> > A. While I am all about making Matt look cooler in the open source
> > world, I would want to run a project that is mine. A bit greedy
> > perhaps,
> > but in open source you don't get paid so most of the time people do it
> > for props, experience, and making cool stuff. Putting it on your site
> > would benefit you, not me.
> >
> Well that isn't interesting perspective. Generally, the point of a open
> source project is to bring together a community of people working
> together for common goals. Every successful open source project to date
> is based on the contributions of many. In short, if you are concerned
> that others could benefit from your work without personal reconition
> then don't open source your work.
Horse pucky.
Community is important for open source development thats obvious - but that
is not a motive. why do people develop? They must get something for it.
Weather it is to sit back and say "man thats a cool thing I helped make" to
stick it to some corporation, to make tools that fill a need, or to prove to
yourself or others that you can do something - those are reasons everyone has
them. If your going to sit there and say you have no reasons for your
project your full of it. Advertising, props, trying to fill a need, get
free programmers, something - you have a reason everyone has a reason.
Hell, Linus started out - by himself - because he, one wanted to see if
he could, and two have a decent operating system to use (unix based
desktop) - those are reasons and a community formed behind those reasons
- not the other way around.
I can open source anything I want for whatever reason I want.
> > B. Sourceforge said No. That means they probably don't want it on
> > their
> > servers - otherwise I would run it off of one of my other open source
> > sites.
> >
> If you read their documentation it explains that they may deny a
> project for several reasons. Some of those reasons are as simply as
> they didn't like the grammar used in your description of the project.
> To take the leap that they don't want an open source project on their
> servers because they rejected the request is silly.
Why is it silly.
> Further, there are
> plenty of Sourceforge-based projects that host sub-projects without
> issue. I believe that my new project allows for the same as its mission
> is to provide open source solutions to the CFML community. I believe
> that an Eclipse plug-in would fit within that mission, which is why I
> suggested it to you.
Well good for you. You can now do it by downloading the source and
adding it to your project.
>
> > C. I don't really like the apace license which is what you said you
> > wanted to use. I don't like it because it excludes the author from
> > getting and recognition for their work.
> >
> I never suggested that you license your plug-in in any particular way.
> My announcement of the OpenXCF project --which did specify the Apache
> Software License-- was a completely seperate matter. Sourceforge
> projects can and do host software of multiple licenses, so if you did
> want to use another OSI approved license it wouldn't be an issue and
> frankly, as the orignial author of the code you should be the one to
> select the license. Of course, since your work is deriative of the
> example XML plug-in that comes with Eclipse, there may be licensing
> implications that limit your choices, but you should seek legal counsel
> in that regard.
>
> > "This product includes software developed by the Apache Software
> > Foundation (http://www.apache.org/)."
> >
> That is in the template and should be replaced by an appropriate
> message from the author. See the license included with code already up
> on OpenXCF for a example.
Yeah I'll take that one on the chin - you are right on that one.
--
Vale,
Rob
Luxuria immodica insaniam creat.
Sanam formam viatae conservate!
http://www.rohanclan.com
http://treebeard.sourceforge.net
http://ashpool.sourceforge.net
[Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings]
