OpenEuphoria

Re: My View on the License issues (PD only..here's why)

• Posted by Ray Smith <ray at RaymondSmith.com> Sep 22, 2006
• 553 views

Al Getz wrote:
> 
> Hello again,
> 
> In this case
> there has already been a precedence set...code has already been
> contributed with the authors setting their own standards for
> how the code THEY submit should be used.
> 
> I see no reason why this should be changed, and so if someone
> wants to contribute their own interpreter, for example,
> they should be able to specify their own requirements just
> as in the past with other contributed code.
> 
> Most people only ask that their name be mentioned in the
> derived works anyway.  If others want to ask for more,
> then they have to realize that their code *may* not be used
> at all, for anything.  If they dont ask for more, then they
> have to realize that their code may be used as part of a 
> project that makes money and they dont get any of it, but
> then how would the profit be divided anyway, especially if
> there were more than one contributor?  That would get hairy.
> 
> Public domain is the only way to go, and if contributors
> want to post their more specific demands on *their* contributions
> then let them do so.  If they want to modify the source and
> contribute that, then let *them* decide what they will allow
> on their code, as has always been done in the past.
> This gives the secondary author the right to choose any licence
> they care to, and puts no demand on Open Eu.  If they dont want
> *their* code to be purely public domain, then they can specify
> whatever they want.  If they dont want to release it, then
> they wont anyway.
> 
> This of course means that Open Eu must be released with the
> free'est licence possible, so that no one has any reason
> not to use it!
> 
> I, however, also believe that it should be mandatory to have to
> mention in an about box and in the doc's that Open Eu was used
> either all or in part to build the project.
> 
> Also, if anyone thinks ALL software is some day going to magically
> become free then all i ask is for proof: get Microsoft to start
> giving away ALL of their software for free.  When that happens,
> i will probably agree to give all my software away for free
> AND ALSO with the requirement that anything they use it for
> must be free also.

Hi Al,

One of the main points you are missing is that many Open Source Licesnes ensure
that all derived works stay open source.
This means that all work done "in the euphoria system" will stay open forever.
What happens if some bright spark makes a dozen really great changes to Euphoria
and gets lots of people using it ... but doesn't open source his code.
All of a sudden we are back to where we are now .. with 1 person controlling
everything. (Obviously not quiet since anyone else is able to make the same
improvements)
Licenses such as the LGPL force all derived works to be open source ... meaning
the open future of Euphoria is ensured ... while allowing anyone to write open or
closed sourced apps "using" Euphoria.

I'm all for putting a license on Euphoria which forces it to be open forever.

I don't see why people are worried about not allowing the actual Euphoria source
code to be used in closed source apps.
You can still use all of Euphoria to write as many apps as you want, sell them
open or closed source to whoever you want to.
You just can't change Euphoria itself and sell it to someone without giving them
your source code.

Regards,

Ray Smith
http://RaymondSmith.com