This week in class, we discussed what goes into licensing a piece of software, along with copyright law. If I am being perfectly honest, this wasn’t what I was expecting to study in this class, though it makes sense, in a way. Licensing, as I have learned, is a very important part of software development, and knowing who owns what, and defining who can do what with your code ties in pretty well to the other topics we’ve been discussing in class. As such, I’ve taken a look at an article from A List Apart, which is a blog that specializes in having many writers from the Computer Science industry comment on various issues and topics. I’ve chosen the article: “Considering Open Source Licenses”, which talks about one of the things most interesting (and confusing) to me in terms of licensing, Open Source Licenses.

One would think that making software open source would be as simple as declaring it as such. However, in the real world, it’s a little more complicated than that. What you really need to do is to attach a license to your software that describes what can be done with it, and there are several different licenses you can choose from, all with different requirements and specifications. Most of the licenses discussed in the article are, what else, open source licenses. All of them do functionally the same thing, allow people to use your software and edit it as they see fit. However, they all have slightly different specs that are important to keep in mind. The MIT license for instance, only requires you to keep the original license in tact, and attach a copyright notice to your project if it uses code that has the MIT license attached to it. GPL, on the other hand, requires you to document modifications made to the software, whether that be through traditional documentation or how-tos on how to use the software. The article also discussed in brief, some of the problems that occur if you were to violate a license, which isn’t something that was discussed in class, and was something I found interesting.

The article makes it very clear that nothing covered is concrete legal advice, and of course, I am no lawyer either. That being said, licensing isn’t nearly as difficult as I once thought, I was under the impression it was similar  to filing a patent, or some other legal document. I am happy to be wrong, in this case, and for any software I develop in the future, I will be sure to put some more though into licensing in the future!

(Side note: It has occurred to me that I am absolutely TERRIBLE at spelling the word license. I’ve spelled it so many different ways in the writing of this post it is almost comical. I also appreciate the fact that copyleft is a genuine term, since I was only familiar with copyright)

ARTICLE LINK: https://alistapart.com/article/considering-open-source-licenses/

From the blog Camille's Cluttered Closet by Camille and used with permission of the author. All other rights reserved by the author.

 This week in class, we discussed what goes into licensing a piece of software, along with copyright law. If I am being perfectly honest, this wasn’t what I was expecting to study in this class, though it makes sense, in a way. Licensing, as I have learned, is a very important part of software development, and knowing who owns what, and defining who can do what with your code ties in pretty well to the other topics we’ve been discussing in class. As such, I’ve taken a look at an article from A List Apart, which is a blog that specializes in having many writers from the Computer Science industry comment on various issues and topics. I’ve chosen the article: “Considering Open Source Licenses”, which talks about one of the things most interesting (and confusing) to me in terms of licensing, Open Source Licenses.

One would think that making software open source would be as simple as declaring it as such. However, in the real world, it’s a little more complicated than that. What you really need to do is to attach a license to your software that describes what can be done with it, and there are several different licenses you can choose from, all with different requirements and specifications. Most of the licenses discussed in the article are, what else, open source licenses. All of them do functionally the same thing, allow people to use your software and edit it as they see fit. However, they all have slightly different specs that are important to keep in mind. The MIT license for instance, only requires you to keep the original license in tact, and attach a copyright notice to your project if it uses code that has the MIT license attached to it. GPL, on the other hand, requires you to document modifications made to the software, whether that be through traditional documentation or how-tos on how to use the software. The article also discussed in brief, some of the problems that occur if you were to violate a license, which isn’t something that was discussed in class, and was something I found interesting.

The article makes it very clear that nothing covered is concrete legal advice, and of course, I am no lawyer either. That being said, licensing isn’t nearly as difficult as I once thought, I was under the impression it was similar  to filing a patent, or some other legal document. I am happy to be wrong, in this case, and for any software I develop in the future, I will be sure to put some more though into licensing in the future!

(Side note: It has occurred to me that I am absolutely TERRIBLE at spelling the word license. I’ve spelled it so many different ways in the writing of this post it is almost comical. I also appreciate the fact that copyleft is a genuine term, since I was only familiar with copyright)

ARTICLE LINK: https://alistapart.com/article/considering-open-source-licenses/

From the blog Camille's Cluttered Closet by Camille and used with permission of the author. All other rights reserved by the author.

 This week in class, we discussed what goes into licensing a piece of software, along with copyright law. If I am being perfectly honest, this wasn’t what I was expecting to study in this class, though it makes sense, in a way. Licensing, as I have learned, is a very important part of software development, and knowing who owns what, and defining who can do what with your code ties in pretty well to the other topics we’ve been discussing in class. As such, I’ve taken a look at an article from A List Apart, which is a blog that specializes in having many writers from the Computer Science industry comment on various issues and topics. I’ve chosen the article: “Considering Open Source Licenses”, which talks about one of the things most interesting (and confusing) to me in terms of licensing, Open Source Licenses.

One would think that making software open source would be as simple as declaring it as such. However, in the real world, it’s a little more complicated than that. What you really need to do is to attach a license to your software that describes what can be done with it, and there are several different licenses you can choose from, all with different requirements and specifications. Most of the licenses discussed in the article are, what else, open source licenses. All of them do functionally the same thing, allow people to use your software and edit it as they see fit. However, they all have slightly different specs that are important to keep in mind. The MIT license for instance, only requires you to keep the original license in tact, and attach a copyright notice to your project if it uses code that has the MIT license attached to it. GPL, on the other hand, requires you to document modifications made to the software, whether that be through traditional documentation or how-tos on how to use the software. The article also discussed in brief, some of the problems that occur if you were to violate a license, which isn’t something that was discussed in class, and was something I found interesting.

The article makes it very clear that nothing covered is concrete legal advice, and of course, I am no lawyer either. That being said, licensing isn’t nearly as difficult as I once thought, I was under the impression it was similar  to filing a patent, or some other legal document. I am happy to be wrong, in this case, and for any software I develop in the future, I will be sure to put some more though into licensing in the future!

(Side note: It has occurred to me that I am absolutely TERRIBLE at spelling the word license. I’ve spelled it so many different ways in the writing of this post it is almost comical. I also appreciate the fact that copyleft is a genuine term, since I was only familiar with copyright)

ARTICLE LINK: https://alistapart.com/article/considering-open-source-licenses/

From the blog Camille's Cluttered Closet by Camille and used with permission of the author. All other rights reserved by the author.

 This week in class, we discussed what goes into licensing a piece of software, along with copyright law. If I am being perfectly honest, this wasn’t what I was expecting to study in this class, though it makes sense, in a way. Licensing, as I have learned, is a very important part of software development, and knowing who owns what, and defining who can do what with your code ties in pretty well to the other topics we’ve been discussing in class. As such, I’ve taken a look at an article from A List Apart, which is a blog that specializes in having many writers from the Computer Science industry comment on various issues and topics. I’ve chosen the article: “Considering Open Source Licenses”, which talks about one of the things most interesting (and confusing) to me in terms of licensing, Open Source Licenses.

One would think that making software open source would be as simple as declaring it as such. However, in the real world, it’s a little more complicated than that. What you really need to do is to attach a license to your software that describes what can be done with it, and there are several different licenses you can choose from, all with different requirements and specifications. Most of the licenses discussed in the article are, what else, open source licenses. All of them do functionally the same thing, allow people to use your software and edit it as they see fit. However, they all have slightly different specs that are important to keep in mind. The MIT license for instance, only requires you to keep the original license in tact, and attach a copyright notice to your project if it uses code that has the MIT license attached to it. GPL, on the other hand, requires you to document modifications made to the software, whether that be through traditional documentation or how-tos on how to use the software. The article also discussed in brief, some of the problems that occur if you were to violate a license, which isn’t something that was discussed in class, and was something I found interesting.

The article makes it very clear that nothing covered is concrete legal advice, and of course, I am no lawyer either. That being said, licensing isn’t nearly as difficult as I once thought, I was under the impression it was similar  to filing a patent, or some other legal document. I am happy to be wrong, in this case, and for any software I develop in the future, I will be sure to put some more though into licensing in the future!

(Side note: It has occurred to me that I am absolutely TERRIBLE at spelling the word license. I’ve spelled it so many different ways in the writing of this post it is almost comical. I also appreciate the fact that copyleft is a genuine term, since I was only familiar with copyright)

ARTICLE LINK: https://alistapart.com/article/considering-open-source-licenses/

From the blog Camille's Cluttered Closet by Camille and used with permission of the author. All other rights reserved by the author.

 This week in class, we discussed what goes into licensing a piece of software, along with copyright law. If I am being perfectly honest, this wasn’t what I was expecting to study in this class, though it makes sense, in a way. Licensing, as I have learned, is a very important part of software development, and knowing who owns what, and defining who can do what with your code ties in pretty well to the other topics we’ve been discussing in class. As such, I’ve taken a look at an article from A List Apart, which is a blog that specializes in having many writers from the Computer Science industry comment on various issues and topics. I’ve chosen the article: “Considering Open Source Licenses”, which talks about one of the things most interesting (and confusing) to me in terms of licensing, Open Source Licenses.

One would think that making software open source would be as simple as declaring it as such. However, in the real world, it’s a little more complicated than that. What you really need to do is to attach a license to your software that describes what can be done with it, and there are several different licenses you can choose from, all with different requirements and specifications. Most of the licenses discussed in the article are, what else, open source licenses. All of them do functionally the same thing, allow people to use your software and edit it as they see fit. However, they all have slightly different specs that are important to keep in mind. The MIT license for instance, only requires you to keep the original license in tact, and attach a copyright notice to your project if it uses code that has the MIT license attached to it. GPL, on the other hand, requires you to document modifications made to the software, whether that be through traditional documentation or how-tos on how to use the software. The article also discussed in brief, some of the problems that occur if you were to violate a license, which isn’t something that was discussed in class, and was something I found interesting.

The article makes it very clear that nothing covered is concrete legal advice, and of course, I am no lawyer either. That being said, licensing isn’t nearly as difficult as I once thought, I was under the impression it was similar  to filing a patent, or some other legal document. I am happy to be wrong, in this case, and for any software I develop in the future, I will be sure to put some more though into licensing in the future!

(Side note: It has occurred to me that I am absolutely TERRIBLE at spelling the word license. I’ve spelled it so many different ways in the writing of this post it is almost comical. I also appreciate the fact that copyleft is a genuine term, since I was only familiar with copyright)

ARTICLE LINK: https://alistapart.com/article/considering-open-source-licenses/

From the blog Camille's Cluttered Closet by Camille and used with permission of the author. All other rights reserved by the author.

 This week in class, we discussed what goes into licensing a piece of software, along with copyright law. If I am being perfectly honest, this wasn’t what I was expecting to study in this class, though it makes sense, in a way. Licensing, as I have learned, is a very important part of software development, and knowing who owns what, and defining who can do what with your code ties in pretty well to the other topics we’ve been discussing in class. As such, I’ve taken a look at an article from A List Apart, which is a blog that specializes in having many writers from the Computer Science industry comment on various issues and topics. I’ve chosen the article: “Considering Open Source Licenses”, which talks about one of the things most interesting (and confusing) to me in terms of licensing, Open Source Licenses.

One would think that making software open source would be as simple as declaring it as such. However, in the real world, it’s a little more complicated than that. What you really need to do is to attach a license to your software that describes what can be done with it, and there are several different licenses you can choose from, all with different requirements and specifications. Most of the licenses discussed in the article are, what else, open source licenses. All of them do functionally the same thing, allow people to use your software and edit it as they see fit. However, they all have slightly different specs that are important to keep in mind. The MIT license for instance, only requires you to keep the original license in tact, and attach a copyright notice to your project if it uses code that has the MIT license attached to it. GPL, on the other hand, requires you to document modifications made to the software, whether that be through traditional documentation or how-tos on how to use the software. The article also discussed in brief, some of the problems that occur if you were to violate a license, which isn’t something that was discussed in class, and was something I found interesting.

The article makes it very clear that nothing covered is concrete legal advice, and of course, I am no lawyer either. That being said, licensing isn’t nearly as difficult as I once thought, I was under the impression it was similar  to filing a patent, or some other legal document. I am happy to be wrong, in this case, and for any software I develop in the future, I will be sure to put some more though into licensing in the future!

(Side note: It has occurred to me that I am absolutely TERRIBLE at spelling the word license. I’ve spelled it so many different ways in the writing of this post it is almost comical. I also appreciate the fact that copyleft is a genuine term, since I was only familiar with copyright)

ARTICLE LINK: https://alistapart.com/article/considering-open-source-licenses/

From the blog Camille's Cluttered Closet by Camille and used with permission of the author. All other rights reserved by the author.

I came across an article titled “‘It’s time to question agile’s cult following’: Doubts cast on method’s future, with 65% of projects more likely to fail” that discusses the effectiveness of agile. Agile is a popular software development methodology, but this article suggests that it may be time to try other methods. It talks about how projects using agile are more often unsuccessful. For example, it states that research shows “agile software projects are 268% more likely to go wrong than those employing other methods.” It also cites other research that suggests projects using agile fail more often, decrease productivity, and adds unneeded stress to those working on the project. On top of that, the article suggests agile is inefficient. According to more cited research, major companies are starting to get rid of the use of agile in their software development.

This article is incredibly relevant to the subjects discussed in my Software Process Management class this past week. We went over software development methodologies, specifically agile. I wanted to read up on something relevant and educating. When I had come across this article, it caught my eye. when we had discussed agile in class, it had seem like the best option of the methods presented. However, this article suggested that, perhaps, agile isn’t the best method out there. In fact, it suggested that it shouldn’t be used. I was intrigued as to why it would be considered ineffective.

This article opened a door of questions about agile and software development methodologies. However, I did not feel as if they were all answered. I was shocked to see the amount of research and data that suggests agile is ineffective. I only recently learned about agile, and it seemed as though it would create a well-designed product through constant communication and reflection on the project. While reading the article, I became curious what other methods would be better to use than agile, but the article did not answer that question. I believe if you are going to critique something, you should offer a solution as well. One thing I personally liked about the article was all of the research data cited. I am a big numbers guy, so being able to see numbers to communicate the purpose of the content was nice to see. I am curious to learn more about other methodologies. I think this article was a good mind opener for me, and it reminded me that everything has room for improvement.

Article URL: https://www.itpro.com/software/development/its-time-to-question-agiles-cult-following-experts-cast-doubt-on-methods-future-with-65-of-projects-more-likely-to-fail

From the blog CS@Worcester – Auger CS by Joseph Auger and used with permission of the author. All other rights reserved by the author.