SWF 2 EXE "open source" release help, please

[dmd7978]

Hello. First I will say that  the "Release the source without the program being open source" topic does not answer my question below, as mine pertains ONLY to a forum and "acknowledgement", no restriction on distribution or alteration. Cannot find an answer to this ANYWHERE.

 I have a SWF to EXE converter app, written in C# that I am planning on "releasing".. This will be my first release and the app is "complete", but I would like to host a project on my site dedicated to the further development on it. A couple of questions:

1 Would there be any "interest" in this? ("professional" opinions, not personal, using knowledge of open source topics) I do not know of any and the app is really cool IMHO. Very simple, though, just the conversion options, no added scripting abilities like SWFKit and Jugglor and such.


2 Am I "allowed" to require that the "project" be hosted on my forum? I will not restrict any use of it, at all, in any way. I simply think that if I release such a thing, I should be able to admin the site that people discuss it...I do not, in definitive language, see this answered in the "open source definition".

So would it not be "open source" if I did this? To be honest, I just want to be able to "have" , for "narcissistic" reasons, a site I can show off as what I started and  be "front and center" when amazing new things are added to it.

I will release it either way, however, if this would make it no longer open source, what would it be?  I would simply enjoy the admin aspect, ALL use of code and alteration would be allowed as well as distribution and such...I suppose I would "require" a link or acknowledgement in the distribution packages, though, too....Would be a shame if these "acknowledgement" desires would negate its open source....ed..ness



Thanks for help

[steeladept]

Don't know if this helps any or not, but if I have unrestricted access to the code and unrestricted use of the code, then it is open source.  Even if there are restrictions on distribution and licensing of it (e.g. can't host it on your own site, can't change it to remove code credit, etc.).  In fact, that occurs in a lot of open source to one extent or another.  The key, to my understanding of it, is not if it is open source or not, but rather what type of licensing you attach to it.  There are tons of them, including the "do what you want with it" license I have seen more than once around this site.  Your best bet to ensure it occurs the way you want is to write your own license for it.  That and understand that it will get co-opted and used against the license no matter what  you do or say about it, if the source is released at all.  A "hope for the best and cover your bases, but expect the worst" attitude will go a long way with that.  Oh, and it doesn't hurt to aggressively enforce the license if/when you find an infringement (e.g. email them to comply).

[dmd7978]

Thanks. Let me say this. There will be NO restrictions of any kind on the use, distribution, or alteration. I just want to be acknowledged as to where it ORIGINALLY came from if altered and distributed, and simply where it came from if it is in its current form. Plus , and maybe this is more "restrictive", to have the "project" hosted on my forum...I see this done other places, though I do not recall any names off hand. It does not seem too much to ask to me, it is only a forum, I should think.

That said, if I could be given a logical reason that this in any way hinders its development, I would take a closer look and reconsider. One that could override any reasonable counterpoint or counter-option.

Thanks

[ewemoa]

May be take a look at some of the BSD licenses for inspiration and reference?

[mouser]

Write your own license and specify what people must do to use your code.  You can put most anything you want.

The "official" open source definition has some restrictions -- mostly that people can modify your code and create new versions.  But you are mostly free to add additional terms like they must link to your site and include a text file that you wrote whenever they share their changes, etc.  Although we don't have many Open Source experts here, i know that many of us here would be happy to read any license text you write and help you improve it so that it suits your needs.

But: When you say have the project hosted on your forum -- what do you mean?  You will have a hard time *forcing* people to use your forum to discuss their versions of the software, HOWEVER I think in reality you will find that they will all WANT to use your forum to discuss it.  There is no motivation not to.  But maybe you have something else in mind regarding what you mean by "hosting" it?

[dmd7978]

But: When you say have the project hosted on your forum -- what do you mean?  You will have a hard time *forcing* people to use your forum to discuss their versions of the software, HOWEVER I think in reality you will find that they will all WANT to use your forum to discuss it.  There is no motivation not to.  But maybe you have something else in mind regarding what you mean by "hosting" it?

-mouser (June 01, 2011, 04:21 AM)

No, what you say is correct and I think that you may be correct in that there would be no reason not to do it, I would think. It would just suck if I put it out and for some reason @johnnypopular decided to create swf2exefantasticoforum.net and it includes a nudie pic with every post and so I lose 90% of the users over something like that and I do not get to see it "grow"

And about the restrictions on open source, sounds good, thanks. Requiring acknowledgement works, it sounds. That is all that really matters, really do not care at all about my sole rights to the software. I am only doing this to get my name out as I have something much better to launch in a couple of months, not open source. And further feature additions to the swf2exe actually help my other app as it can use these exe's in a "special" way, so I am not really doing it out of the "goodness of my heart, free society,  ya ya stuff"( no offense to hippiehackers)...I benefit in name and application implementation and I think it is a pretty beneficial addition to anyone's library from which to pull so hopefully it will "pay" off.

Thanks

EDIT----BSD, sounded good as my post below states. Then I thought about this line you wrote
"Right your own license and specify what people must do to use your code." -----YES, I shall, I think, unless, in any way, this would "hurt" its "standing", as in if it is not "officially" a bsd or gpl compatible license, would it not be promoted to thousands of potential users due to it not being an officially recognized open source app....Really appreciate all the help, app launch is so far out of my comfort realm, totally different industry and required mindset

[dmd7978]

May be take a look at some of the BSD licenses for inspiration and reference?

-ewemoa (June 01, 2011, 04:18 AM)

Thanks, will look...

I forgot to add, I also have a "wallpaper flipper" that I would make open source, as well. Pretty cool one, actually. You can set it to auto-flip at up to four times a second, lol. Why? Well, it can "play" an animated scene in "real-time"...Many wallpapers, all a different frame in a video clip or whatever, can show each "image"  that is actually a static bmp appear as though it is animated, meaning that it is, technically, not pre-recorded, and as each image is being displayed the moment it is called to, it occurs in "real-time". Again, the only app that matters to me is my new one, these others are only meant for name recognition and I figured that this is more "powerful" an action, in that regard, than just 'freeware'. Plus I do not wish to continue its evolution as I can only focus on my other software and any improvements only help the new one ..But maybe I am wrong and would listen to any and all comments..

I suppose I should release the binaries for them and see how they are received?

Edit---BSD looks great, thanks, I shall investigate more. Better idea, this would be, than full open source. Very cool

[ewemoa]

Don't know how much use it may be, but FWIW, I came across this article which brings up some potential pitfalls (in the opinion of the author of the article ) for writing one's own license:

http://www.plagiaris...te-your-own-license/

[dmd7978]

Don't know how much use it may be, but FWIW, I came across this article which brings up some potential pitfalls (in the opinion of the author of the article ) for writing one's own license:

http://www.plagiaris...te-your-own-license/

-ewemoa (June 01, 2011, 10:15 PM)

I would like to think that I would do a LITTLE better job than the gent in the article did writing a licensing agreement, but the point is well taken. I am far from an attorney, thankfully, and should not trust myself to risk doing something wrong when the "ready to go" alternative is waiting and solid. Good look out, thank you.

All make great points, however, I do not see any reason to "gamble" , doesn't appear to be much if any upside, for me, at least.

[Renegade]

Don't know how much use it may be, but FWIW, I came across this article which brings up some potential pitfalls (in the opinion of the author of the article ) for writing one's own license:

http://www.plagiaris...te-your-own-license/

-ewemoa (June 01, 2011, 10:15 PM)

I couldn't finish reading that. The examples were so bad... My guess is that it was written by a kid in grade 7 or 8.

[dmd7978]

Don't know how much use it may be, but FWIW, I came across this article which brings up some potential pitfalls (in the opinion of the author of the article ) for writing one's own license:

http://www.plagiaris...te-your-own-license/

-ewemoa (June 01, 2011, 10:15 PM)

I couldn't finish reading that. The examples were so bad... My guess is that it was written by a kid in grade 7 or 8.

-Renegade (June 02, 2011, 12:00 AM)

Yes, I believe it is purposeful. To use one of the worst to show common mistakes made by others. Both funny and educational

[daddydave]

I am not in any way an Open Source expert but according to the Open Source Initiative:

8. License Must Not Be Specific to a Product

The rights attached to the program must not depend on the program's being part of a particular software distribution. If the program is extracted from that distribution and used or distributed within the terms of the program's license, all parties to whom the program is redistributed should have the same rights as those that are granted in conjunction with the original software distribution.

Rationale: This clause forecloses yet another class of license traps

This seems to prevent you from restricting distribution of the software, if you release it as open source. The safest thing does seem to be to write your own license.

[dmd7978]

I am not in any way an Open Source expert but according to the Open Source Initiative:

8. License Must Not Be Specific to a Product

The rights attached to the program must not depend on the program's being part of a particular software distribution. If the program is extracted from that distribution and used or distributed within the terms of the program's license, all parties to whom the program is redistributed should have the same rights as those that are granted in conjunction with the original software distribution.

Rationale: This clause forecloses yet another class of license traps

This seems to prevent you from restricting distribution of the software, if you release it as open source. The safest thing does seem to be to write your own license.

-daddydave (June 02, 2011, 04:58 AM)

Well, my new understanding is that GPL would be a better option than BSD as I can restrict some distribution practices if I would discover one that bothered me...Yeah, I think that the FSF crowd is a bit too literal and overprotective of the open source "title" ...My head is aching from the wiki pages full of deep links of more riddles. I will spend this weekend really reading deeper, thanks for all help everyone..

Who would have thought a commercial release was so much simpler