[MonoDevelop] Licensing concerns.
Wed, 14 Jul 2004 13:27:30 -0400
On Wed, 14 Jul 2004 19:00:56 +0200, Bernhard Spuida
> I would rather generalise: Open Source is not a carefree happy
> coder's paradise, however tempting this idealistic point of view may
> be. Same as in commercial code development, licensing, correct
> attribution of copyright and related issues do matter, whether we
> like it or not.
> Lessons learned:
> 1) Choose carefully which license you want to use for your project.
> Do so before making your code public. (In Mike's case, going GPL was
> a deliberate choice and he stands by it.) Consider what this might
> mean in the future - will it limit popular adoption? Do I care about
> popularity - and possible commercial success?
> 2) If you plan to reuse code from other projects, fork a project or
> depend on previous work, familiarize yourself with the implications
> of the licenses and legal issues involved. Just skimming the preamble
> of a legal text is not enough.
Um, thanks for insulting me.
> 3) For your project, set up a proper process for assignment and
> attribution of copyrights. Painful as this may look at first sight,
> it will save a lot of trouble later on. Recent legal developments
> have proven this. And we may assume this to get more of an issue in
> the future.
> I am also less than happy about the turn things took, but time cannot
> be turned back and decisions cannot be unmade.
> Bernhard Spuida
> #develop senior word wrangler
In case their is some confusion:
- I am ok with SharpDevelop's position with AddIns, I just think
it is the wrong choice. I have no problem licensing everything
I wrote to do with MD under those terms. I only think that
independent 3rd party AddIns that are not part of the Core/Base
be allowed to be licensed on their own terms. (Think NVidia drivers)
- I am not asking them to change their license, or position on AddIns.
That is for them and others to decide based on what their goals and
business plan is.
- This is only one of many reasons I decided to stop work on MonoDevelop.
- I have as much familiarity of all aspects of the GPL as anyone else does
that is not a lawyer. I have looked into it carefully in the past, long
before I was around here. It is an acceptable license in my opinion, just
unclear on a few points that will hopefully be addressed in the next
revision (if there is one).
- Last, this does not have to be a sad situation. There are very large open
source projects that have a similar licensing situation and are widely
successful. MonoDevelop and SharpDevelop can be the next, and I hope