Thank you Raphael for your courteous and well thought out post -- and your conclusion at the end about the "sultan" is somewhat accurate. It was indeed my intention to retain some control over the software when I constructed the license.
Specific points: I can see how.opening the license could benefit the community--at least theoretically. Other more capable hands could take over its management and improve its system of development--setting it up on some kind of version control system operating from a central repository for instance. But on the other hand, our community is small and not particularly active. And seeing the code fork or even fragment could actually hurt the software by dividing our community. On a practical level, thus, I question the advantages of a license change. Also, I can see your point about the issue of ethical concerns being perhaps better served by guidelines--as the license is 1) somewhat vague and 2) difficult to enforce But removing those provision only abandons what limited protections there are and effectively abdicates moral responsibility. It doesn't really solve or help with those concerns. Thus the benefit is unclear. After relocating to Illinois last year, and taking up a very demanding new position, I have not been able to give BoltWire the attention it deserves. As a result, I am certainly open to modifying its administration, development and distribution. However, I have simultaneously not seen any great demand for any of those changes. In fact, bug reports and feature requests have been virtually nil. And the desire to get out a 4.xx release is motivate more by my personal aesthetic to see BoltWire develop than any urgency from the community. Thus lacking a vigorous and engaged community at present (however wonderful, supportive and warm it has been over the years), I'm not sure I see the motivation to change the license. I am happy to discuss this further, but wanted to share my initial reaction and thoughts... Cheers, Dan On Tue, Sep 20, 2011 at 2:37 PM, R.C. Mnx <[email protected]> wrote: > Good afternoon, community and developers. > > It's not my intention to beat a dead horse, however, I believe this > may be of general interest > > from the community, and I'd like to hear both from the community and > Dan himself. > > This question has been asked a few times, as I've read through the old > messages - why not to open > > the source code? > > Dan mentioned that one of the reasons for not letting the code to be > redistributed is keeping the > > community together, but from a Free, Open point of view, this does > nothing but hurt the freedom of > > the community, by restricting the methods it has to contribute. > Contribution isn't just about > > suggesting fixes, but to work as a community to discuss and solve > problems to make the software > > more adequate to the users. Distributing modifications both benefits > the users who are interested > > in the improvements made by the community and helps spreading the > software. With a GPL license, > > all modifications must retain the Free Software nature, so the > original developers can implement > > the improvements in the main branch, resulting in a better software > for everyone. > > Concerning the moral principles, I agree with Erlend Sogge ( > > http://groups.google.com/group/boltwire/msg/3201fac552b4d9f7 ). This > kind of restriction should be > > described as guidelines, not as part of the license. You don't have to > restrict the sale of your > > knives because there are people who kill with them. > > The current license itself is a mess. "Immoral purposes" by itself is > extremely subjective - > > Abortion or drugs, for instance, may be considered immoral to many, > but there are countries that > > allow it. The license also contains terms such as "Me" and "etc", > which don't belong documents of > > this kind. Also, suggestions such as asking for contributions are > definitely things that should be > > placed in guidelines, not license. I believe licenses should deal with > rights, obligations and > > options, not suggestions or personal inquiries. It's a pretty generous > license, indeed, but as the > > generosity of a sultan, not of an individual. > > I believe we can sort it out in the best way possible. It's about time > for BoltWire to go GPL - It can only help the community, while not > preventing the developers from selling the software to someone, or > some company, who wants to make a commercial version of it. > > Enough said, I would like to thank Dan for the excellent software. > Except for the license, it is exactly what I was looking for. > > Best regards > > Raphael > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "BoltWire" group. > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > [email protected]. > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/boltwire?hl=en. > > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "BoltWire" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/boltwire?hl=en.
