Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. And Wrong. fasttreenode.js - Richard DynScroll2 - Doug Toolbar.js - Doug ect..
----- Original Message ----- From: "Dan Steinman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Tuesday, November 27, 2001 12:15 PM Subject: Re: [Dynapi-Dev] DynAPI Documents - Structural Candidate 1 I'm not changing the license of the DynAPI, it will remain LGPL, and I will be contributing my changes to the core files back to DynAPI distribution when I officially release it. But there's nothing stopping anyone from building code that relies on DynAPI and selling it (as long as it's distributed separately). Just as there is commercial software available for open source operating systems such as Linux there can be commercial apps and extensions for DynAPI. My commercial widget pack will be distributed separately from DynAPI and thus is not subject to the LGPL. As far as I can see no one has ever changed any of the GUI components I've written (that goes for a lot of the DynAPI actually), and no one has ever contributed any GUI components back to the DynAPI distribution. I've completely rewritten the existing widgets anyway (except loadpanel and dynimage which will still be part of DynAPI). Though the DynAPI core files are open source this does not force me to release new code that I write as open source if I don't want to. I don't feel too bad for contractors who are making money off code that I have largely written. Everyone will still be able to use the DynAPI (and update the versions of the GUI components in DynAPI2.5x if they wish). And if a contractor is doing work that could benefit from some of the really great widgets (that I'm spending enormous amounts of time to produce) then he should tell his client to consider buying my widget pack for $30 so that he doesn't have to spend considerably more to produce something similar. I feel my new widgets are very good and worth paying for (along with the docs, tutorials, and a support that I will also provide). Feel free to email me privately if you have any other concerns. Regards, Dan Steinman On Tue, Nov 27, 2001 at 10:32:23AM -0500, Laszlo Teglas wrote: > I have started to create the documents we have been talking about. > My initial work can be viewed here: > > http://www.interlog.com/~ccsi/DynAPI-Docs/docs/ > > This is just the structural layout that we agreed on. A lot of work is > required to complete it still. What I am looking for is feed back on the > structure, not the minor details at this point. Does this document structure > make sense? Is this something that our users would appreciate. > > I used frames as agreed to cut down on maintenance of the docs. This way the > docs are independent of the interface. > > Now to some disturbing news: > Dan has recently announced, "But note, for 2.6 I'm re-assuming ownership of > the widgets I write - no one seems to really want to maintain other peoples > widgets anyway. I've rewrote them and will be selling them (for commercial > use, free for non-commercial use) separately from DynAPI. This of course > won't stop others from using 2.6 for their own widgets." > > Widgets are an integral part of DynAPI. With out them, the core files are an > over engineered piece of JavaScript functions. To think that the next > release will be without a free set of widgets is chilling. A lot of us like > to fool around with DynAPI as "non-commercial" users, but this does not put > food on our tables. Most of us are developers on contract who use Open > Source products such as DynAPI to create websites. When we charge our > customers we charge them for creating the layout of there sites and put some > content in it, we don't charge them for using DynAPI. That would be against > the GNU license. > > Dan I appreciate everything you have done for DynAPI, you have put a lot of > work into it, but if your intent was to make money off of this work, then > you should not have relieved your work as Open Source. The very reason you > have all these followers is because DynAPI is Open Source. I have used it > for that very reason my self. And in order to repay the DynAPI community for > all their work, I decided to pitch in some of my time to create > documentation. I am not sure, if I want to continue doing that if at a later > time DynAPI will be hijacked for profit. > > Furthermore, I am not a lawyer, but I believe what you are doing is against > section 2c of the GNU General Public License under which DynAPI is > distributed. It reads as follows: > "2) You may modify your copy or copies of the Library or any portion of it, > thus forming a work based on the Library, and copy and distribute such > modifications or work under the terms of Section 1 above, provided that you > also meet all of these conditions: > c) You must cause the whole of the work to be licensed at no charge to ALL > third parties under the terms of this License." > > Dan I know you are putting a lot of work into this. We all appreciate it. > But you can't change the terms of the license on the fly. There are a lot of > developers who have donated their time to this cause and accepted the terms > of the license, which forbids them of making a profit on ANY modifications > they contribute to the Library. > > With regret, but not as enemies, > > > NanoFace =;^( > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Dynapi-Dev mailing list > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/ _______________________________________________ Dynapi-Dev mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/ _______________________________________________ Dynapi-Dev mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/
