Exeray fast containers

[Ian Collins]

(e-mail address removed) wrote:

Please clean up the mess that crap google interface makes of your posts
- and don't top-post!

We could release the source, but a major concern is that a potential
BIG customer of our product does not use open source software.

If you can't post the source, at least post the benchmarks you used. As
other have mentioned, it's not hard to use a custom allocator for
standard containers which will give a significant performance boost for
a given dataset.

Claiming big performance gains without the data to back it up is asking
for ridicule.

 

[red floyd]

[redacted]

It is not "obvious" at all. Release the source code of your containers

so we can make proper comparisons to verify your outlandish claims. If

your containers are "faster" than STL containers due to an allocation

strategy hidden away in your closed source library then be aware that

custom allocators can be provided to the STL containers to improve

performance.

[top-posting corrected]

We could release the source, but a major concern is that a potential BIG customer of our product does not use open source software.

Two words for you, dude. Dual Licensing.

 

[Tobias Müller]

Two words for you, dude. Dual Licensing.

Open source remains open source, no matter under what license you publish
it.

Tobi

 

[Tobias Müller]

No, that's why some code is published with dual licensing.

As long as you own the copyrights, you can publish the code under as
many different licenses as you want. A common usage - which could be
very appropriate for these guys - is to publish under the GPL and under
a commercial license. Users can get the GPL version for free, but they
can only use it with other GPL code - they have to open their own code
in order to use the library. Alternatively, they can pay for a
commercial licence which typically lets them do anything they want with
the code (except publish it to others, obviously). This lets everyone
see the code, test it, use it, make suggestions for improvements (i.e.,
point out the bugs), etc., for free - while also letting secret big
customers keep everything secret and pay the developers lots of money.
The developers can of course also charge for support for the free version.

It's a big win for everyone - unless the developers think that some
people would have paid for a closed source licence if the open source
version was not available (this is generally unlikely), or that some
potential customers will not pay for a licence if their competitors can
get it free (that's a bit more likely, but only if the code does
something really special).

It is only a problem for the developer if the code is so simple that
others can copy the ideas without violating the copyrights, or if the
code is poor quality and they are ashamed of it, or if the code contains
"cheats" in order to run fast in benchmarks.

The benefits of dual licensing are clear to me, but it does not matter
here.
Open source has not much to do with the license.

Open source means, that you publish the code of your software, nothing
else. If it is under a "free" or a commercial license doesn't matter.

Tobi

 

[red floyd]

The benefits of dual licensing are clear to me, but it does not matter
here.
Open source has not much to do with the license.

It has *EVERYTHING* to do with the license.

Open source means, that you publish the code of your software, nothing
else. If it is under a "free" or a commercial license doesn't matter.

BZZZT!!!! WRONG!!! And thank you for playing.

The point is, you don't sell it to your potential customer under an
F/OSS license. You sell it to them under commercial license. You're
inventing roadblocks just for the hell of it.

Customer won't be using OSS version, so they won't have to
(potentially) release source (depending on the OSS license chosen).
They will have a nice closed source license (probably with a support
contract).

 

[Tobias Müller]

It has *EVERYTHING* to do with the license.


BZZZT!!!! WRONG!!! And thank you for playing.

The point is, you don't sell it to your potential customer under an
F/OSS license. You sell it to them under commercial license. You're
inventing roadblocks just for the hell of it.

Customer won't be using OSS version, so they won't have to
(potentially) release source (depending on the OSS license chosen).
They will have a nice closed source license (probably with a support
contract).

You are confusing "open vs closed source" with "free vs commercial".
I'm not saying there are no companies that are afraid of GPL et al, but
then it's not because it's open source, but because of the specific
license.

And this confusion is exactly the problem. People tend to lump everything
together that smells like "open" or "free", without thinking what it
actually means.

Tobi

 

[Öö Tiib]

It has *EVERYTHING* to do with the license.

Uh? Lot of the software sold is sold together with source code
regardless of licensing. My company sells lot of products made together
with source code and often even to companies competing in the particular
field.

BZZZT!!!! WRONG!!! And thank you for playing.

The point is, you don't sell it to your potential customer under an
F/OSS license. You sell it to them under commercial license. You're
inventing roadblocks just for the hell of it.

Yes. You can sell source code under commercial license. I have also sold
source code under GPL because particular client wanted it. What roadblocks?

Customer won't be using OSS version, so they won't have to
(potentially) release source (depending on the OSS license chosen).
They will have a nice closed source license (probably with a support
contract).

Huh? From what planet you come? Lot of customers on planet Earth are very
happy with OSS. If some are not then who cares? Who needs too stupid
customers anyway. Open source makes it safer and easier for them. It
may easily happen that in future they can't afford me maintaining it so
they can use some alternative when they have source code. In current
economy cool-down it is factor to decide.

 

[Jorgen Grahn]

.

You might want to read a little before going further, but I will try to
give a rough explanation.

"Commercial" means you pay money for something, "free" (beer) means you
don't pay money. "Free" (speech) is a different thing - it is like
"open source" except it forces you to keep the source "open".

No. The FSF (who in some sense "own" the term "free software") counts
e.g. BSD-licensed software as free. As I understand it, if you can
pick a piece of software and re-license it as GPL, it's free enough
for Stallman and friends.

[snip the rest, which I didn't read]

/Jorgen