On Friday, 25 July 2008, at 15:56:20 (+0200), Jorge Luis Zapata Muga wrote:
> I think all the above points are frustrating , why? simply because > *i* dont want that my effort makes others take profit and dont give > anything to me. Of course you'll be proud that your > library/application is used on something you buy on the store, > that's great, but pride doesnt buy bread. > > Again we are on the same discussion of "success", for you and all > the "pure freedom" guys, what really matters is that you are the > author of what is being used by others, that's why you use the three > clause bsd license and not the two clause license, because at some > point you want the recognition, and that's it. I dont think that > kind of thinking fits well on a market, but that's me, unless you > dont care on the market. I think there are two points to note here. First, the core E project has never been about profit, and it still isn't IMHO. Second, the EFL are exactly that: Foundation Libraries. That means that they sit underneath other stuff, and they're useless without applications that use them. That's where the opportunity for profit is: applications, not libraries. And contributing back to the community which creates the foundation for your application only helps insure its success and longevity. > I think if your idea is to actually "do whatever with my code" why > the third clause? You missed a bit. "Do whatever with my code so long as you give credit where it's due." That last part is important too, whether attribution is in the form of credit or contribution to the community. > For me the success is not how many people use it, but if im able to > live from what i code on my spare time with my own ideas on not my > boss' and of course being part of the os community, that's it, and > bsd doesnt allows me that BSD allows you to be part of the OSS community. Whether or not it allows you to make a living from writing code has more to do with the company than the license. I can think of people making a living doing BSD code, public domain code, MPL code, IPL code, and of course closed source. The license simply isn't the make-or-break factor; it's the company and the business model. Of all the for-profit companies whose revenues are derived 100% from software alone, I can't think of too many doing strictly open source under *any* license, *GPL or otherwise. I think pretty much everyone would like to get paid to do something they'd do anyway. That's the dream. But it's very rare, and IMHO, not something to steer a project by. Michael -- Michael Jennings (a.k.a. KainX) http://www.kainx.org/ <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Linux Server/Cluster Admin, LBL.gov Author, Eterm (www.eterm.org) ----------------------------------------------------------------------- "You know, we're sitting on four million pounds of fuel, one nuclear weapon, and a thing that has 270 thousand moving parts built by the lowest bidder. Makes you feel good, doesn't it?" -- Steve Buscemi (Rockhound), "Armageddon" ------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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 [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/enlightenment-devel
