On Wed, Oct 01, 2008 at 06:11:34PM -0400, Olin Lathrop wrote:
> Byron Jeff wrote:
> > What's fundamentally wrong with
> > this "Pay it Forward" model. It doesn't prevent you from being
> > commercial and closed source (like the GPL).
> 
> It does if you make modifications to the open code.

Your application source stays closed. The additions to the open library are
released.

> 
> > It's doesn't give
> > developers free reign to do what they see fit without regard to the
> > community that helped them (like the BSD or Olin's license).
> 
> But that limits the value to those developers.  If the aim is to end up with
> the widest and cheapest software choices publicly available, then your
> requirement is not the right choice. 

But that's not the original goal of the OP. The OP came with the GPL which
was quickly rebuffed for all the obvious reasons.

The aim is to have a shared community infrastructure that a lot of folks can use.
That infrastructure cannot be built if only a few build it and the rest
only take from it. It's really the same fundamental problem that exists for
commercial software and media piracy.

> You might gain a little because some
> people that made modifications will publish the result whereas they
> otherwise might not have bothered.  On the other hand, you will loose more
> because anyone that might want to make changes to the code and use the
> result for commercial advantage isn't likely to touch it.

You're still missing the point and arguing a GPL model. If you go back and
read my rather lengthy post you will see that any application code using
the infrastructure is untouched by the licensing requirements of the
infrastructure.

Remember we're talking about heap managment. That's infrastructure code. If
you pull the heap code, build a commercial app with it, and make no changes
to the heap code, then you're golden. You're just a user.

However if you improve the heap code itself, those changes would need to be
shared so that the next group of folks down the pike can use the improved
heap. Nothing is required of your application that uses the heap. Just the
infrastructure itself.

If that's really a commercial disadvantage, then the other options, paying,
writing it yourself, using it as is, or finding code with a looser license
are all on the table. 

But why should the commercial advantage always trump the common good? Why
should commercial folks get a completely free ride and have to give
absolutely nothing back?

>  I think the latter greatly outweighs the former.  It is the latter type
>  of effort, which produces real distributed and supported software
>  accessible to the masses, that has far more impact than a few software
>  developers making things a little easier for other software developers.

> 
> Remember that software developers are a tiny minority of software users.
> The vast majority doesn't know from source code and wouldn't have a clue
> what to do with it if they had it.

But it's not about end users, it's about other developers sharing a common
pool of code. One can dip into the pool and use for nothing, but if you add
a contribution to the common pool, then it needs to go back to the common
pool with no effect on your private stuff.

>  In fact most developers wouldn't want to
> touch source code outside their field either.  Having access to source is
> waaaaaay overrated if you look at the world of software as a whole, not from
> the niche of a university surrounded by software people.

And that's probably the end of it. So no infrastructure will be built and
everyone writes their own island of code over and over again?

I find that to be a sad state of affairs, IMHO.

BAJ
-- 
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist