Open source: where/how, and general discussion

[z05DSL3A]

Sorry to interrupt, just a couple of points on the code

intRoot(){index=0;for(int i=0;i<MaxRank;i++)elements[MaxRank]=0;}

Line 2815 of polyedra.h

Surly that should be elements[i]=0;, as it is you are writing out of bounds.

There is also a potential problem in polyhedra.cpp, line 7909 creates a local variable tempRoot that hide a variable of the same name in an outer scope (line 7890).

You may now return to dancing around the merits of one OSS licence over another.

[tition]

Giving items/work/source for free is inherently wrong. It contradicts human nature.
This was meant as a shocking statement for the following purpose: it shows that you can arrive at the OS development model from different perspectives. OS by no means reflects one social idea/philosophy. In fact, it fits well in most social models I can think of; that is why OS should be thought as an economical (well programming is better here hehe... buzzwords attack!) model and not as a political or philosophical model (except for the implications economy has on the latter two).

So gifts, charity, and volunteer work is wrong?

In all four examples of open source writing I gave, I wouldn't say philantropy was a driving force for the people who are writing/wrote/will write open source. In fact, I do not know of a single case where philantropy was a true incentive for a programmer. However, I must agree that it is possible and probably does happen. So, let me restate it:

Giving items/work/source for free is inherently wrong in my opinion and in that of many other people. (Release note: version 2.0 - important bug fixed!)

[Edit: Erased some not very nice statement bellow... spoils the tone of the conversation!]

@Grey Wolf thanks a lot for the bug fixes! This forum has been of very great help to me!
That includes helios' advice, who probably wouldn't like me in real life. However, you helios helped me with valuable advice on my code on quite a few occasions! I personally think this single fact is very much in line with the OS development model.

[helios]

that is why OSS should be thought as an economial model and not as a political or philosophical model

Actually, that's wrong as well. OS is merely a software development model, or at least it in in modern times.

In all four examples of open source writing I gave, I wouldn't say philantropy was a driving force for the people who are writing/wrote/will write open source.

Maybe not, but the fact remains that there's people who work for a long time on a project to later release it, not only at no charge, but also to be used by anyone.
Among the best examples are: SQLite (public domain); *BSD OSs (permissive); many cryptographic algorithms and libraries, including Crypto++ (public domain for the components and permissive for the library as a whole).
Those people may not have been philanthropically inspired (perhaps they meant to teach themselves something, or as an experiment), but their actions are certainly philanthropic in nature.

Giving items/work/source for free is inherently wrong in my opinion and in that of many other people.

I don't like making absolutely positive or negative statements, so understand how weird it is for me to say this: you and those people are simply wrong. There's no other way I can possibly describe such a mindset.
For a social group to function and thrive, someone at some point will have to give something up for some other member. It's something you should have been taught as a kid, but it's called "not being a selfish jerk". Sharing, help, reciprocity, you know, all those values non-economists typically consider good? That's so for a reason. If a society is healthy, so are its members. Iff (not a typo) you think something that strengthens a group is wrong, it means you don't want to belong to that group, or you seek to weaken it.

Well, have fun maximizing your profits and being an urban hermit, but always remember that you live the way you live only because there's people who disagree with you.

[z05DSL3A]

This thread is flapping around like a dying fish on a quay side.

The only real thing to worry about with OSS licensing is: Is it compatible with the license used/accepted by the intended community?

If your intended community generally use libraries that are released under the XYZ license, it would not be wise to release your code under ABC if it is not compatible.

Helios, suggested that a more liberal* OSS license may have been better suited for the academic world. Tition, you obviously have a less liberal view on giving.

Tition, to say that “if you want to use my code for free then you must make your code available for free” may or may not be philanthropic, but to suggest that the people that do open source are not philanthropic would be plain wrong, the ‘more liberal’ OSS licenses exist because people want to give freely.

* Liberal: generous, freely giving money, time, or some other asset.