"I wrote these widgets and open sourced them. At a later time I can write different versions of them, and new widgets, and not open source them if I so choose. If someone else wants to take the open source versions and maintain them they are perfectly free to do so."
This is all I neded to hear. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Dan Steinman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Tuesday, November 27, 2001 3:41 PM Subject: Re: [Dynapi-Dev] DynAPI Documents - Structural Candidate 1 > I think the fundamental problem here is that everyone thinks that I am obligated to release every line of code I write in the past and future as open source. But there is nothing stopping me from writing new versions of the widgets I originally wrote for a commercial closed source product. > > > These widgets you are proposing are generic building blocks, anyone could > > create them, and they would look strikingly similar to your commercial > > versions. > > Yes, of course they can. I have stated nothing to the contrary. > > I wrote these widgets and open sourced them. At a later time I can write different versions of them, and new widgets, and not open source them if I so choose. If someone else wants to take the open source versions and maintain them they are perfectly free to do so. > > But it has become quite clear while looking through these files that they have not even been touched aside from a couple lines of LoadPanel, and DynImage (which won't be part of my widget pack). Nobody seems to want to maintain them. > > So I am taking things into my own hands, and will be producing a set of widgets that are of commercial quality, will be supporting them and maintaining them on a regular basis. And it will cost around $30 to use these widgets in a commercial website. > > > Those same contractors can not go back on a contract and say, by the way in > > order for you to continue using my work, you will have to pay a fee to a 3rd > > party, because this 3rd party has changed the licensing agreement. The > > people we develop for will say, "Though! A contract is a contract, and you > > should have told me about this before we signed." > > I am not changing the license of the files I released as open source. Such contractors will have 3 choices - 1) stick with the v2.5 tree, 2) updated the widgets from 2.5 on their own, 3) buy the widget pack. > > You can argue all you want, but in the end this is better for everyone. The DynAPI core files have been completely overhauled and substantially improved. And there will be brand spanking new set of widgets that work extremely well, are fully customizable, have prebuilt themes, and the only difference is these ones will cost money. I am positive that this work would not have ever been completed unless I started building a commercial product based on DynAPI. > > Regards, > Dan Steinman > > > On Tue, Nov 27, 2001 at 02:55:56PM -0500, Laszlo Teglas wrote: > > >Just as there is commercial software available for open source operating > > >systems such as Linux there can be commercial apps and extensions for > > DynAPI. > > This is true. However I am a Red Hat Linux user, and am proud to say, I did > > not spend a dime to have the legal privilege of using it, commercially or > > otherwise. And if Red Hat suddenly said "We're re-assuming ownership of the > > Linux API GUI components and intend to charge a fee for using it." There > > would be revolt. > > > > >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. > > > > Those same contractors can not go back on a contract and say, by the way in > > order for you to continue using my work, you will have to pay a fee to a 3rd > > party, because this 3rd party has changed the licensing agreement. The > > people we develop for will say, "Though! A contract is a contract, and you > > should have told me about this before we signed." > > > > These widgets you are proposing are generic building blocks, anyone could > > create them, and they would look strikingly similar to your commercial > > versions. > > > > By the way, does anyone remember why Intel did not call the Pentium a "586" > > instead. Because the courts ruled that the number "586" was to generic to > > copyright. > > > > 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 > > > > > > 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]/ > > _______________________________________________ > 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]/
