In all the discussions about the state of the new license, I think many
readers are not aware of how open source normally works, and possible
commercial implications.
For some commercial companies based on open source have a look at
www.ibphoenix.com
www.jboss.org
and there are many more examples.
What happens is they provide the software for free. Anybody can help with
the development (it all goes through cvs, where anybody can read and some
people can write). This way, there is implicit versioning etc.
In theroy there is no support. Anybody can submit their changes (and if you
do it enough, you probably get cvs write access). Nobody is obliged to do
anything.
This does not sound good, but people are idle and like to do something which
can make them "fameous". Therefore help is more easily given in well known
projects.
All the contributors know their code can be seen by all, so they will be
more inclined to write "good" code.
Contributors want their contributions to be used, so they will likely help
people who have questions.
That's it. There generally is some mailing list where you can ask questions,
but there are no guarantees that you will get an answer, there is no phone
support etc. If you want a change in the code and can't do it yourself you
can ask for it to be done, but if no-one wants to do it, tough luck.
That is where the commercial side of the deal begins. Commercial companies
can sell support where - for a fee - they give you a guanatee to answer
questions (probably within x hours), and they give you access to a phone
number where you can call for support etc.
I personally see no reason why we could not do it this way for SMSQ/E. If
you want TT to get some money for his work, just say in the licence that no
money can be charged for anything relating to SMSQ/E unless a fee is paid to
TT.
Joachim
