## March 16, 2015

### Is There A Commercial Open Source License?

"Any headline that ends in a question mark can be answered by the word 'No'." - Davis' law
Putting Commercial and Open-Source together is often considered an oxymoron. Part of this is caused by constant confusion between the terms Open-Source and Free Software, which is made even worse by people who have more liberal interpretations of the phrase "Open-Source". In many cases, keeping the source code of a product proprietary serves no other purpose than to prevent people from stealing the product. Putting an application under the GPL and selling it is perfectly reasonable for software aimed at end-users, whom are unlikely to know how to compile the freely available source. Libraries aimed at developers, however, usually must resort to Dual Licensing.

To me, dual licensing is a bit of a hack job. Using two fundamentally incompatible licenses at the same time always rubbed me the wrong way, even if it's perfectly legal for the creator of the software. The other problem is that this is usually done via copyleft licenses, and I would prefer more permissive licenses, given that I only care about whether or not the result is commercial or not. This, however, turns out to be a bit of a problem.

My ideal license for a commercial library would state that anyone is free to modify, distribute, or use the source code in anything they want, provided the resulting source code retains the provided license. If the resulting product is strictly noncommercial, it would be free. If, however, the source code or any derivation of the source code is used in a commercial product, there would be a fee. It'd basically be an MIT license with an added fee for commercial derivative works, with additional restrictions on what commercial derivative works are allowed.

The problem is, even if I were to use a dual-licensing strategy, there is no open-source license that contains a noncommercial restriction, because this isn't open-source. Specifically, it violates Freedom 1 as defined by OSI:
1. The license shall not restrict any party from selling or giving away the software as a component of an aggregate software distribution containing programs from several different sources. The license shall not require a royalty or other fee for such sale.
So, the first sentence of the definition of open-source software has made it abundantly clear that my software isn't open-source because I'm trying to make money off of it. This seems overly restrictive to me, because the source code is still freely available for people to distribute and modify, just not sell. Even then, they can still sell things made with the source code, they just pay a royalty or fee for it.

Now, there are good reasons why actual free software would forbid this. For example, if someone made an open-source library that required a royalty for commercial use whose code was repeatedly modified over and over again until it crept into all sorts of projects, it could then claim royalties on all of those products, even if only a few lines of its source code were used. This is obviously not conducive to creating a culture of sharing code.

However, there is another benefit of open-source software, which is now becoming progressively more obvious. It's the fact that, if you have the source code and compile it yourself, you can verify the NSA (probably) hasn't injected a backdoor into it. This is a benefit of visibility, and I think it should be encouraged. The problem is that the restrictions placed on free software are too harsh for most commercial libraries, who will then often resort to simply being proprietary.

So, sadly, there are no open-source commercial licenses, because those aren't open-source. Perhaps we need a new term, for software whose source is accessible but has usage restrictions. Even then, it's not entirely apparent what such a license would look like, or if sites like GitHub would actually allow it on public repositories. I took a peek at the Unreal Engine 4 license, but despite claiming to have it's source code available on github, it's actually in a private repository you must gain access to. To make matters worse, the actual Unreal Engine 4 license is incredibly restrictive. You are only allowed to distribute the engine code to other people who have agreed to the license! This obviously isn't what I want, but apparently no one else seems to think that software that's kind of open-source is actually valuable.

It's an awful shame, because I really don't want to make my project proprietary, but right now I don't have much choice. As far as I'm concerned, releasing something under a restricted open-source license is preferable to making it entirely proprietary. Unfortunately, the loudest programmers are also the least likely to be willing to compromise over ideological divides.

## February 18, 2015

### Does Anyone Actually Want Good Software?

Are there any programmers left that actually care about writing good software? As far as I can tell, the software development industry has turned into a series of echo chambers where managers scream about new features and shipping software and analyzing feedback from customers. Then they ignore all the feedback and implement whatever new things are supposed to be cool, like flat design, or cloud computing, or software as a service.

The entire modern web is built on top of the worst programming language that's still remotely popular. It's so awful that IE now supports asm.js just so we can use other languages instead. With everyone relentlessly misquoting "Premature optimization is the root of all evil", it's hard to get programmers to optimize any of their code at all, let alone get them to care about things like CPU caches and why allocation on the heap is slow and how memory locality matters.

Some coders exist at large corporations that simply pile on more and more lines of code and force everyone to use gigantic frameworks built on top of more gigantic frameworks built on top of even more gigantic frameworks and then wonder why everything is so slow. Other coders exist in startups that use Scala/Hadoop/Node.js and care only about pumping out features or fixing bugs. The thing is, all of these companies make a lot of money, which leads me to ask, does anyone actually want good software anymore?

Do customers simply not care? Is everyone ok with Skype randomly not sending messages and trying (poorly) to sync all your messages and randomly deciding that certain actions are always unread on other computers and dropping calls and creating all sorts of other strange and bizarre bugs? Is everyone ok with an antivirus that demands you sign in to a buggy window that keeps losing focus every time you try to type in your password? Is everyone ok with Visual Studio deciding it needs to open a text file and taking 15 seconds to actually start up an entirely new instance even though I already have one running just to display the stupid file?

It seems to me that we're all so obsessed with making cool stuff, we've forgotten how to make stuff that actually works.

Did you know that every single person I know (except for two people) hates flat design? They don't like it. I don't like it. There's a bunch of stuckup, narcissistic designers shoving flat design down everyone's throats and I hate it. The designers don't care. They insist that it's elegant and modern and a bunch of other crap that's all entirely subjective no matter how hard they try to pretend otherwise. Design is about opinions. If I don't like your design, you can't just go and say my opinion is wrong. My opinion isn't wrong, I just don't agree with you. There's a difference.

However, it has become increasingly apparent to me that opinions aren't allowed in programming. I'm not allowed to say that garbage collectors are bad for high performance software. I'm not allowed to say that pure functional programming isn't some kind of magical holy grail that will solve all your problems. I'm not allowed to say that flat design is stupid. I'm definitely not allowed to say that I hate Python, because apparently Python is a religion.

Because of this, I am beginning to wonder if I am simply delusional. Apparently I'm the only human being left on planet earth who really, really doesn't like typing magical bullshit into his linux terminal just to get basic things working instead of having a GUI that wasn't designed by brain-dead monkeys. Apparently, I'm the only one who is entirely willing to pay money for services instead of having awful, ad-infested online versions powered by JavaScript™ and Node.js™ that fall over every week because someone forgot to cycle the drives in a cloud service 5000 miles away. Apparently, no one can fix the audio sample library industry or the fact that most of my VSTi's manage to use 20% of my CPU when they aren't actually doing anything.

Am I simply getting old? Has the software industry left me behind? Does anyone else out there care about these things? Should I throw in the towel and call it quits? Is the future of software development writing terrible monstrosities held together by duct tape? Is this the only way to have a sustainable business?

Is this the world our customers want? Because it sure isn't what I want.

Unfortunately, writing music doesn't pay very well.

## February 11, 2015

### Why Don't You Just Fire Them?

"Nothing is foolproof to a sufficiently talented fool."
— Anonymous
Programmers love to bash things like templates and multiple-inheritance and operator overloading, saying that they are abused too often and must be unilaterally banned, going so far as to design them out of their programming languages thinking this is somehow going to save them.

This makes about as much sense as saying that bank robbers use cars to escape police too much, so we need to ban cars.

Templates, fundamentally, are very useful and perfectly reasonable things to use in most sane contexts. They are used for things like vectors, where you want an int vector and a float vector. However, people point to the horrible monstrosities like Boost and say "Look at all the havoc templates have wrought!" Well, yeah. That's what happens when you abuse something. You can abuse anything, trust me. You simply cannot write a programming language that's idiot proof, because if you make anything idiot proof, someone will just make a better idiot.

Multiple inheritance is usually useful for exactly one thing: taking two distinct object inheritance lines and combining them. If you ever inherit more than two things at once, you probably did something wrong. The problems arise when you start inheriting 8 things and create gigantic inheritance trees with diamonds all over the place. Of course, you can build something just as confusing and unmaintable with single-inheritance (just look at the .net framework), but the point is that the language doesn't have a problem for letting you do this, you have an architectural issue because you're being an idiot.

You do have code reviews, right? You do realize you can just tell programmers to not do this, or simply not use a library clearly written by complete maniacs? Chances are you probably shouldn't have more than one or two template arguments or inherited classes, and you really shouldn't overload the + operator to subtract things. If you do, someone should tell you you're being an idiot in a code review, and if you keep doing it, they should just fire you.

What really bothers me about these constant attacks on various language features or methodologies is that nearly all of them are Slippery Slope fallacies. If we let programmers do this, they'll just make something more and more complicated until nobody can use it anymore! It's the same exact argument used for banning gay marriage! If your response to a programmer abusing a feature is to remove the feature, I really have to ask, why don't you just fire them? The programmer is the problem here. If anyone succeeds in checking awful code into your code base, you either have a systemic failure in your process, or you've hired an idiot that needs to be fired.

Programming languages are toolboxes. I want my array of tools to be powerful and adaptable, not artificially castrated because other programmers can't resist the temptation to build leaning towers of inheritance. It's like forcing all your carpenters to use hammers without claws, or banning swiss army knives because someone was using it wrong. If someone is using a tool wrong, it's because they haven't been trained properly, or they're incompetent. The mindset of banning problematic features in programming languages arises from coders who have to maintain bad code, and who are deluding themselves into thinking that if they got rid of those pesky templates, their lives would be much easier.

Having personally seen a visual basic program that succeeded in being almost impossible to decipher even after several weeks, I can assure you this is not the case, and never will be. The problem is that it's bad code, not that it's written in C++.