20 Dec
2005
20 Dec
'05
12:19 p.m.
Up until two days ago, I was under the impression that
these efforts were
generally appreciated and of use to people. Now all of a sudden I am being
blasted with complaints from a few very vocal list members about my not
providing source code.
I hate to say this publically, but your whole attitude smacks of
'everything I do is perfect, you're lucky to be able to see it, and don't
you dare criticise it'. Sorry, I do not, and never have, worked that way.
'Never look a gift horse in the mouth' always struck me as being one of
the more stupid of the proverbs, actually, I do not want to get tied into
doing something that later causes me problems. And alas that happens far
too often with closed software.
I immediately addressed this - I offered to make the
code available on a per-
request basis until I am ready to make a public release, however much of
It was not at all clear what the terms of that release were. It started
off being an NDA, then you changed it. Having seen how you operate, I
have to say I'd not accept any agreement from you unless it was in
writing. You claimed repeatedly that you didn't care if your ideas ended
up in other programs, but I really don't feel I could trust that.
what you did not include in the quotes, was statements
about how wonderful
GPL is, why my code MUST be released under GPL to be useful to the sender
I think I claimed it should be open-source. That DOES NOT IMPLY GPL!
of that message, and how all of my attempts to explain
why I disagree with
this are "non-sequiter".
No, the non-sequiturs were things like the fact that since you were
maintaining the code, you couldn't also allow others to do so (by
releasing the source).
Before I go further, let me make one thing perfectly clear:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nothing I write will *EVER* be released under FSF's GPL - because I DON'T
AGREE with the GPL - this is my opinion and right - get over it.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I was just using tyhe GPL as an example. If you don't like it, there are
plenty of other open-source licenses.
For the record, NOBODY took me up on my "per
request" offer for the
source code.I did make the mistake of using the term "NDA" as a simple
means of indicating that I would not want source code so requested to be
redistributed, and since then every correspondance from one individual has
The problem is that an NDA goes rather further than that. IMHO If I'd
agreed to an NDA, I could not (at least morally) create a similar program
because I could npt prove that no line of your code had ended up in my
program.
You may not have intneded to prevent this, but I don't need any legal
problems. Period.
mentioned "fear of legal action" if even an
"Idea" from my program were to
leak into his own work, and oh by the way, GPL would remove this fear. My
Since the GPL (and other free software licenses) do allow the production
of derrivative works, then yes, it would remove that fear.
attempt to explain that this is not the purpose of my
positioning and assurances
that this would not happen, and that he would not be required to sign anything
I would feel morally bound by an agreement even if I'd not signed it.
To turn it round, _you_ agreed to release the source code if you were no
longer maintaining the program. Since you now claim to haev canned the
project, I assume you are not maintaining it, but you have not released
the source code. You are, of course, within your legal rights to do this,
but how do I _know_ you wouldn't behave similarly with other agreements.
-tony