why anybody want to use OPENRPT? I found NCReport is much easier than it. why not to contribute to NCReport to make it more powerful?
It looks like the NCReport team is looking for a little dev. help! ;)
But seriously, I've been watching this project for quite some time and am very disappointed by the slow development, the lack of features, the questionable (parasitic) dual license, and, in all honesty, the horrible code quality. Although I know nothing about NCReports, I do know that there are enough report writer/renderer options out there that anyone considering OpenRPT should stop and take another look around before jumping in. Perhaps the project owner would consider moving to a LGPL (far more Source Forge appropriate than a GPL/commercial dual license) to attract some more development resources?
I'm sure that the moderator (Ned?) will be trimming of this comment as well as cxl2253's shortly, as he did with earlier comments questioning OpenRPT's license, but at least it'll go out to those that are signed up for email announcements.
Gosh, Pete, thanks for the warm message.
This is the first time I've ever heard of NCReport, but I'd be happy to take a look at it, and see if there's some way we might work together.
As for the "horrible code quality," I've been going back through the project records, but I can't seem to find any contributions you've made - or even any helpful suggestions. Open source is a two-way street. If you don't like something, then get involved.
Well, Ned, that's the problem with your license. If I make any changes, you'll expect me to tranfer ownership of the new code to you, and you'll turn around and sell it under your commerical license. It looks like NCReport has the same business plan and, IMHO, will fare similarly.
Take a look at the success of JasperReports, which is available under the GPL and LGPL as well as a commerically supported flavour for a company that needs such an animal. Developers can make improvements to the source and know that anyone can use those improvements in their own project under the LGPL. No so with OpenRPT (or NCReport).
That explains why you haven't submitted any code, I guess (although plenty of people don't have the religious objection you do, and have happily submitted patches.) I understand the arguments for the LGPL, and wouldn't rule it out in the future - but I think complaining about licensing choices for free software is a pretty poor excuse for sniping from the sidelines.
It doesn't explain why you haven't even made any suggestions as to how our "horrible" product could be improved.
Talk is cheap.
Firstly, please drop the rhetoric and posturing. This is the same position that you had with a much earlier discussion about your license that you chose to exclude from this list, presumably because you decided that the discussion wasn't going your way. You know exactly what I'm getting at but just don't like my position and opinion. Tough - I have a right to it.
I hardly think that my opposition to contributing code to OpenRPT which you will, then, turn around and sell, is a religious objection. You're completely missing the motivation that many of us have to contribute to a true Open Source project - the fact that we're making the pool of freely available, and usable, software better. OpenRPT is not Free, it's under the GPL, which is viral. The LGPL and Berkley licenses are Free and are far more appropriate for a project such as OpenRPT. You licensed under the GPL to keep OpenRPT/GPL from being used in commercial products and offer OpenRPT/commercial for that purpose. It's a similar business plan as Trolltech's with one large difference - Trolltech does not ask for help with developing their code nor claims to be Free.
And, as far as making suggestions as to how to fix your source, try using a little (lot) more stack allocation and recursion instead of the heap allocation and the pointers-from-hell method.
Thanks for the suggestions on the code.
Log in to post a comment.
Sign up for the SourceForge newsletter:
You seem to have CSS turned off.
Please don't fill out this field.