Er zijn 125 reacties in dit onderwerp

[littlesat]

Please stay polite!!!

[christophecvr]

Please stay polite!!!

Was I unpolite ?

[VU+NL]

Thanks for you elaboration and wise words!

I think it's time to answer one basic question: apart from all (possible) legal impacts: what's the basic meaning and value of "Open Source"?
And once that has been answered: what is, or could be, the purpose of limiting the meaning of open source using all kinds of additions and hardly readable licenses?

And maybe leading to an answer to the question: should a license not be either "open source" without any further restrictions, or be "closed source" with whatever license you want?

And as in-between question: what could have been the reason for DM to go "open"? Charity? Or seeking improvements from a strong open community?

[nietgiftig]

Was I unpolite ?

No, I don't think so

[christophecvr]

Thanks for you elaboration and wise words!

I think it's time to answer one basic question: apart from all (possible) legal impacts: what's the basic meaning and value of "Open Source"?
And once that has been answered: what is, or could be, the purpose of limiting the meaning of open source using all kinds of additions and hardly readable licenses?

And maybe leading to an answer to the question: should a license not be either "open source" without any further restrictions, or be "closed source" with whatever license you want?

And as in-between question: what could have been the reason for DM to go "open"? Charity? Or seeking improvements from a strong open community?

Hello, I find it nice to brainstorm sometimes on such subjects like open source.

For me open source , means usable and modifiable by everyone. No any commercial use.

The last point , ok if A company and or person want's to make commercial use off certain opensource software they just have to request this to the developper of the specific software. It's his code and he can decide what to do.
The problem here can be that this software suddenly becomes closed source, since it's in the mean time used by several persons and projects, we are facing a problem.

Personally I think the only solution is, the writer of the soft did release his software openGL . What was released is released and will stay open. Further developpement from other persons initiated on this GPL will stay and remain open. Ok those who buyed the basic source, to bad what was released stays released. It's normal that they take their personally developpements closed, but sorry the base released open before , ?? Need to stay open.

That's indeed a grey zone. But once you release your software OPENGL you as developper now what You did and undergo the further things.

After all development is difficult (very) and does need a bright (very) and innovative brain. Testing and implementing the code is also very time consuming . To have good working software both are needed.

Then developing software let it test by freak's like me for example . And then sell and just close the source ..... Not very nice I find .

[WanWizard]

This discussion is flying all over the place now, and has nothing to do with the original request anymore.

The PLi team is aware of the request, and will honour the request. As far as we are concerned: case closed.

I'm therefore closing this thread now.