On Sun, Jul 09, 2006 at 10:19:38PM -0400, H. William Welliver III wrote:
Sigh. I don't want to get into a open vs. closed source argument here. In this specific case, the makers of Fisheye will grant a free, perpetual license for open-source projects.
where do you read that? (it's not in the license page)
therefore the only assurance that remains is access to the source (and the right to change it.)
you're making statements based on a particular ideological viewpoint,
no, i am making them based on experience with non-free software.
and that's fine, but with the exception of access to the source code, the license is not really any different than a free software license.
huh? that's like saying with the exception of having protection, a helmet is no different than a wooly hat.
having access to the source (and more) the crucial differentiator i care about in the license.
and really, I think it's a bit dramatic to say that the risks are unacceptable.
they are to me. i could not be doing the work i am doing now, had i accepted to work with non-free software (or worse, create non-free software)
it took me a total of 15 minutes to install and configure the software. If for some reason in the future i was prevented from using the software, i'd only be out 15 minutes. It doesn't mean my [or the pike repository's] data will be trapped.
you must not forget the time it takes to learn to USE the software, the investment of teaching users, answering questions, and all that. sorry, 15 minutes just don't cut it. the longer you use something, the harder is is to change to something else. you are grossly oversimplifying things here.
They're running those boxes with plenty of other non-free software, so arguing against using software that isn't free- as-in-speech to solve a particular niche problem just doesn't hold water for me.
two wrongs don't make a right. just because there is already non-free software in use, is no excuse to continue that. the decision wether to use a particular product should be based on its own merits (that includes the license) and not based on what other unrelated software that might be in use.
It's not free-as-in-speech, though, and I think it's silly-beyond-words to not at least look at it.
it is not silly. you might be prevented from creating competing software if you look to closely. the existance of an NDA suggests as much (anyone got a link to that?) i prefer to play it safe and stay away from such things unless i really need to look.
BTW, the license is here http://www.cenqua.com/fisheye/license.html
ah, thanks.
In exchange for the License(s), the Licensee shall pay to CENQUA a one-time, up front, non-refundable license fee. At the sole discretion of CENQUA this fee will be waived for non-commercial projects.
pike is not a non-commercial project. owned by the university it is now an academic project, but that does not exclude commercial exploitation by the university.
The Maintenance Period commences on the day the license is issued and continues for twelve months thereafter unless otherwise stated in writing by CENQUA. The Maintenance period can be extended for an additional fee.
this reads to me that the license is granted yearly and needs to be extended every time (even if it's free for non-commercials)
this opens exactly the can of worms i am afraid of, and is far from an unlimited license that would be needed.
The Licensee may not assign or otherwise transfer the Software to any third party.
if pike changes hands again, then what?
greetings, martin.