Hello!
Angel, You are right: the license solely doesn't propel/develop any
project,
and every one could be down.
I'm not telling that I have oracle's knowledge ;) -> so I expect a lot
of criticism.
Maybe,
somebody with more/less expirence than I have,
would share the memories/facts that choosing
GPL or MIT or BSD or whatever open like license
is the major/minor factor
for project to be better equipped/prepared
in case of 'disturbances'...
Maybe
it is the question to be post elswere
Maybe
it shouldn't be pin to hook.io,
but story of it (hook.io) and it's thread here have symptoms
to me that choosing license type could/should be important...
Regards
Paweł Marzec
Wiadomość napisana w dniu 2012-12-01, o godz. 22:32, przez Angel Java
Lopez:
Hi people!
Sorry, Pawel, I missed your point.... The story of this thread
(hook.io deleted, someone could republish, etc...) would be the
same, being hook.io licensed GPL or MIT. AFAIK, hook.io was not
closed to be continue with internal development, but abandoned.
And I don't get your point with "but survives most of the
disturbances, with the first one doesn't.". GitHub is plenty of
project that "survives most of the disturbances" that are MIT
licensed. Node.js is an example.
Sorry if this mail feeds an maybe-offtopic discussion.
On Sat, Dec 1, 2012 at 6:23 PM, Paweł Marzec <[email protected]> wrote:
Hi! All below is IMHO:
I've observed, by reading the comments, that understanding the
problem wake up - it arised!.
There is a big diffrences between open licenses.
Like between MIT & GPL for example
the first one (MIT) guarantees the freedom to be used in all
aplication, the freedom to code & to decomplie & to decompile
& even to be transformed to closed project (by some company
interested to invest some money to open project it's the decision key)
But the second one (GPL) guarantees to keep the freedom of project
and freedom of apliances. (as long as you keep it public),
but it guratnees also to keep the freedom of the project by itself!
It forbids to be closed by anybody! As long as they have something
to be published and given back to society!
The first one (MIT) has the big virus counter (it is attractive to
yound developers as a leverage to be)
But the second one is less viruses in short time, but survives most
of the disturbances, with the first one doesn't.
So, please take a while and understand where you invest you efforts!
None of these two licensens has any money related restrictions!!!
The restictions are only in freedom related aspects!
Think!
Regards
Paweł Marzec
PS: Don't disturb the free beer with freedom, or even worse: the
freedom in exchange of free beer!
Wiadomość napisana w dniu 2012-12-01, o godz. 19:59, przez Isaac
Schlueter:
Ro,
I think that Nuno and Martin really covered all that needs to be said,
and I don't want to echo what they've explained very nicely. But I do
want to point out that what you're seeing is indeed a cultural
difference between open source and proprietary worlds. In effect,
with liberally licensed open source software, you have the *option* to
take ownership of your code. In the proprietary world, that is not
the case.
If you are depending on a bit of software that someone else wrote,
whether it's a database or operating system or just some little
library or javascript thing, you are accepting a bit of risk, in
exchange for some value. The risk is that the author might move on
and not care about this thing any more, or might take the project in a
direction that doesn't benefit you. The value is that you get to use
what they have built, at a much lower cost than building it yourself.
(Often it's free in terms of $$, but there's also the cost of learning
how it works, etc.)
I'm biased, but this is based on seeing how this goes in the real
world, and being on both ends of getting burned by these things.
In the proprietary world, you can find yourself in a situation where
the bulk of your system is in fact owned by Microsoft (if you're
lucky!), or worse, by a company like Oracle[1], which is explicitly in
the business of "extracting value" from their users. Or, you may be
married to a company run by someone you know and trust, and then one
day, they retire, and the person who follows them runs things very
differently.
Switching from one platform to another is usually prohibitively
expensive. Proprietary vendors know this, that's how they can raise
prices to exorbitant levels once you're using their platform. The
general MO is to sell these platforms with the promise of support
contracts and such, and to tell horror stories about how open source
projects get abandoned.
But proprietary software projects get abandoned as well! Just ask the
Solaris or MySQL users how much support they're getting from Oracle,
or how much innovation they're seeing in those software projects. On
the other hand, their free spin-offs (Maria and Illumos, respectively)
are seeing a lot of innovation and have a much more active community
support network. For that matter, compare the experience of sharing
code with other users in .NET or iOS vs Perl or Node. Proprietary
systems tend to destroy communities, by polarizing them into "the
provider" and "the users".
Open source communities by necessity acknowledge the reality of
project abandonment, because we can't ignore it. We don't have a
company buy a project and then slowly squeeze all the life out of its
trapped users; the developer says, "Ok, I'm doing another thing now",
and that's that. If someone wants to take over, they do. (Usually
this is one of the users who depend on it, perhaps someone who was
*already* helping find/fix bugs.) If no one cares, then it dies
peacefully.
--i
[1] If it seems like I'm picking on Oracle unfairly, it's only because
they're the most evil software company I know of. LIke any large
organization, there are a lot of good people working there, and some
of them are doing good work; but as a whole, the company is clearly
evil. Apple, Google, and Microsoft are also not blameless or purely
good, but I think that all three at least are trying to be a net
benefit for the software industry.
--
Job Board: http://jobs.nodejs.org/
Posting guidelines:
https://github.com/joyent/node/wiki/Mailing-List-Posting-Guidelines
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "nodejs" group.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
[email protected]
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/nodejs?hl=en?hl=en
--
Job Board: http://jobs.nodejs.org/
Posting guidelines:
https://github.com/joyent/node/wiki/Mailing-List-Posting-Guidelines
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "nodejs" group.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
[email protected]
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/nodejs?hl=en?hl=en
--
Job Board: http://jobs.nodejs.org/
Posting guidelines:
https://github.com/joyent/node/wiki/Mailing-List-Posting-Guidelines
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "nodejs" group.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
[email protected]
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/nodejs?hl=en?hl=en
--
Job Board: http://jobs.nodejs.org/
Posting guidelines:
https://github.com/joyent/node/wiki/Mailing-List-Posting-Guidelines
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "nodejs" group.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
[email protected]
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/nodejs?hl=en?hl=en
