I agree that it sucks when a free, open-source project get closed-sourced. The legal issues are license dependent. I'm pretty sure that you can't un-GPL a project, and I think the Apache-style license is pretty firm on this as well. I'm not a lawyer though, so I should probably keep my mouth shut.
With most free software licenses you could take the last free version and continue developing it under the same license. One prominent case is Interbase, which Borland opened and then took back. Some of the developers continued working on the open version which became Firebird (http://firebird.sourceforge.net/). I've been a long-time user of the embeddable Java database, HypersonicSQL. When its developer got overwhelmed, some other folks picked up the pieces and kept going as HSQL (http://hsqldb.sourceforge.net/). As an open-source developer myself (http://www.webmacro.org) I appreciate your support and commitment to give back to the community. But you've got to look out for yourself as well. I guess the bottom line is, check out the license and the developer community before you commit to using free software. The good news is that a lot more closed-source stuff is going open than the other way around. The bad news is that not all OSS is created equal -- sometimes free is not a bargain. License issues are complex and ugly. To learn more check out the Open Source Initiative's Web site (http://www.opensource.org/licenses/). Keats ----- Original Message ----- From: Craig Dickson To: jdjlist Sent: Monday, June 02, 2003 2:41 PM Subject: [jdjlist] Open Source + Free Projects that switch to For-Fee Licensing I am a large user of open source projects from places like SourceForge and Apache. I am in a position of influence at my current company and I am able to promote their use within my team and also assign resources to figure out issues that are discovered and at least report them to the appropriate bug lists if not submit a patch. We almost always choose open-source over other products and are proud of the low licensing burden that the engineering team puts on the funds of the company. But on more than one occasion now we have been "burnt" by projects where their owners see the possibility of making some bucks because their project has become popular and try to change from an LGPL style license to a for-fee license. My first question about this is - is this actually allowed under these licenses? I am pretty sure it must be at least frowned upon by the open source purists out there. In my opinion it is certainly against the spirit of open-source anyway. Clearly these projects contribute to the profit-making ability of my company, but we at least do what we can to support these projects in these belt-tightening times. Could we argue that since we logged bugs and patches that we are entitled a portion of any profits derived in the future? And what of open source projects that make use of other open source projects - where do they turn in this situation? Of course, since the code is out there in the public domain, there appears no reason to not re-post it to SourceForge even if the owners shut the original project down. As long as the required open source license is there, I see no real problem in launching a new project based entirely on the original one. Perhaps this will discourage others from attempting to gouge profits, because they will be undermined anyway by free versions. Anyway, perhaps this is just an outlet for me to vent my frustration at this practice. It just grinds me that the argument used by many of these project "owners" is that it is taking up too much of their time, and yet they are willing to accept the input (and hence time) of other developers but do not seem to be willing to afford them any profits when or if they do arrive. But in my mind, the whole idea is that Open Source is fluid and doesn't necessarily work to a schedule. If you get lots of feature requests, take it as validation for your work so far and plod along with what you are doing. Accept input if you wish, or just write what you want - it is up to you after all. You will soon see if what you are writing is interesting to others simply by looking at the download rate. Possibly the best tact is to let other developers contribute their ideas and work and make the end result as organic as possible. No one expects Open Source to be delivered at any particular time, or any particular feature to be present. Those that do need to turn to for-fee software and take their chances there - although in my experience it is not much better, if at all, in meeting schedules or customer expectations - but that is what lawyers and contracts are for after all! I would be interested to hear anyone else's opinions about this. Craig. --- You are currently subscribed to jdjlist as: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.sys-con.com/fusetalk --- You are currently subscribed to jdjlist as: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.sys-con.com/fusetalk
