DonationCoder.com Software > Circle Dock
Change of Licensing from Version 2 (Cancelled)
ArchaicTimeFrog:
I haven't donated, but I would definitely pay for CD if it was priced reasonably.
At least if it has that launching feature I mentioned in suggestion thread.
I completely agree with being compensated for your work, and from what I've seen, CD is definitely worth something.
I'd donate now, but if you all are going to make it pay-for, I don't see much point. Especially since I'm not even using CD right now.
sgtevmckay:
If I take a dead GPL'd project, and use that source and project as an inspiration to build the same project, but with my own source, is my project now GPL'd? I don't think so...
-wraith808 (August 05, 2010, 08:59 AM)
--- End quote ---
You know, I thought I had read that the source had been completely rewritten, but I couldn't find it, so wondered if I had imagined it. If so, surely that makes a difference, does it not? But then again, I must have imagined it, otherwise it surely would have been mentioned in this thread before now.
Otherwise I have embargoed myself from talking about GPL because after all these years I am still confused about it.
-daddydave (August 05, 2010, 10:04 AM)
--- End quote ---
Actaully the GPL model is so restrictive and, in many ways, unrealistic that unless you have a large programmer team and a larger support and testing team, that Using this license and intending to charge for services is pointless!
I have never in all my years of business, IT, Communications and law Enforcement have I ever seen such a restrictive contract. It is nightmarish.
Anyone intending to take over a GPL GNU Licensed project that has been abandoned, should read and re-read teh License, and get an attorney. I have a legal Adviser acquaintance who deals in contract and licensing law looking over this now, and from his immediate impression, he would advise that almost all avoid this license, unless their software has hit an end of life, and some one wants to have their work made public for posterity.
For my part I find that he license is greatly misunderstood by both the implementer and the end user.
This license guarantees Free source code and any derivatives or modifications remain so.
That is all there is "FREE" about this license.
Covering the code question and how much of Eric Wong's original code remains:
I am comfortable in saying that less than 7% of Eric's original code remains in the latest build.
I know that some folks may translate that is tongue in cheek, as they can no longer verify for them selves, for that I have no control over, but if you will all recall, Eric was in the middle of a massive re-code of the Circle Dock code, because CD was a mess and rigged together of proverbial Code Duct Tape.
To have Circle Dock do what it does now, has required massive elimination of code, and new code added just to maintain what Circle Dock does and allow for the new code.
The Circle Dock we know now, does do what Eric Wong created, but in a completely different way.
Eric Wong's code will be completely eliminate in the near future, assuming that we move forward, and the Circle Dock we know now will be gone in code, if not in function.
sgtevmckay:
I haven't donated, but I would definitely pay for CD if it was priced reasonably.
At least if it has that launching feature I mentioned in suggestion thread.
I completely agree with being compensated for your work, and from what I've seen, CD is definitely worth something.
I'd donate now, but if you all are going to make it pay-for, I don't see much point. Especially since I'm not even using CD right now.
-ArchaicTimeFrog (August 05, 2010, 11:08 AM)
--- End quote ---
LOL....
I like you :-* Can I keep you ??? :Thmbsup:
Actually Markham has already re-worked your request into the code, before all this swung the way it has.
THERE IS SOMETHING FOR EVERYONE TO KEEP IN MIND: ;)
We are only considering licensing, Priority support, and company propitiatory Customization to business; or anyone that buys a license.
Very few of the options you have now will be eliminated.
It is also our intention to continue to receive Donations (unfortunately will have to be listed as profit if this route is taken).
If we do take up this route, general support will be available as it has always been.
Suggestions will still be taken and seriously considered, and hopefully very little will change for folks like you and me.
You can install as many copies as you want on up to two computers.
A lot of this will be on an honor system. SO I am hoping on good faith :Thmbsup:
It would be our intent to impact our current End User following as little as possible.
Anyone can buy a license, anyone can Donate, folks will still get support.
Many of you are aware of my absolute disdain of Stardork's (stardock) methods and pay to play then get ignored attitude.
It is exactly this we wish to avoid.
Dexpot has a great Business model and we have been looking to match this as much as possible. I went a little over board on some things not to long ago, and fortunately Mouser was kind enough to slap me back into reality ;)
Oh....and if at all possible, I would have no intent of selling for $20 dollars a license. In today's global financial scheme of things this is an unholy amount of money for what many may consider a luxury. I would not be able to afford it, so I am firmly keeping this in mind as I try to move forward with an anything
rssapphire:
Actaully the GPL model is so restrictive and, in many ways, unrealistic that unless you have a large programmer team and a larger support and testing team, that Using this license and intending to charge for services is pointless!-sgtevmckay (August 05, 2010, 11:20 AM)
--- End quote ---
This is exactly why I use the GPL license. If I'm going to code something and give it away free than I want to prevent someonme else from taking my free code, extending it, and selling the end result (profiting from labor without paying me for it). The GPL prevents this -- which is exactly what I want. If someone wants to use my code as the basis for their closed source for-profit product, they'll have to come to me and work out a different license acceptable to both of us and pay me what I want for the right to use my code in their product under that license. Meanwhile, people who want to use the code in their own GPL product are free to do so without having to get permission from me.
In other words the GPL does exactly what I want it to do. It lets me release the code for my free product so that others can use it in their open source products while making it hard for someone else to use my code in their closed source commercial extension of my product without paying me whatever price I set for the use of my code in their extended version.
mouser:
this is off on a tangent about the GPL, but can someone clarify if this is allowed:
If someone wants to use my code as the basis for their closed source for-profit product, they'll have to come to me and work out a different license acceptable to both of us and pay me what I want for the right to use my code in their product under that license.
--- End quote ---
if you are the author of code you release under GPL, can you in fact give "permission" to someone to release it as part of a closed source commercial application?
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version