Re: An Ada IDE and discussions

["Marin David Condic" <marin.condic.auntie.spam@pacemicro.com>]

Well then, lets coin whatever different terms we like for it - just so we
don't run afoul of the OpenSource Cops. :-)

The way I see it, there are two different things going on here. One is the
issue of making source code available so that it can be used, studied,
modified and extended. The other is the assignment of rights to one or more
parties in the process. On the one hand, I'm in favor of making source
widely available. On the other hand, I'm against the idea of a) signing my
rights away when I distribute source for some subsystem and b) attempting to
force someone else to sign their rights away just because they want to use
my subsystem in their (sub)system.

If I put useful code out in some forum, I'd like for you to be able to use
it in building your home or work projects. I'd like to be sure that if you
give someone else your project that you include with that (at minimum) the
source that I gave you - without forcing you to give out your source code if
that is your choice. If you *change* my source (as opposed to simply calling
it or extending it - as in class extension {think of separate files versus
changing my files}) that you make those changes available to me and anyone
else that you may have given the code to. All of this serves to get my
source code into as many hands as possible and to be used with the minimal
of restrictions that might discourage anyone from wanting to use it.

If we can't call this OpenSource, then let's call it AvailableSource.

The part two of this contraption is the business of rights and remuneration.
If you take my work and use it in your work *and* sell your work for money,
it seems fair to me that I should get some part of that sale since part of
the product is the fruit of my labor. I may choose to make that dolar figure
high, low or even non-existant, but the right exists and I'd prefer not to
arbitrarily give it away just by giving you the source code. Its your choice
to decide if it is worth it to you to pay me the royalty I ask in order to
get some percentage of your product out the door quicker, better, cheaper,
etc., or if the cost is too steep to justify the use. (We can always haggle
over price!)

Granted, there are problems with this model on all sorts of fronts. For one
thing, if you use my work in your business and don't resell it, I'm still
subsidizing your business. (If you didn't have to write it or buy it
elsewhere, this saves you expenses you'd otherwise have to pay for with
revenue.) For another thing, you can always get creative in terms of
accounting and how you choose to market your end product. You may charge a
bundle for services and nothing (or nearly nothing) for the software - in
which case, I again lose out. (I hear that in Salt Lake City the booze laws
are so restrictive that some bars give away liquor with the purchase of a
soft-drink. Hence you pay for the coke and the rum is free and the laws
regarding sale of rum don't apply.)

But even if the system isn't perfect, I think it is still an interesting
concept. It promotes the development of generally available source code
because the writers stand at least *some* chance of gaining from making
useful code available. Even though it isn't 100% equitable, it reduces the
worst inequities considerably. It recognizes the symbiotic relationship
between the writer and the value-added user by exchanging free
(monetary-free) use of the software for wider circulation. And you still
have source available for all the stuff circulating this way.

MDC
--
Marin David Condic
Senior Software Engineer
Pace Micro Technology Americas    www.pacemicro.com
Enabling the digital revolution
e-Mail:    marin.condic@pacemicro.com
Web:      http://www.mcondic.com/


"Ted Dennison" <dennison@telepath.com> wrote in message
news:miY57.932$ar1.3812@www.newsranger.com...
>
> They tried to do just that right after the term was coined. However,
apparently
> OpenSource is too generic of a term to trademark. But this is as close to
> official as you can get. You aren't really OpenSource unless you conform t
o that
> defintion, and saying you are is just going to bring down a whole lot of
heat on
> yourself (as several companies have already found out).
>