in reply to RE: Free Open Source Everything?
in thread Free Open Source Everything?

The logic you talk about indeed is flawed; What I was thinking is: "If it keeps me from contributing, maybe it keeps others from contributing, too"... Not that I'm such a valuable source of Perl Wisdom, but there are others, where them being dispelled by what looks like sloppiness in licensing, would just be too sad.

I see, that was not the case with Abigail, I was wrong there, as Aighearach proved. But I nevertheless think licensing may be more important than the Everything Development team considers it to be right now, and /might/ be worth a boost in priority; It could even turn out to be a relatively easy way to gain development speed.

And for your second point, as well as for my "objection, as chromatic calls it: I've no problem with everything development and vroom beeing the maintainers of the code. But even it were alpha - which it doesn't seem like, we're using it like production code, here - there's no reason for a license like that (except liking coding better than Licensing Issues, which all of us do, I believe).

There are examples for free alpha code maintained by one person. Development isn't slowed down but speeded up by a good free license - IMNSHO. And that's why I care.

antihec 

-- 
bash$ :(){ :|:&};:

[download]

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
RE: RE: RE: Free Open Source Everything?
by spectre (Scribe) on Jul 20, 2000 at 20:11 UTC
    Explain to me please HOW you are prevented from contributing?
    The license says, very plainly, if you make a big change, send it to the team. This language seems to ENCOURAGE changes, not prevent them. The idea that because you cant freely redistribute your changes you are prevented from changing it is ridiculous, I dont see anywhere in the license where you are prohibited from changing things. The very idea that you think you are suggests you didnt read clearly - again, it says plainly that if you make a big change just submit it back to the dev team. I still dont understand HOW that prohibits ANYONE from changing the code. If a license has a clause specifically regarding changing code and submitting said changes, that license infers you are allowed, even encouraged to change it!
    Regards,
    spectre
[reply]
      I didn't state anywhere that the license forbids contributing.

      To cite you "The very idea that you think (that) suggests you didnt read clearly" :-)

      The license just sets things up in a non-free way, and causes me (and I fear maybe others, too) to not want to contribute to the code. A simple issue that could easily be dealt with by the powers that be.

      And trust me I did read the license. My intention is not to bash at this license. I just thought it may be worth pestering you, if someone would see how good free licensing (and I'm not picky here, like some people are - bsd, gpl, artistic, you name it) may be important to open source development. And actually perlmonks might benefit from it. I view it as a very nice feature. If you find a feature is missing from perlmonks in your opinion, you may speak up, don't you? Whether it gets implemented or not, is not as important to me as may seem right now. But if it's going to be anyway, which seems the case, I'd like it move up the ToDo List some places.

      Sorry for being an annoyance.

      antihec 

      -- 
bash$ :(){ :|:&};:

      [download]
[reply]
[d/l]
        Ah, I understand now, it's a moral objection to contributing that keeps you from wanting to do so - well, here's to our differences, that's what makes us special.
        Being as you wouldnt want to contribute to anything that isnt free, you must have a problem with working for a company that wants to make a profit off of software too, I take it?
        Being as that I work for such a company, and I like getting paid for my job, I'm glad I dont have a moral objection to writing non-free software.
        Regards,
        spectre
[reply]
        The license of the software is not a "feature." This site and the code that runs it is owned by the EBC and by vroom, not by you. You can ask vroom to change the format of the chatterbox, you can suggest a modified header, you can even code one and submit it if you choose. But you have no right to demand a change in the licensing of the site.
        - email Ozymandias
[reply]

In Section Perl Monks Discussion