General Community > Chit Chat

SMF 1.x License (preferred) vs BSD license

(1/3) > >>

pranalee:
OK, so please enlighten me. I am one of minority who still feel that nobody should be able to copy & paste code (e.g: Redhat Enterprise Linux --> CentOS --> Scientific Linux) and just change the branding like that. Then SMF moved to BSD License (which is okay - it's actually more beneficial to me), but in my opinion it undermines the hard work of developers because people can just take the code, rebrand it as something else. I'm quite sure that in my lifetime I will see the bankruptcy of Redhat while the derivative still exists. Why buy direct from Redhat when I can copy from CentOS or Scientific Linux? Is making money really evil? If so, how can Redhat compete with Apple and Microsoft?

For instance, with SMF - SMF 1.x was, in my opinion, was the right kind of license. I was following closely and I was even a member of J-CDA when Joomla forced everybody to GPL their extension back in 2007, which I don't think was fair. For instance: Microsoft did not force everyone to go closed source with the programs/apps (which is essentially an extension for MS Windows). Microsoft actually gave freedom for everyone as long as they don't violate others' copyright.

As a developer, I don't think it's fair for people to be able to go to Joomla/Mambo/SMF or whatever CMS Plugin or Extension Directory, then purchase the GPL script, then "fork it" and rebrand it. Hours of development can be copied in just a few minutes.

So, why the move to BSD license?

Illori:
the team decided they wanted to have an open source license on the code, and did what they had to legally to do that.

Suki:
Hi pranalee, welcome to SMF.

Before anyone confuses my words:

* Suki takes off the SMF team badge and will express her personal opinion
SMF was, is and will always be free, going with an open source license seems like a natural path to follow.

Going open source means more people will be able to participate in this project.

Money isn't evil, hell no, I love money, but money isn't the ultimate goal of SMF or the people directly involved with SMF.

Yes, a person can fork SMF, change one <br /> to <p /> and start to sold it to the masses, is up to the masses if they want to buy it or not.

If someone forks SMF and adds some super awesome features like a time travel machine or an engine running on water and decides to sold it, then that it's fine too.

Does this undermines the hard work of developers, no, their hard work is still there, if you fork SMF the copyright text on the Source files must remain.

Plus, people isn't that stupid, if someone starts selling a plain SMF 2.0.2 version with no enhancements, I'm pretty sure this person won't be on business for that long, there are just too many  trolls out there and this person will be nothing more than a delicious dessert to them ;)

As far as I know  Red Hat charges for support, not the code itself. Two totally different things.

* Suki puts on the badge again.

Kindred:
Suki has already addressed RedHat - they sell support, not the software/

As for why SMF went to BSD...   it's because we wanted to go truly and fully open source.
This means that anyone can contribute to the source and everyone can share in it.
As we move along, we'll be opening up even more - right now, only the developers make code updates - one of our goals is to open the repository so that others can drop in their updates (into a branch - which will then be vetted and either discarded or included into the trunk)

As for people reusing the work of the SMF team...   fine. no problem. That's actually the goal of Open Source!
Per BSD, they must keep all copyright statements in the code and other attributions as well as the statement that their code was developed from ours.
Our primary goal is to allow others to make updates and potentially cross-polinate.
If someone wants to be nasty and take our code and re-close the source, then they can do that as well...   we'll just make fun of them. :P After all - if they choose to be gits, it's no skin off our nose. :)

pranalee:
Thx for the replies. I am aware that Redhat sells support. FYI, a little background about me - I've been developing open source software from 2000 until 2007. I was also in GNOME Foundation and even wrote several software that was included in the now-bankrupt Mandrake/Mandriva as well as Redhat. Several things had happened since then and I belong to the other camp now.

So, what happens when let's say VBu***tin copies SMF code? BSD states that no source has to be included anyway (even though they'll probably still give you credit somewhere) ...

I do believe in source sharing, but not when one can copy & take someone else's code and just rebrand it as something else. It's like "legalized plagiarism". Redhat -> Centos -> Scientific Linux -> 600 other distros, etc it's just dumb, imho. Redhat will never be able to make as much money as Microsoft or Apple, that is for sure. Too bad, because some of Linux code are actually really good.

About SMF, I still believe SMF 1.x license was fine, but I'm just making my opinion. It's just too many programmers now license theirs as open source and not realizing the implications. But I'm assuming you already know that. If the goal is to allow others to make updates then that's fine :)

Thx for the discussion. Cheers :)


--- Quote from: Kindred on March 14, 2012, 02:48:05 PM ---Suki has already addressed RedHat - they sell support, not the software/

As for why SMF went to BSD...   it's because we wanted to go truly and fully open source.
This means that anyone can contribute to the source and everyone can share in it.
As we move along, we'll be opening up even more - right now, only the developers make code updates - one of our goals is to open the repository so that others can drop in their updates (into a branch - which will then be vetted and either discarded or included into the trunk)

As for people reusing the work of the SMF team...   fine. no problem. That's actually the goal of Open Source!
Per BSD, they must keep all copyright statements in the code and other attributions as well as the statement that their code was developed from ours.
Our primary goal is to allow others to make updates and potentially cross-polinate.
If someone wants to be nasty and take our code and re-close the source, then they can do that as well...   we'll just make fun of them. :P After all - if they choose to be gits, it's no skin off our nose. :)


--- End quote ---

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page