From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.4 required=5.0 tests=AC_FROM_MANY_DOTS,BAYES_00 autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,be23df8e7e275d73 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2001-07-20 11:18:01 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!newsfeed.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!newsfeeds.belnet.be!news.belnet.be!psinet-eu-nl!psiuk-p4!uknet!psiuk-n!news.pace.co.uk!nh.pace.co.uk!not-for-mail From: "Marin David Condic" Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: An Ada IDE and discussions Date: Fri, 20 Jul 2001 13:40:41 -0400 Organization: Posted on a server owned by Pace Micro Technology plc Message-ID: <9j9qer$aek$1@nh.pace.co.uk> References: <0zS27.187213$DG1.31590366@news1.rdc1.mi.home.com> <3B4FEFDE.10E7B423@snafu.de> <9iuvsd$361$1@nh.pace.co.uk> <9j12ic$bvi$1@s1.read.news.oleane.net> <9j1ee8$258$1@nh.pace.co.uk> <9j21sv$9ka$1@nh.pace.co.uk> <9j45h0$3ho$1@nh.pace.co.uk> <9j4g2a$802$1@nh.pace.co.uk> <%Fk57.23889$Kf3.323037@www.newsranger.com> <9j4o47$b5a$1@nh.pace.co.uk> NNTP-Posting-Host: 136.170.200.133 X-Trace: nh.pace.co.uk 995650843 10708 136.170.200.133 (20 Jul 2001 17:40:43 GMT) X-Complaints-To: newsmaster@pace.co.uk NNTP-Posting-Date: 20 Jul 2001 17:40:43 GMT X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4522.1200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4522.1200 Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:10367 Date: 2001-07-20T17:40:43+00:00 List-Id: 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" 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). >