Hi Andreas,
On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 4:15 AM, Andreas Kotes <[email protected]>wrote:
> Hello,
>
> * Marc-André Moreau <[email protected]> [20110216 23:17]:
> > > I have good ties to the very experienced guys of
> > > http://www.gpl-violations.org/ and am more than happy to establish
> > > contact and ensure involvement should such a case come to our
> collective
> > > attention.
> > >
> > > I have reported some violations myself in the past.
> [..]
> > > Yeah, we could go on and on about this, I just think it is a very time
> > > consuming task that drains your energy. We might as well just focus on
> > > coding instead with people who want to collaborate.
>
> which is why one simply shouldn't do that himself. there are people who
> specialize in that, have the proper experience, and the proper processes
> and background for it .. and are as well KNOWN for not backing down,
> making companies give in WAY earlier.
>
> > > > I think we should focus on working with the people that are
> > > > willing to collaborate than working with people who aren't willing to
> > > > collaborate. By switching to permissive licensing, we will get
> > > > contributions from people that are actually willing to contribute
> > > > in the first place.
> > >
> > > ... and not get code from people who don't want to see their code in
> > > commercial-only products anymore. QED.
> > >
> > > Well, from what I've seen you haven't really contributed much code,
> > > if any. How would this apply to you?
>
> if you don't see the value of people devoting time and energy for
> testing, feedback, bug reports, and 'end-user feedback' then you're
> falling into the same trap as above - you're trying to do it all
> yourself. this may earn you the right to tread it as 'your baby', and do
> what you want with it, but it may also make people turn away because
> their interest are being ignored.
>
> xp-unlimited was _relevant_ to someone, so they invested the time and
> energy to _discuss_ it, and to get it _done_. which helps the project,
> if only by gently forcing a framework to be implemented that allows to
> have those changes in an optional, plug-in fashion.
>
I know it was relevant to someone, which is why I originally tried to take
Otavio's side on the matter, but that turned out to be a bad idea since most
people didn't want it in the core. The final solution is great, and I'm
happy Vic spent some of his precious time working on it, but the whole
argumentation that had to be done in between just to get to an agreement of
making it an optional feature was time consuming. I don't think it was that
necessary to insist that much on trying to get it included right into the
core of FreeRDP.
>
> there WILL be people who have a _commercial_ interest in getting stuff
> implemented with FreeRDP, and _no_ interest in the project beyond that.
> they'll cut themselves off from _valuable_ developer feedback as I've
> seen time and again on - which I've seen being dealt out on the
> developer list time and again. the result of THAT will be (arguably) bad
> code in a commercial product _based on FreeRDP_ that was driven by 'time
> to market' and _commercial interests_ instead of mutual cooperation -
> because they haven't been gently forced to cooperate under the GPL.
>
"time to market" pressure often leads to bad last minute code regardless of
the license, and I don't see why the GPL would change that ;) By the way,
many people have commercial interests in FreeRDP even if is GPL, so they may
be subject to the same kind of pressure you're talking about. I'm studying
in software engineering, and I really like applying some of the stuff I
learn to FreeRDP, I just lack the time to do it all. I might have plans soon
to finally get a real bug tracker and also an agile project planner:
http://www.atlassian.com/software/jira/
<http://www.atlassian.com/software/jira/>
http://www.atlassian.com/software/greenhopper/
We can get those two good products for free since we're an open source
project.
I also make a lot of my fellow students laugh by the fact that I willingly
make UML diagrams:
http://www.freerdp.com/wiki/doku.php?id=software_design
I have also been the only one so far to unit test my code ;) I'd like to
eventually get most of the code unit tested.
> I also trust and believe that you are SURE that a license change to ASL
> is the right thing to do, and that you're SURE that you're acting in the
> best interest of the project - as you perceive it. I have a different
> perception, as I have a different experience, and I reserve and insist
> on the right to have a different opinion, which I'm totally willing to
> disclose and explain - as I hope I have done in this mail.
>
Thanks for your understanding. I do fully respect your opinion and I
understand it, just like you understand that I am sure a switch to ASL is
the right thing to do.
>
> I don't consider the GPL unreasonably (!) less free than the ASL, but
> I'm coming from a GPL world (I've been working for convergence GmbH,
> who did LinuxTV and DirectFB, and involved with Debian et al).
>
It's not "less free", but it imposes restrictions that simply make it very
hard to impose other restrictions. It is basically restricting every
possible way of restricting. It is ok to want to protect your code, and the
GPL is a good license, but I feel like some people are just going into the
extremes. For instance, I can't imagine how bad the guys from Applidium must
feel about their VLC port being removed from the AppStore. You know what is
worse in this case? It was a a single VLC developer himself that filed the
complaint, which lead Apple to remove the GPLv2 application from its
AppStore in order to comply. I know that the FSF considers the AppStore
incompatible with GPLv2, but a lot of GPLv2 developers feel otherwise. It is
just sad, but in its current state, the GPL license as a whole is usually
not very welcome in various application stores. I want to give our
developers licensing that is flexible enough to reflect today's licensing
scenarios.
>
> Any code can be based on interfaces (!) provided by GPL software, and
> still stay proprietary. If it directly integrates with or enhanced the
> code - you're supposed to give it back to the community where you got
> the original code from. I consider that good. We're all standing on the
> shoulders of giants (e.g. gcc) which could only grow BECAUSE of the GPL.
> Think about it.
>
I agree with the fact that the GPL did a lot in favor of free software. I
have actually met Richard Stallman last year at a conference, and I have a
collection of essays from him that he autographed for me saying "happy
hacking!". I do admire the man and what he did, and reading his essays I
understand more of where he's coming from.
>
> With kind regards,
>
> Andreas
>
> --
> Andreas Kotes, CISSP, CCNA - flatline IT services - ISP & IT Consulting
> "Love many things, for therein lies the true strength, and whosoever
> loves much performs much, and can accomplish much, and what is done
> in love is done well." -- Vincent van Gogh
>
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The ultimate all-in-one performance toolkit: Intel(R) Parallel Studio XE:
Pinpoint memory and threading errors before they happen.
Find and fix more than 250 security defects in the development cycle.
Locate bottlenecks in serial and parallel code that limit performance.
http://p.sf.net/sfu/intel-dev2devfeb
_______________________________________________
Freerdp-devel mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freerdp-devel
