>Feel free to email me privately if you have any other concerns. I don't mind to email you privately. However I think this is an important topic for the community. And I think this should be aired out as soon as possible. I hope you don't mind. I don't want to start a war. I really don't want to offend you. I respect your work.
I do not have a problem with people making money on the work they do. I would be a hypocrite if I did. What I do have a problem with is when something is released under GNU Public License and then the originator makes a proclamation "I'm re-assuming ownership of the widgets I write." >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. This is simply not true. Why don't you look at the CVS. I see contributors for the widget pack as follows: Richard Bennett, rainwater, camhart, dodoron, marstr, even myself. As a matter of Fact I see Rainwater and dodron so often that I shudder to think, they may reclaim their code and hold me for ransom when I use DynAPI in a commercial setting. Here are some other important concepts to consider: What does DynAPI really mean. We know that Dyn stands for 'dynamic' as in dynamic client side script. And API stands for Application Programming Interface. An API is a set of basic classes or building blocks that programmers use to create applications. Those of you who get outside of the JavaScript world would know, that an API such as JAVA API or WinAPI include basic generic construction blocks, such as "Button, CheckBox, CheckBoxGroup (probably RadioButton also), ColumnList (needs work), List, ListItem, SelectList, Menu, MenuBar, MenuItem, (probably CheckBoxMenuItem and RadioMenuItem also), Slider, Range, ScrollBar, ScrollPane, PushPanel, TabPane, TabItem, Window" These are generic widgets that you can't claim a copyright to. These already exist in every other API. And all you are doing is copying the functionality of these generic classes from Java to DynAPI. 8an is doing the same thing, with his TComponents. What will you do when these same widgets appear in the official distribution of DynAPI, looking strikingly similar to your own "Commercial" widgets. Will you file a law suit against the DynAPI Community for developing the same generic widgets you distribute? Will you do the same with 8an's TComponents? This is crazy! DynAPI needs some basic widgets for it to be worth calling 'API'. We are already short on help from developers. I am not eager to see this small pond evaporate into thin air. >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). What the heck is all this talk about documentation, and why am I spending time developing it, if you intend to sell it for profit? NanoFace =;^| -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Dan Steinman Sent: November 27, 2001 12:15 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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 _______________________________________________ Dynapi-Dev mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/
