lol, maybe there is a small misunderstanding between desire and reality. Everyone can dream big but I don't recall saying Bill Gates was addressing the room. I have big dreams and live on a shoestring budget. The kicker is my project idea will take me several months and I don't want to commit to something I won't be able to use if and when I finish it. I welcome any kind of dissenting opinion and I am not going to lie to anyone about my intentions. But my intentions are exactly that and nothing built yet, and it is almost ironic that people like me get accused of being greedy after replying to emails such as this one. Rest assured my passion projects to date have not been commercially viable, but I keep trying.
There is a real impact to the time it takes to build something. Yes I do have an idea where I can apply a modified version of tinycc. Honestly though? I can think of a trillion different ways I can use it as well if not for idea # 1. So another part of it is flexibility. And more over I really hate that you guys put a lot of work into this and it remains in perpetual toy status because people are afraid of lgpl. There is after all, a reason other open source licenses exist. Maybe being upfront with this community was a mistake but I knew that risk and 10/10 would take it again. I just wish you would see that at least I am not lying to anyone. Again, you ask for kickbacks fine but don't do it in the same email as trying to take a moral high ground with me. As far as contributing source code back, it would have to be under a fork. And I would do that though I suspect my derivative wouldn't be as much use to you guys. But the point about giving it back vs. tying it to my program is simply de-identification. I hope that makes sense. I don't want the source code of my software revealed, but if it is revealed where nobody would ever know it belongs, then I can't imagine there being anything wrong with that in theory. ________________________________________ From: [email protected] <[email protected]> on behalf of Daniel Glöckner <[email protected]> Sent: Wednesday, March 2, 2016 1:57 AM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [Tinycc-devel] License is too restrictive for real-world use. On Wed, Mar 02, 2016 at 08:38:45AM +0000, John B wrote: > I love playing around with toys and trying to make them better. It beats > sudoku. But I am not going to surreptitiously steal the software but on > the cooperative flip side of that coin, I don't want to release my code, > either. After reading your side of the story, I have the feeling that keeping my parts of TinyCC as LGPL was the right choice. TinyCC is a small project with very few active developers. If your product uses TinyCC, you should feel the responsibility of committing improvements you made back the main project. (If on the other hand your product consists mainly of a modified version of TinyCC, you can try to convince us by offering a share of your earnings. ;) Best regards, Daniel _______________________________________________ Tinycc-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/tinycc-devel _______________________________________________ Tinycc-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/tinycc-devel
