DJA wrote:
Incentive, maybe not. Isn't need motivation enough. Or do you need some
kind of "Attaboy!"?
No, because I *still* have all the hassles associated with it even if I
give some changes back to the GPL code. Then I get the joy of going
through this 2-3 years from now, again. I'll pass.
I wonder what the world of FOSS would be like today if everyone from
Stallman and Torvalds on down thought like that.
Given that they *started* their projects, the license was *as they wished*.
It sounds not like the licenses are as much of a problem as that your
needs fall into a very niche category in which few are interested or
have have similar needs. Other than those who might very protective of
their work. How very ironic that FOSS software might stand more in your
way than the proprietary kind.
The unusual situation is that the algorithms for doing VLSI can be
*very* valuable. It is worth investing quite a bit of time to replace
GPL code in order to not have to reveal the VLSI algorithms.
I do understand that I am unusual.
You've already developed code which works to some degree. Then release
it under the license of your choice. That /you/ don't think it's worth
releasing is irrelevant; the measure of its worth after its release will
be determined by the degree of its acceptance by the "World at large".
In return for your generosity, you might get that code returned to you
with the features you want and more, as added by the FOSS community. If
not, well, then you're no worse off than before.
That's a bit of a simplisitic assessment.
The problem is that released code forms part of your reputation. If the
world is large, and the people who would be using the code are mostly
anonymous, you can tell people: "Use it or not, I'm not supporting you."
and the consequences are small.
With a field as small as VLSI design, that consequence is much larger.
That person you told "I'm not supporting you" may be your hiring manager
tomorrow. Not a good position to be in. I have actually been in the
reverse--"Oh, *YOU* wrote that code! We've been using it for 3 years
without a hitch. Phenomenal."
I still don't see the difference between abandoned GPL code and
maintained GPL code in your context. Unless you're merely wanting
someone else to do the heavy lifting.
It has to do with management. I have to provide the bug fixes, test
them, put them in the code, provide a place to store the code, put the
code online, announce the new version, etc. I effectively have to
maintain a public repository while I am using that code.
For an active project, I can file a bug report and patch and it will
become part of the next generation. Done.
Why not just buy what you need, negotiate a redistribution or run-time
license, and be done with it?
Quite often, we do. However, the authors often no longer exist or are
unreachable. With BSD this is a non-issue.
-a
--
[email protected]
http://www.kernel-panic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/kplug-list
