5 ms·

> If there is one tiny bit of hard learned advice I can leave behind from all this, it would be: Friends don’t let friends release full blown complex applicatio

by iamwil 8y ago

> If there is one tiny bit of hard learned advice I can leave behind from all this, it would be: Friends don’t let friends release full blown complex applications under the GPL – Keep it for hacks or corporate backed stuff. Anyone know what the story is behind this? Is it that GPL is hard to monetize?

Hydraulix989 8y ago
Yes, because it's an infectious license. Stated roughly, anything that touches GPL code must also be licensed as GPL.
rincebrain 8y ago
If you read the other posts in this discussion, with links to the forum discussions, it appears that he thinks people having access to the source of the program without him as a gatekeeper and sole steward is a mistake, and allowed people to steal his work by forking the project when he was perceived to be out of communication for months on end.
- philpem 8y ago
  Looking at the whole situation from the outside... yeah. In my experience there's only one reasonable way to deal with "friendly" forks like that. Meet up with the folks who forked the project, thank them for their work and ask if they're interested in reunifying the codebase and joining the two teams. And if that fails, you switch to "Okay I respect this is GPL/BSD/xyz'd OSS, you have a right to fork the code. But can you please name it something else so people aren't confused? And do you mind if I cherrypick some of your cool features and fixes back into mainline?" Maybe I'm just turning into an old pacifist, but I just don't see the point of stoking hatred and arguments in an open community.
  - novaleaf 8y ago
    yes, but if you read those fourm threads, the author unfortunately has absolutely no inclination to reconcile. Shame for this project, it seems to be of tangible benefit to people with this disorder.
    - philpem 8y ago
      True enough -- but if a friendly fork is impossible and he's given up... I'd consider that fair game for a less-friendly fork provided the licence allowed it. I know a few folks who use CPAP machines and would likely contribute to such an endeavour.

by iamwil 8y ago

Hydraulix989 8y ago

Yes, because it's an infectious license. Stated roughly, anything that touches GPL code must also be licensed as GPL.

rincebrain 8y ago

If you read the other posts in this discussion, with links to the forum discussions, it appears that he thinks people having access to the source of the program without him as a gatekeeper and sole steward is a mistake, and allowed people to steal his work by forking the project when he was perceived to be out of communication for months on end.

philpem 8y ago
Looking at the whole situation from the outside... yeah. In my experience there's only one reasonable way to deal with "friendly" forks like that. Meet up with the folks who forked the project, thank them for their work and ask if they're interested in reunifying the codebase and joining the two teams. And if that fails, you switch to "Okay I respect this is GPL/BSD/xyz'd OSS, you have a right to fork the code. But can you please name it something else so people aren't confused? And do you mind if I cherrypick some of your cool features and fixes back into mainline?" Maybe I'm just turning into an old pacifist, but I just don't see the point of stoking hatred and arguments in an open community.
- novaleaf 8y ago
  yes, but if you read those fourm threads, the author unfortunately has absolutely no inclination to reconcile. Shame for this project, it seems to be of tangible benefit to people with this disorder.
  - philpem 8y ago
    True enough -- but if a friendly fork is impossible and he's given up... I'd consider that fair game for a less-friendly fork provided the licence allowed it. I know a few folks who use CPAP machines and would likely contribute to such an endeavour.