and more of a nightmare to change some things in the main app without breaking compatibility with other peoples' software which is based upon it.

When coders see software, then set out to improve upon it, they're evolving that software.
If software is closed source: That evolution will likely occur outside of the original software
If software is open source: That evolution will likely occur inside of the original software, and potentially outside as well. And, even when it occurs outside: If the evolved software is open source as well, the benefits of that evolution can come back to the original software as well

Commercialization of your work
I think most people:
* Know you can't sell somebody else's work without either getting their consent or running into major problems
* Are either uninterested in doing anything but using others' work, dumb enough to disrespect others' work, or skilled enough to improve upon others' work and smart enough to acknowledge the previous item in this list
* Are either aware of how to find free versions of software, or know somebody who knows

I've never heard of open source software being sold, and causing problems.
I think the potential benefits of evolution of this software, supported by it being open source, far outweigh the possibility of people taking advantage of it in stupid ways.

Personally
I would much rather support the evolution of WinBuilder than create my own project which is similar to it, because the aspects which I see it should improve upon are not major enough to warrant a seperate project. What I see needs change in WinBuilder is mostly in the details of implementation rather than major design failures.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
MedEvil
post Sep 30 2007, 05:07 PM
Post #4


Advanced Member
***

Group: .script developer
Posts: 1,257
Joined: 29-December 06
Member No.: 2,192



QUOTE(rt10k @ Sep 30 2007, 06:29 PM) *
WinBuilder existed: h7se made H7PluginBuilder

WB and the PluginBuilder have only the 'builder' part of the name in common.
They have nowhere near same goals.
Besides PB can't be part of WB as it was written in a different language and tries to support both the BartPE- as well as the WB system.

QUOTE(rt10k @ Sep 30 2007, 06:29 PM) *
I've never heard of open source software being sold, and causing problems.

(IMG:../forums/style_emoticons/default/laugh.gif) Then you must be real new to the game! (IMG:../forums/style_emoticons/default/wink.gif)

(IMG:../forums/style_emoticons/default/cheers.gif)
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
rt10k
post Sep 30 2007, 05:56 PM
Post #5


Member
**

Group: Members
Posts: 11
Joined: 23-September 07
From: Livermore, CA, USA
Member No.: 10,782


United States


QUOTE(MedEvil @ Sep 30 2007, 10:07 AM) *
WB and the PluginBuilder have only the 'builder' part of the name in common.
They have nowhere near same goals.
Besides PB can't be part of WB as it was written in a different language and tries to support both the BartPE- as well as the WB system.


(IMG:../forums/style_emoticons/default/laugh.gif) Then you must be real new to the game! (IMG:../forums/style_emoticons/default/wink.gif)

(IMG:../forums/style_emoticons/default/cheers.gif)


Surely, small portions of open source projects are put into use in commercial apps.
Significant amounts of other apps' unique functionality seems to be what is the point, though.

Can you name examples of stolen open source projects which were commercialized?
Did they succeed? Were they brutally castrated by hordes of angry coders?
You can't say "All Microsoft software", because that's about terribly effective intellectual property buying, not blatant theft of intellectual property.

And what sort of ratio is there of projects stolen and commercialized to ones not affected by thieves?
Is it better to not release source code, so people don't wrongfully profit from it, or to reap the benefits of having an endless supply of volunteers evolve a project?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Nuno Brito
post Sep 30 2007, 06:19 PM
Post #6


Advanced Member
***

Group: .script developer
Posts: 4,153
Joined: 13-July 06
From: Azores
Member No.: 1


Portugal


QUOTE(rt10k @ Sep 30 2007, 04:29 PM) *
...
* Support others' efforts to help evolve their software in ways they like (Bart helped you with WinBuilder, didn't he?)


Not.. Besides bart refusing to allow any of his work to be mixed/used inside any wb related projects - he also asked to stop discussing anything not directly related to bartPE software inside his forum (at the time this meant forget about batcher) (IMG:../forums/style_emoticons/default/dry.gif)

The only thing I can really thank bart is for not helping out and when the admin also declined to create a new space for discussing this "tabu" perspective of boot disks - boot land was founded as a place free from these silly restrictions.


WinBuilder.exe is just a script engine which is built to test things under peculiar conditions and there's little more to say - the boot disks you see today result from the combined efforts of many .script developers who made really outstanding results and produced these projects.

QUOTE
I've never heard of open source software being sold, and causing problems.
I think the potential benefits of evolution of this software, supported by it being open source, far outweigh the possibility of people taking advantage of it in stupid ways.


It's not worth the trouble and I would be very sad to see similar projects "innovating" at the expense of so much hard work given into wb and disappoint everyone involved in this effort.

Have you ever heard about media player classic?
http://sourceforge.net/forum/forum.php?forum_id=462894


I believe in free software as the chance to use something and share with others, maybe bart, the XP embedded team or folks with related projects become available one day to release their binaries as open source or free at the very least - otherwise they won't surely get any free lunch here and enjoy our codings that easily.. (IMG:../forums/style_emoticons/default/boxing.gif)


QUOTE
Personally
I would much rather support the evolution of WinBuilder than create my own project which is similar to it, because the aspects which I see it should improve upon are not major enough to warrant a seperate project. What I see needs change in WinBuilder is mostly in the details of implementation rather than major design failures.


That's great, let's discuss your ideas over the next beta development if you wish.. (IMG:../forums/style_emoticons/default/cheers.gif)
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
MedEvil
post Sep 30 2007, 09:31 PM
Post #7


Advanced Member
***

Group: .script developer
Posts: 1,257
Joined: 29-December 06
Member No.: 2,192



QUOTE(rt10k @ Sep 30 2007, 07:56 PM) *
Can you name examples of stolen open source projects which were commercialized?

Let's see, Nuno already named MPC and i remember PearPC, eMule and Zeta.
If you really search for this, you should find lots more, as i for sure heared of lots more, which i don't remember anymore.
But if you go for percentage, then of course the projects not worth being stolen from, greatly outweight those that are. (IMG:../forums/style_emoticons/default/wink.gif)

QUOTE(rt10k @ Sep 30 2007, 07:56 PM) *
or to reap the benefits of having an endless supply of volunteers evolve a project?

If you have an endless supply of coders working on a project, do you know what becomes the most important thing?
Management. A tough unwavering management. Or the whole project will tear itself apart.

I don't think, anyone here want's to go into project management.
We have already our hands full with R & D and support.

(IMG:../forums/style_emoticons/default/cheers.gif)
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
jaclaz
post Oct 1 2007, 07:46 AM
Post #8


Finder
***

Group: Advanced user
Posts: 1,117
Joined: 14-July 06
Member No.: 2


Italy


I moved the above posts here, as to start a more "focused" thread.

I guess that we are still debating "the Cathedral and the Bazaar".

Now, after some 10 years it does show some signs of age.

As I see it, given that Nuno is the Author of WinBuilder and thus can do with it whatever he wants, there are three kind of problems in the bazaar style and in Open Source are generally:
1) the control structure: some projects have a very knowledgeable and charismatic leader or leaders/coordinators that succeed in mantaining the project "on track", some others lack the above structure and the number of "forks", "customized versions" or whatever, possibly incompatible with each other is detrimental to the project itself
2) internal litigations: it seem like a number of talented programmers do lack the ability of keeping personal relationships with other members of the team, the number of Open Source projects suspended, put on hold or simply cancelled because members of the core developers team had one argument or another.
3) the possible abuse of code (yes, there is the License, but practically no way to enforce it)

On the other hand, the three main kind of problems with Cathedral style, and more generally in Closed Source software (expecially Free one) are:
1) Infinite amount of power of the leader/Author
2) Lags in bug-fixing and adoption of new features
3) Possibility of sudden abandoning of the project for whatever reason, including personal problems of the leader/Author

The development model of WinBuilder, which I however do not approve completely, expecially for the lack of management of .scripts, and the continuous changing (let's say "evolving") of names, features, commands and what not, see some of my rants about it:
http://www.boot-land.net/forums/index.php?...ic=2432&hl=
http://www.boot-land.net/forums/index.php?...ic=2759&hl=

is something between the two styles, mainly due to the personality of Nuno, who:
1) is a nice guy and tends to actually listen to comments and suggestions, and to implement them if seen fit not only by himself, but by the boot-land community as well
2) actually loves it's creature, and spends on it a lot of time, continuosly bettering it and bug-fixing it in a very small time

Just check a "Beta thread" like this one:
http://www.boot-land.net/forums/index.php?showtopic=2195
to see how "responsive" the actual build model is.

The mere fact that the project, from nothing came to where we stand now, is a proof that this build model is not so bad.

But if one takes it's time around the board, he will see that there are, apart from NUno (no offence intended for ANY of the "categories" listed below (IMG:../forums/style_emoticons/default/smile.gif) ) :
1) a handful of developers, continuously experimenting, finding bugs or missing features and suggesting the remedies
2) a very small number of "pure" .script developers, i.e. people that only write down the actual .script for a certain app, using what is already implemented
3) an impressive number of people that only use a pre-made .script and only rarely, when it does not do exactly what they expect from it, post a bug report or a feature request
4) one "dinosaur" (yours truly (IMG:../forums/style_emoticons/default/wink.gif) ), that not knowing anything about programming at this level, only tries to suggest some "general" advice and "mop the floor", trying to keep the place as tidy as possible

Ideally, once and only once we have something stable, and a number of people with the right attitude and knowledge (categories #1 and people from #2 willing to take a more active role, and possibly a few more of #4) will be interested in the project, I guess that the project could get some advantage from becoming totally or partially OpenSource.

Till then, my guess is that the organizational problems would actually slow the development.

jaclaz
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Alexei
post Oct 4 2007, 07:50 AM
Post #9


Advanced Member
***

Group: .script developer
Posts: 531
Joined: 30-August 06
Member No.: 283



QUOTE(rt10k @ Sep 29 2007, 09:35 PM) *
Is there any good reason why WinBuilder.exe isn't open source?

I suppose your reference to "open source" supposes licensing by the rules of "free software movement".
I don't agree with the philosophy of the GNU project. http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/philosophy.html

I consider source code to be creative art work of its author.
In my opinion, the most important value of copyright law is protection against unauthorized modifications and dereviative works.
In many cases author crafts his precious software creation with his own aestetical principles. In another words, the source code may have sensori-emotional value to its author. The author may be pretty sensitive to any modifications that are against his principles.
The author may have the same feelings as a poet who doesn't want to let anybody to change even a few words in his poem, or a mother who objects to modifications to her child. You can also imagin negative feelings of the author when his code is criticized.

GNU phylosophy rips software from its creator and treats it as some kind of instrument created to satisfy human needs.
In contrary, I (and probably many other programmers) consider satisfaction of end-user to be just a side effect of programmers' joyful play with a wonderful toys - computers. They are like scientists who consider technical progress to be a side effect of their discoveries.

However, I understand software developers who prefer to part with their creations and let programs to live their own life and be modified by other developers.

Regarding an "open source" as just disclosure of a source code, I would like to see a license that could protect such software from any changes not authorized by its author (i.e. let author to stay in full control of his creation).

On a funny note, are you aware that from a software's point of view, humans are entities designated to procreation of software? (IMG:../forums/style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

(IMG:../forums/style_emoticons/default/cheers.gif)
Alexei
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
« Next Oldest · Suggestions and Requests · Next Newest »
 

Fast ReplyReply to this topicStart new topic
2 User(s) are reading this topic (2 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

Collapse

> Similar Topics

  Topic Replies Topic Starter Views Last Action
No New Posts WinBuilder Caption
3 psc 76 10th October 2007 - 11:20 AM
Last post by: Nuno Brito
No New Posts Winbuilder and user account restrictions
13 psc 627 29th August 2007 - 05:11 PM
Last post by: smiley
No New Posts Winbuilder problems with UAC
4 booty#1 377 29th August 2007 - 04:33 PM
Last post by: smiley
No New Posts WINBUILDER
WINBUILDER
1 LAURELADA 993 27th July 2007 - 11:26 PM
Last post by: Giloz
No new Topic has attachmentsWinBuilder 072
31 Nuno Brito 5,821 25th July 2007 - 07:49 PM
Last post by: psc


 

Display Mode: Standard · Switch to: Linear+ · Switch to: Outline


- Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 12th October 2007 - 05:03 AM

MKPortal ©2003-2006 mkportal.it