Re: [binarycloud-dev] LGPL

[Alex B. <en...@tu...>]

> This is the one thing that worries me about the accepted open source
> licenses: they make it too easy not to have to contribute improvements, and
> give you the ability to fork.

this is why I prefer GPLish licenses. I am not interested in giving away the
code for all to use/fork/claim/etc as they please. I _am_ interested in
having a robust set of freely-usable code that carries some obigations for
use:
    -credit
    -contribution of changes if they are distributed.

> It is the forking part that I really don't like, and I believe it is
> harming the community rather than helping it.  Look at Linux or PHP-Nuke
> for an example.  If everyone had worked together on either of those
> products rather than developing their own version, they would be much
> further on.

yep.

> For this reason I have never released my code under an open source
> license.  In fact my code isn't licensed at all, which is worse, but I
> haven't found a license I like and/or understand yet :-)

I have considered making a simple license which is about as long as BSD, but
has the contribution requirement.

> By all means, let people modify the code to suit their uses, but make them
> distribute the modifications as patches or modules, rather than forking and
> forming a new distribution called asciicloud, replicating all that already
> exists in binarycloud and just changing a few small areas... and diluting
> the programmers over two very similar projects.

Exactly. Especially given that I have invested actual $ in its development.

> <soapbox>
> Recently I have come across a few PHP projects where the owner has changed
> the license from GPL or similar, because people have been using the script
> in ways he never intended it to be (e.g. as a module in PHP-Nuke, with the
> credit removed).  I do believe in open source, but I also do not like
> licenses which say that everything must be free, which the GPL does.
> 
> People are not all programming for nothing (as thankfully Alex seems to be
> doing with Binarycloud) - I personally would like to see licenses which

I'm not either. I have a business to run. I think OS code is the way to fly:
if I make this system people will use and benefit from it, and I'll get free
stuff (and so will everyone else). I think that's cool.

At the same time I am not interested in having "asciicloud" :) happen, nor
am I amenable to having binarycloud distributed as a commercial product
without credit.

> make the product free for personal use, and cost $$ for business use,
> become more accepted on the internet.  That way I could fund my way through
> University by selling <promote> sendcard <http://www.sendcard.f2s.com>
> </promote> :-)
> </soapbox>

I thought about doing something along those lines. But _even_with_ all the
forking and etc, I prefer linux and other os s/w to most proprietary
products. OS code is usually user-driven, inherently flexible, and
thoroughly tested. yes of course there is shit out there, but in general I
find os stuff to be better quality.




--
alex black, ceo
en...@tu...

the turing studio, inc.
http://www.turingstudio.com

vox+510.666.0074
fax+510.666.0093