Byron Jeff wrote:
>> It does if you make modifications to the open code.
>
> Your application source stays closed. The additions to the open
> library are released.

Yes, that's what "modifications" means.

> But that's not the original goal of the OP.

I don't believe he ever stated his goals so we don't know what they are.

> The aim is to have a shared community infrastructure that a lot of
> folks can use.

That may be *your* aim, but it's certainly not "the" aim.  I want the most
benefit to go to the most people.  Software developers are such a small
fraction of that as to be pretty much irrelevant.

> 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.

Right, so this discussion is mute for those uses that don't require
modifying the code.  Everyone gets what they want.  The question is what to
do in cases where someone does modify the code.  Note "modify" as apposed to
"add to".

> 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.

No.  They don't "need" to be shared.  That's only what you'd like to see
happen.

My point is that by requiring them to be shared you restrict their use, and
in the end the world is not as well off as it would be if you hadn't
restricted their use.

> But why should the commercial advantage always trump the common good?

Ah, here is your fundamental mistake.  You see commercial advantage as being
apposed to good.  In the end it's those folks that do things for commercial
advantage that crank the engine of progress and ultimately make life for Joe
Sixpack just a little cheaper or easier.

> Why
> should commercial folks get a completely free ride and have to give
> absolutely nothing back?

You miss the point, comrade Jeff, that commercial folks "give something
back" by supplying goods and services that others want to consume.

> But it's not about end users,

But it is.  The only valid way to measure "good" is by the yardstick of the
end users.

> it's about other developers sharing a common
> pool of code.

Developers are a largely irrelevant minority.

> 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.

It doesn't "need" to at all.  That is merely how you think it should work.

> 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?

Some of that might happen, but you fail to acknowledge the reverse that a
lot more code and ultimately choices for end users will also result.


********************************************************************
Embed Inc, Littleton Massachusetts, http://www.embedinc.com/products
(978) 742-9014.  Gold level PIC consultants since 2000.
-- 
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist