[ale] RE: [ale-unemployed] A proposal

[Charles Marcus]

> From: Ken Kennedy [mailto:kkennedy at kenzoid.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, January 30, 2002 4:29 PM
> To: Ale (E-mail)
> Subject: Re: [ale] RE: [ale-unemployed] A proposal
> 
<snip>
>
> However...please make sure you're educated to the licenses of Free
> Software and Open Source. For example, if you're going to be making
> your ACT replacement available as "open source" (a great idea, in my
> opinion) you're not going to have a option on providing access to the
> code (to customers), or be able to prevent it's redistribution. At
> least, if you want to keep it Free Software. You aren't required to
> make it freely available, or put it on sourceforge or something
> (*grin*) but whoever does get a copy (ie, customers, other developers,
> etc.) would be able to redistrbute it.

Good point, and one which needs some discussion, but I didn't want to get into details unless there was enough interest in the group taking on this project.

I will say this...

There are 3 entities with the copyrights to the same code.  Each of us can do whatever we want with it (there was a code fork).  Here's the sticky part...

My boss doesn't know that I also was granted a copyright by the guys doing the coding, in exchange for my off-hours work on designing the system (screens and functionality).  What this means is I could, technically, go ahead and open it up now, but I don't wanna do this without his permission while I am still working for him (ethics, ethics).  I have every intention of doing so if and when we part ways, but I don't see that happening anytime soon - I'm happy here.  I have been trying very hard to convince him to open this up under at *least* the BSD license, which is what the programmers have it under, but preferably under the GPL.  I have some questions on the GPL here though...

Our goal was to have the ability to have a plug-in type of architecture for adding functionality.  I don't think the programmers got that far before they threw in the towel (long story), but... assuming they did, can a plug-in for an app that is under the GPL be kept proprietary?  The reason I ask this is, there is some functionality that is very specific to our business, and that functionality my boss wants to be kept proprietary - he see-saws between the rest, but I think I could sell him on it if he could be assured that our proprietary business processes would not be available to our competitors (they  could, of course, build their own).

If the amswer is yes, I'll go to work on him immediately, again, if there is enough interest.

> It's always your option, of course, as the copyright holder, to
> restrict whatever you want/release under whatever license you want
> (it's your code). But you can't do that and call it "Open Source", or
> "Free Software".

I know.  I am a firm believer in OSS, and like I said, one way or another, it will eventually be open-sourced (I prefer the GPL, but don't have a huge problem with the BSD license), but I'd rather sooner than later.

Another option is - can OSS that is under the BSD license be forked without the copyright holders permission and GPL'd?  If so, then I could 'donate' the code (even though it is under the BSD license now, I don't think the guys have it on-line anywhere), but I'd have to be assured that I would retain enough control over the project that I could get the changes made that we need and to get it to a 1.0 release version.  Then, I would simply want some say in the ongoing direction of the project, and to continue contributing to the system design (I'd love to learn to code, but that takes time - time that I don't have right now).

> PS: In reviewing your mail, I note the "web-based" comment. If you're
> talking about providing a Web Service only (ie, you host the servers
> and allow the customers to access them, hopefully via SSL *grin*) then
> technically, you're in the clear. I think...that's one of the places
> it gets tricky...and there's the whole "spirit of the license" issue.
> 
> Anyway, just thought I'd toss out the info!

And I appreciate it...

By web-based, I meant that the front-end GUI is Browser based (php/html with some java-script).  One of the goals of the original programmers was to open source only a single user version, and provide ASP services to the multi-user 'enterprise' version.  I don't know what they're doing with it now though.

I definitely believe that we should provide that service as an option, but if they wanna d/l it and host it themselves, power to 'em.

Thanks for the comments

Charles



---
This message has been sent through the ALE general discussion list.
See http://www.ale.org/mailing-lists.shtml for more info. Problems should be
sent to listmaster at ale dot org.