Open source does not mean freeware.
You may have to pay a fee for it; and the key points are
i) that the fee be reasonable
ii) that the access not be prohibited from sharing mods with other
licensees
iii) that he mods do not become closed
Another viable way is to grant source usage access only to those who buy the
binary version.
J _must_ recoup its efforts somehow, and shareware freebie is fine for the
binaries
Just not lucrative enough to sustain a company.
But it dares NOT give away the source for free
Because the competitors will simply use the source to implement the same
functors in THEIR domain.
Killing Jsoftware & J.
Unless there is a way to protect it that will get an income into the
company.
gnucc _is_ open source; always has been;
however whatever underlying translator that may have been required to
BOOTSTRAP it
on some systems in previous versions may NOT have been.
Similarly for all those pesky ABIs needed to run in ANY graphics
environment.
You may have to pay fees to use those;
which may be bundled only with the OS native translation system.
Open source on everything can solve this, but:
creeping version changes are also used to block THIS as well.
Openware will not solve all the problems; merely reduce the pain of handling
them.
Cheers.
On 6/7/07, Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 6/7/07, Terrence Brannon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Examples of open source projects which have followed a
> > closed source model include gcc and linux. (But, properly
> > speaking, that's anecdote, not data.)
>
> You can download the source for gcc anytime you want. How has it
followed a
> closed source model?
The licensing of gcc has always been "open source". However, the
licensing
of C compilers, in general have not always been. (Though, granted, the
first
C compilers were written before copyright was considered a significant
issue
for software). And, gcc is, in some sense of the word, a c compiler.
> And Linux seems open source to me.
>
> I don't have the faintest idea what you mean here Raul.
Linux is patterned on unix, which has been treated as a proprietary
system.
Anyways, my underlying question was: should we distinguish between
implementation and design when considering open source projects?
Are the same models good for both?
--
Raul
----------------------------------------------------------------------
For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
--
Use Reply-To: & thread your email
after the first: or it may take a while, as
I get 2000 emails per day.
--
Roy A. Crabtree
UNC '76 gaa.lifer#
(For TN contact, email me to set up a confirmed date/time)
202-391-0765 voicemail inbound only
[When you hear/read/see/feel what a yehudi plays/writes/sculpts/holds]
[(n)either violinist {Menuhin} (n)or writer {"The Yehudi Principle"} (n)or
molder (n)or older]
[you must strive/think/look/sense all of it, or you will miss the meanings
of it all]
[EMAIL PROTECTED] Forwards only to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] CC: auto to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] Be short < 160 chars cuts off; currently
offline
[EMAIL PROTECTED] CC: auto to ^
http://www.authorsden.com/royacrabtree
http://skyscraper.fortunecity.com/activex/720/resume/full.doc
--
(c) RAC/IP, ARE,PRO,PAST
(Copyright) Roy Andrew Crabtree/In Perpetuity
All Rights/Reserved Explicitly
Public Reuse Only
Profits Always Safe Traded
----------------------------------------------------------------------
For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
