5 ms·

Fun is MIT licensed :) http://github.com/marcuswestin/fun/commit/05870f3f54fda430909dddc9ee47311987e5410b http://github.com/marcuswestin/fun/commit/05870f3f54f

Fun is MIT licensed :) http://github.com/marcuswestin/fun/commit/05870f3f54fda430909dddc9ee47311987e5410b http://github.com/marcuswestin/fun/commit/05870f3f54fda43090...

asnyder 16y ago
We feel that NOLOH is significantly advanced to warrant a small fee for commercial purposes. As you can see from my previous post we offer several free license options, including free licenses for open-source projects. Fortunately/Unfortunately (depending on your viewpoint), we live in a capitalistic society and need to recoup some of the costs associated with our team's development over the past six years. Furthermore, we open-source every new module and component on our github either through an MIT or BSD license. We've even taken the unprecedented step of integrating github into our site as can be read here: http://dev.noloh.com/#/blog/2010/06/30/demos-demos-everywhere/ http://dev.noloh.com/#/blog/2010/06/30/demos-demos-everywher.... Like Google, we open source anything non-related to the NOLOH core. Similarly , they don't release the details or the code to their search engine. Also, we're working on legalize that would open source the core if anything were to happen to us.
- marcuswestin 16y ago
  That's awesome! Sorry, didn't mean to sound cheesy. Yeah, I find most shops commercially licensing open source software get pinched into an almost apologetic position. Seems completely counter productive and unfair to me.
- jacquesm 16y ago
  Your comparison with Google is flawed, google does not ship the core software to third parties for integration in to their product, it's purely a service. So google not shipping their core as open source has a different impact on their users than NOLOH releasing the source of their core would have on theirs.
  - asnyder 16y ago
    So if we were to create a WebApp then it's perfectly okay for it to be closed, but as soon as we decide to write tools, then it has to be open? As was mentioned in the previous post, we try our best to open source anything non-central to the core. We also try our best to document everything within the core and provide you the ability to extend and override anything, thus reducing any real need for the source to be open. We're even working on legalese to ensure that the source would be opened in any catastrophic event to the company. What else can we do? Whether or not NOLOH is open has the same amount of impact on our users. If they have an issue they report it and we fix it, furthermore, they could override any functionality in the meantime if they so desired. Essentially, it seems that you're arguing that nobody is allowed to charge for development tools anymore. We should just open it up, and donate all that time, money and R&D. If we want to eat we should be creating WebApps, rather than creating the tools to help you make yours.
    - jacquesm 16y ago
      > So if we were to create a WebApp then it's perfectly okay for it to be closed, but as soon as we decide to write tools, then it has to be open? Ideally, yes. > As was mentioned in the previous post, we try our best to open source anything non-central to the core. Those parts are not relevant to the continuity of businesses and those parts will not benefit from being open from my point of view (many eyes, user contributions) as the core would. > We also try our best to document everything within the core and provide you the ability to extend and override anything, thus reducing any real need for the source to be open. For those parts where you decide that is the case. > We're even working on legalese to ensure that the source would be opened in any catastrophic event to the company. What else can we do? Open it up. Live dangerously. Look at where it took MySQL. > Whether or not NOLOH is open has the same amount of impact on our users. If they have an issue they report it and we fix it, furthermore, they could override any functionality in the meantime if they so desired. That's good. > Essentially, it seems that you're arguing that nobody is allowed to charge for development tools anymore. No, I never said that. You can keep it closed and charge as much as you want, but I would like it to be open source. Think of it as potential user feedback. > We should just open it up, and donate all that time, money and R&D. ... > If we want to eat we should be creating WebApps, rather than creating the tools to help you make yours. Look, I understand exactly where you're coming from. I used to write licensed software for a living (the first version of the webcam software was a nice example, it did several hundred K in turnover annually at some point) but I've seen the writing on the wall and closed source is not going to be around forever for code such as this. Right now you have first mover advantage, you have a very solid codebase that you have put your time and effort in and if you can roll out fast enough and wide enough you can cement your position for the next 10 years or more. By open sourcing it you cut off the route where some other group of smart guys with spare time on their hands looks at what NOLOH does and re-implements it. You don't create lock-in with tools the way Microsoft could do it with office, we're not talking about end-users, we're talking about developers here. They already understand the way their job is done and to a very large extent that means that they've learned the downside of relying on closed source. And as a result plenty of them now have a very simple policy: Toolchain to create my product has to be open. Especially on the BSD and linux platforms, less so on Mac and Windows. The stuff you've built is aimed squarely at that BSD and Linux fraction of the market, the portion where the resistance against closed source is going to be the strongest, you're building on top of PHP which itself is an open source product. So the whole chain from OS, language, probably the db and the primary language is open, then you insert a DSL or middleware (however you want that to be classed) and you undo all that. So you'll find some resistance to your policy. But I find the concepts embodied in NOLOH interesting enough that I've signed up for a trial license, so who knows, I might even overcome my dislike for your licensing policies. Note that MySQL made some very good money by dual licensing their product and eventually a huge exit. It's not impossible.

Fun is MIT licensed :) http://github.com/marcuswestin/fun/commit/05870f3f54fda430909dddc9ee47311987e5410b http://github.com/marcuswestin/fun/commit/05870f3f54fda43090...

asnyder 16y ago

We feel that NOLOH is significantly advanced to warrant a small fee for commercial purposes. As you can see from my previous post we offer several free license options, including free licenses for open-source projects. Fortunately/Unfortunately (depending on your viewpoint), we live in a capitalistic society and need to recoup some of the costs associated with our team's development over the past six years. Furthermore, we open-source every new module and component on our github either through an MIT or BSD license. We've even taken the unprecedented step of integrating github into our site as can be read here: http://dev.noloh.com/#/blog/2010/06/30/demos-demos-everywhere/ http://dev.noloh.com/#/blog/2010/06/30/demos-demos-everywher.... Like Google, we open source anything non-related to the NOLOH core. Similarly , they don't release the details or the code to their search engine. Also, we're working on legalize that would open source the core if anything were to happen to us.

marcuswestin 16y ago
That's awesome! Sorry, didn't mean to sound cheesy. Yeah, I find most shops commercially licensing open source software get pinched into an almost apologetic position. Seems completely counter productive and unfair to me.
jacquesm 16y ago
Your comparison with Google is flawed, google does not ship the core software to third parties for integration in to their product, it's purely a service. So google not shipping their core as open source has a different impact on their users than NOLOH releasing the source of their core would have on theirs.
- asnyder 16y ago
  So if we were to create a WebApp then it's perfectly okay for it to be closed, but as soon as we decide to write tools, then it has to be open? As was mentioned in the previous post, we try our best to open source anything non-central to the core. We also try our best to document everything within the core and provide you the ability to extend and override anything, thus reducing any real need for the source to be open. We're even working on legalese to ensure that the source would be opened in any catastrophic event to the company. What else can we do? Whether or not NOLOH is open has the same amount of impact on our users. If they have an issue they report it and we fix it, furthermore, they could override any functionality in the meantime if they so desired. Essentially, it seems that you're arguing that nobody is allowed to charge for development tools anymore. We should just open it up, and donate all that time, money and R&D. If we want to eat we should be creating WebApps, rather than creating the tools to help you make yours.
  - jacquesm 16y ago
    > So if we were to create a WebApp then it's perfectly okay for it to be closed, but as soon as we decide to write tools, then it has to be open? Ideally, yes. > As was mentioned in the previous post, we try our best to open source anything non-central to the core. Those parts are not relevant to the continuity of businesses and those parts will not benefit from being open from my point of view (many eyes, user contributions) as the core would. > We also try our best to document everything within the core and provide you the ability to extend and override anything, thus reducing any real need for the source to be open. For those parts where you decide that is the case. > We're even working on legalese to ensure that the source would be opened in any catastrophic event to the company. What else can we do? Open it up. Live dangerously. Look at where it took MySQL. > Whether or not NOLOH is open has the same amount of impact on our users. If they have an issue they report it and we fix it, furthermore, they could override any functionality in the meantime if they so desired. That's good. > Essentially, it seems that you're arguing that nobody is allowed to charge for development tools anymore. No, I never said that. You can keep it closed and charge as much as you want, but I would like it to be open source. Think of it as potential user feedback. > We should just open it up, and donate all that time, money and R&D. ... > If we want to eat we should be creating WebApps, rather than creating the tools to help you make yours. Look, I understand exactly where you're coming from. I used to write licensed software for a living (the first version of the webcam software was a nice example, it did several hundred K in turnover annually at some point) but I've seen the writing on the wall and closed source is not going to be around forever for code such as this. Right now you have first mover advantage, you have a very solid codebase that you have put your time and effort in and if you can roll out fast enough and wide enough you can cement your position for the next 10 years or more. By open sourcing it you cut off the route where some other group of smart guys with spare time on their hands looks at what NOLOH does and re-implements it. You don't create lock-in with tools the way Microsoft could do it with office, we're not talking about end-users, we're talking about developers here. They already understand the way their job is done and to a very large extent that means that they've learned the downside of relying on closed source. And as a result plenty of them now have a very simple policy: Toolchain to create my product has to be open. Especially on the BSD and linux platforms, less so on Mac and Windows. The stuff you've built is aimed squarely at that BSD and Linux fraction of the market, the portion where the resistance against closed source is going to be the strongest, you're building on top of PHP which itself is an open source product. So the whole chain from OS, language, probably the db and the primary language is open, then you insert a DSL or middleware (however you want that to be classed) and you undo all that. So you'll find some resistance to your policy. But I find the concepts embodied in NOLOH interesting enough that I've signed up for a trial license, so who knows, I might even overcome my dislike for your licensing policies. Note that MySQL made some very good money by dual licensing their product and eventually a huge exit. It's not impossible.