On Fri, Jul 25, 2008 at 4:03 AM, Michael Jennings <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Friday, 25 July 2008, at 01:53:24 (+0200), > Jorge Luis Zapata Muga wrote: >> If you think that a project is successful based on how many >> companies have used your software then of course actually licensing >> your sw is not a matter just give it to the world, bsd license is >> the most free license (afaik) that you can have and of course you'll >> find thousands of projects that are out there being closed or open >> that use your software, so your meaning of successful is >> achieved. So for companies that actually want to use someone else >> code (because of a technical decision or not), and dont want or >> can't send something back (code, money, whatever) to the author then >> bsd is the best option. And that is indeed what happense on many on >> the companies that use bsd code, they dont give back code, of course >> they are not obligated to do so, its your license that allows that, >> but is that what we want?
> You make a good point about how we measure "success" in terms of the > previous assertions about one license or the other making us more > "successful." You're absolutely right. And everything you said about > the BSD license is also completely true and fair. > As for the final question, "is that what we want?" From my > perspective, it goes back to what Nathan said: Parts that are > directly a *part of* EFL are almost certainly going to be given back > because the cost of maintaining a fork (or a parallel LoD) is not > insignificant. Works based on (i.e., making use of) the EFL which are > separate, independent entities are almost certainly not going to be > given back anyway because that's from where the company's profit is > derived. That's just wrong. Maintaining a fork is in my opinion completely doable and will really not cost much. We are a few people, with less 5 of us breaking things in the core. I have almost 20 differents git branch on my hard drive of the CVS. Each of them could be considered as a fork. In fact they are just big change waiting for review or a good time to break E CVS again. Nothing force me to give them back, running a git pull is enought most of the time for keeping this "fork" alive and running. >> If your meaning of successful is on how many developers are out >> there on bsd or *gpl projects, i really dont know the statistics, >> but i think gpl is beyond, might be something related with the >> media, maybe, but the number of developers is something we need. > > I'm not sure the simple quantity of developers on BSD- versus > GPL-licensed projects is the right metric; a developer working on a > GPL project may or may not be willing to contribute to a BSD project, > and vice versa. Same with companies. Some companies like the GPL > because it prevents competitors from co-opting, closed-sourcing, and > extending their code. (This is the argument that Active Directory > might not exist if Kerberos and OpenLDAP had been GPL'd instead of > BSD'd. Then again, AD being based primarily on open standards helped > quite a bit with creating free software that talks to AD...a task > which would've been much harder had it been completely opaque and > proprietary.) Other companies prefer the BSD license because promotes > wider use and does not require them to give up their intellectual > property rights. > >> But as my initial question, what happens with companies that >> actually want to give something back, that believe in the concept of >> community but dont want other companies that dont share the same >> vision as you to use the code to make profit, close source, etc? i >> think that for that case (and is not a small group of companies that >> are working like that right now) bsd is not an option. > When you release something under the BSD license, it is always under > the BSD license. In order to closed-source it, they would have to > make extensive modifications and provide significant value-add; > otherwise, no one would use it when there's a freely-available BSD > alternative. I don't understand your statement. The BSD license give you the right to distribute just the binary. It doesn't say anything about the amount of change you need to do to distribute it in binary form. And a modified EFL library distributed as a binary is useless expect for the application that was designed to use it. So yes, people will use the freely availabe one, but nobody benefit from the improvement and change made for the binary one. But that's just the purpose of the BSD license. > Active Directory is the only example I can think of right now where > somebody did that to great success, and the success of AD was not due > to AD itself, but rather the GUI tools they provided that made it > "easy" (for some definition of that word) to set up and manage. > X is actually a very good example of the opposite happening -- all the > major UNIX vendors cooperated and collaborated to the mutual benefit > of all. They did the same with CDE (taking HP's VUE front-end > combined with Sun's tooltalk backend and making a desktop that ran on > all 3 major UNIXes). Yes, X is a good example. They did fork to solve some of their problem. >> I think we should take this topic in the sense of what do we want or >> expect from the e project. So for me and my vision of how e should >> be, i want e to be open source, but i want all of its derivative >> work to be also open source, i dont want to code on this project for >> the next 5 years and suddenly the number of developers (which is >> small) goes to zero, a company takes our code, close source it, and >> then you see your code on the next cell phone you buy, it will be >> frustrating. I think many of us want to make a living from it, at >> the end is our effort and sacrifice that is in discussion here. > Would it really frustrate you to see code you wrote ending up on a > device lots of people use? Or would the frustrating part be the fact > that they're making money from it? or that you had to pay for it? or > that they didn't contribute anything back (which would be difficult if > the developer count had gone to zero, since the project would be dead > at that point)? You got the point. Today we need less than 5 trucks to stop this project. This is an issue. By switching the core library to LGPL, it will be easier to advocate them and gain more core developper. But yes this will take time and that's not the only point we need to adress. > Personally, I would love it if my phone were running my code. (For > now, I'll have to settle for the fact that it's running the code of > friends of mine.) If they're making money from it, and you're not, > chances are they've done some sort of value add (or else everyone > would use the freebie, as previously stated) to get people to pay for > it. It's nice to see my code running on any device that's sure, but I really don't care. What I care is about this project. I want it to grow, to be faster, smaller and have more features (nah, it's possible :-) ). I want it to be strong and survive 5 trucks. I want to see more beautifull apps using it. And I am sure they are way to improve the current situation. -- Cedric BAIL ------------------------------------------------------------------------- This SF.Net email is sponsored by the Moblin Your Move Developer's challenge Build the coolest Linux based applications with Moblin SDK & win great prizes Grand prize is a trip for two to an Open Source event anywhere in the world http://moblin-contest.org/redirect.php?banner_id=100&url=/ _______________________________________________ enlightenment-devel mailing list enlightenment-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/enlightenment-devel
