Re: New release of PYZOR now dubbed "Bohuno".

[Matija N. <mna...@vo...>]

On Fri, Nov 28, 2008 at 11:38:22PM +0100, Milton Cyrus wrote:
> When developing a pyzord that could cope with the load it had we  
> decided to go with a closed "back-end" which was/is backwards  
> compatible with the existing Pyzor.
> 
> To answer some of the questions raised on the list:
> 
> Yes the back-end is "closed-source" we do plan to release the API  
> specs so al can develop against it.

That is too bad. :-(

One of the main reasons for writing pyzor (instead of just using already
existing "razor" protocol and servers which do more or less the same thing
as pyzor) was *precisly* to move away from closed-source backend.

> But we encourage all to download the "remote" version that keeps a  
> copy. It is free.

In such a situation, it would be prudent to avoid using the word "free" -
some people might think of it as "free software" (as defined as FSF, in
pyzors GPL etc.) and NOT your intended meaning of "you don't have to pay for
it (yet), but we won't give you the source or any other rights".

> Load the servers I maintained for a while was to much to handle so we  
> decided to rewrite the code and bring some more while we were at it.

It would've been great if you decided to just improve on the existing pyzor
server code, instead of rewriting it from scratch so you can prohibit people
from benefiting from free software.  Even if you decided that C or something
was needed for speed, you still could've realeased it under GPL as was
original pyzor code. 

Would you consider open sourcing it ?

There are many admins which won't consider running untrusted code without
source on their machines (and not only for security implications), and by
open sourcing you would actually give back to the community you're taking
from. 

And if your plans aren't locking-in the users so you can take advantage of
them later, both you and the users would actually benefit from your open
sourcing of code. (you get more users and popularity, users get the code
they're comfortable with and can audit and improve on)

-- 
Opinions above are GNU-copylefted.