Re: [Opensync-devel] libsynthesis and vformats

[Lukas Z. <lu...@pl...>]

Hi Michael,

On Jan 9, 2011, at 16:03 , Michael Banck wrote:

>> True, but quite a big risk to take. I've invested 10 years into this
>> and didn't get a single penny funding except for selling products
>> based on this code, in a narrow niche.
> 
> I am not saying you would get funding, I am just saying you could still
> sell your products that way, and have the code open to everybody.  Of
> course, nobody can guarantee you that you would get more external
> contributors if you did so, but libsynthesis would certainly be more
> interesting to contribute to.

No doubt. But if my business, which has alone funded all of libsynthesis, goes down the drain in the process, that wouln't help the project much.

I'm not saying that I disagree with you on the goal to make software open, but I'm saying that there's risk involved. None of the less strict licenses than GPL would exist at all if there wasn't always the problem of how to fund the developer's lives somehow. I big companies, that's going around many corners and thus is not always so obvious, but I'm facing a pretty bare-bone situation here. Make basic income happen anytime soon, and things would look different :-)

>>> 2. Relicense the code to say "LGPL 2.1 or later".  That would remove
>>> potential concerns that in the future libsynthesis will be incompatible
>>> with LGPLv4 libraries, if a new version of the LGPL gets released ever.
>> 
>> Worth considering, sure, but it does not solve the problem that we
>> still need a contributor agreement.
> 
> Right, but maybe some people would be more willing to sign it.

Maybe.

But maybe the point is something different - as much as I agree with the goals of free software, I'm not so sure about the total insurance attitute that sometimes accompanies it. I mean, if the current licensing terms are a problem for someone who would like to actually *do* something, please let me know. But expecting from me to risk 10 (full time!) years first, so that maybe eventually somebody could feel more inclined to considering contributing with zero risk... Not really.

>> Our CA is a almost 1:1 copy of the SCA (Sun, for OpenOffice), and
>> states that "Any contribution we make available under any license will
>> also be made available under a suitable FSF (Free Software Foundation)
>> or OSI (Open Source Initiative) approved license".
> 
> Well, the SCA certainly doesn't have the best image.  However, that is
> mostly due to the potential to take code (partly) proprietary.  You
> already did that,

Not quite - we just couldn't risk making all our code OS without commercially risking our heads and in consequence the entire project. So we had to find ways to *keep* part of the code proprietary, and in particular work around the incompatibility of LGPL and iOS static linking requirements. That's something quite different from *taking* code proprietary.

> so that is probably clear to prospective contributors.
> 
> I see how it would be difficult to get outside contributions that way.

You might be right - but then I haven't had a single complaint from anyone who actually wanted to contribute and found the terms were restricting.

The current licensing model and contributor agreement is a result of active communication and negotiation between actively interested parties, and so will be future changes thereof.

Lukas