I have also been in the process of cleaning up my place, and have thrown out a lot of old archive CDs and floppy disks.
I really do need to upload some of the old stuff, before it is lost forever. I have tackled EVE, a freeform diagram creator that I wrote back around 2001 - 2003. This program is still very popular.
I was alarmed that the old PC that I used to do my EVE work on, seems to have disappeared, but fortunately I had backed up the last version of EVE to a CD.
So, EVE is now open source:
Comments:Posted on 25 May 2011, 6:32 by lstandish
Barry, I have a lot of extra space on my backup server in Dallas, TX. I could let you have up to 10 gig there. I back up my own desktop PC to it using the snap2 program included in Puppy. snap2 is made to make backup to a remote server easy (using rsync over ssh). However for a one-time backup you could just rsync it. This sort of backup is not likely to be lost to theft.
However, I don't do backups of the backup server, so you would still need to keep another copy somewhere else. Let me know if I can help. You can PM me on the Puppy forum (user lstandish).
Posted on 25 May 2011, 7:22 by BarryK
Thanks for the offer. I can't use online backup due to very expensive Telstra 3G.
I am planning to buy another USB HD and keep it with me or in a safe.
Posted on 25 May 2011, 10:28 by Zeke-baby
I read your webpage about EVE, and in it you say you're releasing the source as GPL, but also stipulate that a person cannot sell it. Those 2 statements contradict each other. I am not a lawyer, but the GPL does not disallow the sale of code by anyone, provided that the GPL is still respected (i.e. making any mods open source, etc). If you want to deny people from selling your code or any derivatives, you'll have to pick another license.
Posted on 25 May 2011, 17:30 by BarryK
My understanding of the GPL is that code cannot be sold. But, if I am wrong, then yes, will have to use a different license.
Posted on 26 May 2011, 7:02 by 8-bit
EVE in Puppy
I went a little further by downloading EVE in which the binary executable is included along with the source code.
I was able to run it using wine.
In the About box, it is shown as freeware.
But even though BK has released it into GPL, he still holds copyright on it.
Software packages can be open source and copyrighted at the same time.
And as to being able to sell it, one can only sell it in the sense of a reasonable charge for the time, materials, and handling.
But being open source, and I am not sure of this, one could expand the program with more features, a pleasing GUI, and additions and be able to sell the version created as long as the original maker of it was given credits in a text included with said software.
Posted on 26 May 2011, 7:15 by CLAM01
GPL and Copyleft
I think Zeke-baby is thinking of one of the gnu lesser or special licenses.
The GPL applies to source code primarily, requiring it to be, and remain, free, as in for anyone to freely use. This means you could charge a fee for your EVE and distribute the source code with it for anyone to freely install and use (also to add to something they sell). The GPL allows use of the source and modification for general improvement, specific applications, etc. Modifiers may distribute their modifications similarly, charging fees for their software products, but not for EVE, or "EVE Improved", meaning the code that makes those work, defined as the source code, but in practical terms including binary, or other computer-manipulable syntax.
This kind of distribution is probably already being done with EVE in applicable cases: It is how free software products are distributed in disk or package, alternatives to free download, forms (the packaging and disk being charged for).
Copyleft is the addition that makes freeware fully free, though the addition is often academic. Copyleft stuff in disk or package distributions that are charged for is not included in what is charged for, even though it is with it and part of the mix that provides the value.
With EVE and code copylefted and GPL'd you should have it exactly what you want, totally free and free.
For fuller and fully confusing explanations see gnu.org webside, philosophy and licenses sections.
Posted on 26 May 2011, 9:21 by Zeke-baby
Selling GPL software
According to Wikipedia GPL page:
The FSF argues that free software should not place restrictions on commercial use, and the GPL explicitly states that GPL works may be sold at any price.
The above statement points to this from the GPL people:
Many people believe that the spirit of the GNU Project is that you should not charge money for distributing copies of software, or that you should charge as little as possible — just enough to cover the cost. This is a misunderstanding.
Actually, we encourage people who redistribute free software to charge as much as they wish or can. If this seems surprising to you, please read on.
Read more at http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/selling.html
Posted on 27 May 2011, 7:46 by CLAM01
The last three words of your last paragraph of quote are the operative ones, Zeke-baby:
"please read on".
And that, as the url you provide indicates, "philosophy" is what is under discussion.
Note that under "licenses" gnu.org, for the sake of their philosophy, provides alternative licenses (or licences, where distinguished) that circumvent the interferences GPL may impose. Gnu's philosophy is to allow the broadest spectrum of use of code, so that it may become something like written language, the same letters and words being usable by anyone to write anything, some free, some costly (e.g., the same word written by a student vs. by a lawyer)...or like language has been, and will be until patent-offices begin granting...
Posted on 27 May 2011, 8:22 by BarryK
Re EVE and WINE
Oh yeah, it "runs". However, if my main example diagram is opened, so much functionality is broken. Back when I did development on a 200MHz CPU 256MB RAM system, performance of EVE was snappy -- running the same diagrams under WINE on my 1.5GHz 512MB system, performance is sluggish. There are many parts of the diagram that do not render correctly, and some features simply don't work -- for example I remember some animation features that are broken.
I have tested EVE with WINE periodically over many years, last time about 6 months ago, and there has been slight improvement, but EVE has remained substantially broken. I have basically given up on WINE, I don't think that it will ever "get there" -- but you never know, perhaps the WINE developers will surprise me one day.
One thing that I could do is modify EVE so that it only has those features that work properly under WINE, but I cannot accept the sluggish performance.
Note, there are some major apps that do apparently work properly with WINE. I imagine that the WINE developers have focused on tweaking WINE to run those apps specifically.
Posted on 27 May 2011, 8:42 by Zeke-baby
Re: gnu philosophy
CLAM01 - Thanks for the clarification. Everything I've read tells me that once you release code under the GPL, anyone can do what they want with the code so long as they don't contradict any of the terms of the GPL or pick another license. If someone takes Barry's EVE code and creates EVE++, he can sell it for whatever he wants, provided he releases his code improvements as open-source under the same GPL.
Again, I'm not a lawyer, but the lawyers in the two large companies I have worked for interpret the GPL the way I've described above.
Posted on 27 May 2011, 8:43 by BarryK
I find this to be weird:
Does the GPL allow me to sell copies of the program for money?
Yes, the GPL allows everyone to do this. The right to sell copies is part of the definition of free software. Except in one special situation, there is no limit on what price you can charge. (The one exception is the required written offer to provide source code that must accompany binary-only release.)
Does the GPL allow me to charge a fee for downloading the program from my site?
Yes. You can charge any fee you wish for distributing a copy of the program. If you distribute binaries by download, you must provide “equivalent access” to download the source—therefore, the fee to download source may not be greater than the fee to download the binary.
Quoted from: http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/gpl-faq.html#DoesTheGPLAllowMoney
This is contrary to what I remember from when I studied a couple of years ago. I am pretty sure that the source packages for Puppy Linux had to be provided online for free download or by CD to be sold for a "nominal fee". I specifically recall the words "nominal fee to cover handling and processing only". Distros could only charge for handling, processing, postage, and extra features such as printed manual, when selling their distro.
So, have things changed? I am puzzled.
Posted on 27 May 2011, 8:47 by BarryK
Re nominal price
Yes, it seems that the GPL has changed. This site http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=5&ved=0CCYQFjAE&url=http%3A%2F%2F22.214.171.124%2Feps%2Fio%2Fpapers%2F0511%2F0511002.pdf&ei=QPLeTfWEKJD2swOy04GkBw&usg=AFQjCNEj1lt6dYKi9XufoEfZrrBb2nmSdw
the GPL prohibits selling the software being sold at more than a nominal price covering distribution costs
This is what I read again and again back in 2003/2004. The above document is dated 2005.
Posted on 28 May 2011, 6:31 by CLAM)!
GPL gone to Hell?
The FAQ wording is bizarre. It looks like it says that if one charged $1,000 for a binary program he could tell anyone wanting the source it will cost another $1,000.
The wording you provide from 2004 is what I am used to and call the basic GPL. As I have understood, a person could use the old GPL.
But today so much of patent and copyright is so twisted around I would suggest checking with the Free Software Foundation and Electronic Freedom Foundation for current legal advice.
I would also recommend to do developing, and anything you want to keep private, permanently or until you are ready to release, on a separate computer physically incapable of being connected to the internet. Net connection, itself, appears to, today, incorporate net-accessible "security-ware", meaning government run spy-ware. This is a reason I dislike Puppy's auto-connect-on-startup network connection feature.
Posted on 28 May 2011, 8:55 by BarryK
Re gpl and autoconnect
Yeah, I don't like that auto-connect either. I presume that you are referring to ethernet wired connection -- as I recall that was a mod that shinobar submitted. I went along with it because lots of people want it.
Yeah, that FAQ is just so weird. You are right about what it says, if you charge $1000 for binary, then you can also charge $1000 for the sources. That's disgusting.
Posted on 28 May 2011, 19:32 by jamesbond
40k of awesome goodness
That's a pure 40k lines in assembly !! I didn't you you did in assembly, that is so cool ! eve.exe is only 86k, and lets see, how big is that inkscape again .... :)
Thanks for releasing the code Barry !
Posted on 29 May 2011, 7:05 by f00-
Funny, have had EVE 3.56 (@74k) on my machine for quite awhile (and yeah, even in native win32 there's a few bips) but never connected the dots to you (http://goosee.com) 'til today. Tiny package (my favorite type of 'install', especially in Wine). A belated Thanks for a fun graphics app :D
Posted on 31 May 2011, 21:57 by abushcrafter
You Don't Get It Do You?
Barry you really don't under stand FOSS do you? Read the writings at http://www.gnu.org and http://www.fsf.org/. If necessary read them again. Then have a long think.
You will find it is not about not paying money. It is about freedoms! In fact making money is encouraged! A example is http://ardour.org/.
If some one did charge £1000 for some software and it is licensed under the GPL then once one person gets a copy they can redistribute it and not charge for it or they could charge for it but some one else could again redistribute it at no charge. So it cancels out in the end. How ever it might mean the dev stops working on it if he ant getting money. So people have to decided what they what to do.
Probably not the best explanation but you should get it if to read the links I posted in this post.
Posted on 25 Jun 2011, 8:44 by Juancito
I have used Eve before and, of course, Puppy Linux. I have never realized they were both developed by the same person!