4 ms·

JUCE is a dual-license commercial product though: Apart from a small ISC-licensed core, it's GPL or commercial. While I totally respect the decision of the JUCE

JUCE is a dual-license commercial product though: Apart from a small ISC-licensed core, it's GPL or commercial. While I totally respect the decision of the JUCE developers to want to make a living out of their project and to adopt a licensing scheme that is in line with that goal, It would be a disqualifying criterion for me if, like OP, I was looking for an open-source project to dedicate a non-small amount of my own time for unpaid voluntary work. I might send them a patch if I need a fix to a problem that I can quickly solve ad-hoc and that I don't want to wait for them to fix, but I wouldn't want to pour significant amounts of my own time into unpaid voluntary work that they get paid for.

aa-jv 4y ago
That's a fair point, and I guess its weighed in my balance by the fact that I'm contributing under the GPL but also doing commercial work with it (plugins) as well, so for me its quite a win-win situation. I have no problems contributing to the framework I'm also using extensively ..
- EntrePrescott 4y ago
  > its weighed in my balance by the fact that I'm contributing under the GPL Are you sure you're contributing "under the GPL" though? It's common for such dual-license commercial projects to demand (lest contributions be ignored and not integrated) of external contributors that they agree to a Contributor License Agreement, which grants the dual-license commercial project the right to sublicense the contribution however they please… as opposed to being bound by the terms of the GPL like you would for their code. In the case of JUCE: https://cla.juce.com/ https://cla.juce.com/ So it's really a totally asymetric situation: * for their code: you either pay them a hefty price for a commercial license… or you only get it under GPL terms and thus have to release your own code using it under GPL as well (which effectively thwarts most monetization options for your work) * for your contributed code: they don't pay you and (unlike the other way around) are NOT bound by the GPL but can sublicense your code however they please… and of course they make money with it, you don't. Now I'm not saying that that would totally hold me off from contributing. It wouldn't bother me for small ad-hoc patches that I don't want to wait for them to fix. But it sure would be a disqualifying criterion for me when it comes to pouring in significant time of unpaid voluntary work. For that, I'd look for a more community-based project on an equal footing. But then again, to each their own criteria and evaluation.
  - aa-jv 4y ago
    >release your own code using it under GPL as well Yes this is what I'm doing - although there are a lot of ways GPL'ed software can nevertheless still be used to generate revenue .. >For that I'd look for a more community-based project on an equal footing. I've found the JUCE community to be quite supportive, very knowledable and for those who don't want to pay the small license fee, the GPL requirement has been enough to produce a lot of great projects. The OP would be well-advised to inform themselves: http://github.com/sudara/awesome-juce http://github.com/sudara/awesome-juce

aa-jv 4y ago

That's a fair point, and I guess its weighed in my balance by the fact that I'm contributing under the GPL but also doing commercial work with it (plugins) as well, so for me its quite a win-win situation. I have no problems contributing to the framework I'm also using extensively ..

EntrePrescott 4y ago
> its weighed in my balance by the fact that I'm contributing under the GPL Are you sure you're contributing "under the GPL" though? It's common for such dual-license commercial projects to demand (lest contributions be ignored and not integrated) of external contributors that they agree to a Contributor License Agreement, which grants the dual-license commercial project the right to sublicense the contribution however they please… as opposed to being bound by the terms of the GPL like you would for their code. In the case of JUCE: https://cla.juce.com/ https://cla.juce.com/ So it's really a totally asymetric situation: * for their code: you either pay them a hefty price for a commercial license… or you only get it under GPL terms and thus have to release your own code using it under GPL as well (which effectively thwarts most monetization options for your work) * for your contributed code: they don't pay you and (unlike the other way around) are NOT bound by the GPL but can sublicense your code however they please… and of course they make money with it, you don't. Now I'm not saying that that would totally hold me off from contributing. It wouldn't bother me for small ad-hoc patches that I don't want to wait for them to fix. But it sure would be a disqualifying criterion for me when it comes to pouring in significant time of unpaid voluntary work. For that, I'd look for a more community-based project on an equal footing. But then again, to each their own criteria and evaluation.
- aa-jv 4y ago
  >release your own code using it under GPL as well Yes this is what I'm doing - although there are a lot of ways GPL'ed software can nevertheless still be used to generate revenue .. >For that I'd look for a more community-based project on an equal footing. I've found the JUCE community to be quite supportive, very knowledable and for those who don't want to pay the small license fee, the GPL requirement has been enough to produce a lot of great projects. The OP would be well-advised to inform themselves: http://github.com/sudara/awesome-juce http://github.com/sudara/awesome-juce