6 ms·

Nope! The plan is still for the platform to be open source, likely under a GPLish license.

by ibdknox 14y ago

gaius 14y ago
What will a "license" for LT then include?
- asmala 14y ago
  Indeed, I'm very curious about this one as well. Going for YC is clearly a great starting point for building a scalable business, so I wonder what the business logic will look like. As in genuinely, positively interested to know. :-)
- JackC 14y ago
  The Kickstarter says that it might get you access to a packaged build, and that the price might be pay-what-you-want -- sounds a lot like the NeoOffice business model ( https://www.neooffice.org/neojava/en/mirrors.php?file=NeoOffice-3.2.1-Intel.dmg#download https://www.neooffice.org/neojava/en/mirrors.php?file=NeoOff... ). But making money from open source projects is hard enough, and varied enough, that it makes sense to spend a lot of time thinking about and experimenting with this one before committing to anything. It looks like that's what they're doing. So I don't think there will be a firm answer to this until they're much closer to launch -- or that it would be a good idea to offer one.
  - kamaal 14y ago
    If LightTable wants to be the 'Eclipse' of clojure and Python then it needs to be open source. Mass adoption, patches, test cases, design, feedback and money comes only when it reaches crazy adoption and a lot of people hack on it. That is why it is important for LightTable to release a minimal usable version ASAP and then improve it in further releases. All this needs a open source set up. A Cathedral set up earlier but a bazaar set up later.
ckrailo 14y ago
Ugh, please avoid the GPL. Go for Apache or BSD or something more free.
- streptomycin 14y ago
  It's a standalone piece of software, not a library. How does it being GPL affect you?
  - spamizbad 14y ago
    Well, for one, you can't make small modifications to the code and then resell it as a commercial product with the original author's copyrights tucked away in an about box. You'd actually have to release the source code too. It will be harder to convince customers you've added value if they can see exactly what you've changed.
    - freshhawk 14y ago
      I have to know: Was this is an ironic statement? No one is taking it as one, but poe's law aside I'm convinced they are wrong.
    - Frozenlock 14y ago
      "It will be harder to convince customers you've added value if they can see exactly what you've changed." I don't get it... is your added value simply an illusion? If they can see what you've changed the code, they should be able to see why and how you added value.
    - ibdknox 14y ago
      We have some ideas on how we'll facilitate that. There will definitely be ways for people to sell plugins they create and or for large companies to keep them closed source.
      - opminion 14y ago
        Grandparent was being sarcastic: It will be harder to convince customers you've added value if they can see exactly what you've changed.
maxharris 14y ago
Please consider a BSD-style license. There are lots of people that can't or won't use GPL-licensed projects. Alternatively, will you be releasing under a commercial license?
- tikhonj 14y ago
  There are people who can't or won't use GPL code in their own projects our use GPL libraries, but I've never heard of anyone not using a program (rather than the code) because of a GPL license. For a project like this, the GPL makes the most sense: an IDE needs people who use it and people who contribute to the core project much more than it needs people who use its code in proprietary projects of their own.
  - AhtiK 14y ago
    Eventually every successful IDE becomes extensible. Up to that point GPL is perfectly fine. As soon as IDE provides extensibility one starts having problems with GPL and it's viral nature with linking. GPL is forcing IDE into a "sandbox" where the whole distro must be GPL-compatible at the point of distribution. The workaround is often with the expense of user experience where one has to separately install extensions just because of licesnsing.
    - AlexHamilton 14y ago
      The Mozilla Public License v2 is a good compromise, as it is less aggressive than the GPL on links (it operates at the file level)

Nope! The plan is still for the platform to be open source, likely under a GPLish license.

by ibdknox 14y ago

Nope! The plan is still for the platform to be open source, likely under a GPLish license.

gaius 14y ago

What will a "license" for LT then include?

asmala 14y ago
Indeed, I'm very curious about this one as well. Going for YC is clearly a great starting point for building a scalable business, so I wonder what the business logic will look like. As in genuinely, positively interested to know. :-)
JackC 14y ago
The Kickstarter says that it might get you access to a packaged build, and that the price might be pay-what-you-want -- sounds a lot like the NeoOffice business model ( https://www.neooffice.org/neojava/en/mirrors.php?file=NeoOffice-3.2.1-Intel.dmg#download https://www.neooffice.org/neojava/en/mirrors.php?file=NeoOff... ). But making money from open source projects is hard enough, and varied enough, that it makes sense to spend a lot of time thinking about and experimenting with this one before committing to anything. It looks like that's what they're doing. So I don't think there will be a firm answer to this until they're much closer to launch -- or that it would be a good idea to offer one.
- kamaal 14y ago
  If LightTable wants to be the 'Eclipse' of clojure and Python then it needs to be open source. Mass adoption, patches, test cases, design, feedback and money comes only when it reaches crazy adoption and a lot of people hack on it. That is why it is important for LightTable to release a minimal usable version ASAP and then improve it in further releases. All this needs a open source set up. A Cathedral set up earlier but a bazaar set up later.

ckrailo 14y ago

Ugh, please avoid the GPL. Go for Apache or BSD or something more free.

streptomycin 14y ago
It's a standalone piece of software, not a library. How does it being GPL affect you?
- spamizbad 14y ago
  Well, for one, you can't make small modifications to the code and then resell it as a commercial product with the original author's copyrights tucked away in an about box. You'd actually have to release the source code too. It will be harder to convince customers you've added value if they can see exactly what you've changed.
  - freshhawk 14y ago
    I have to know: Was this is an ironic statement? No one is taking it as one, but poe's law aside I'm convinced they are wrong.
  - Frozenlock 14y ago
    "It will be harder to convince customers you've added value if they can see exactly what you've changed." I don't get it... is your added value simply an illusion? If they can see what you've changed the code, they should be able to see why and how you added value.
  - ibdknox 14y ago
    We have some ideas on how we'll facilitate that. There will definitely be ways for people to sell plugins they create and or for large companies to keep them closed source.
    - opminion 14y ago
      Grandparent was being sarcastic: It will be harder to convince customers you've added value if they can see exactly what you've changed.

maxharris 14y ago

Please consider a BSD-style license. There are lots of people that can't or won't use GPL-licensed projects. Alternatively, will you be releasing under a commercial license?

tikhonj 14y ago
There are people who can't or won't use GPL code in their own projects our use GPL libraries, but I've never heard of anyone not using a program (rather than the code) because of a GPL license. For a project like this, the GPL makes the most sense: an IDE needs people who use it and people who contribute to the core project much more than it needs people who use its code in proprietary projects of their own.
- AhtiK 14y ago
  Eventually every successful IDE becomes extensible. Up to that point GPL is perfectly fine. As soon as IDE provides extensibility one starts having problems with GPL and it's viral nature with linking. GPL is forcing IDE into a "sandbox" where the whole distro must be GPL-compatible at the point of distribution. The workaround is often with the expense of user experience where one has to separately install extensions just because of licesnsing.
  - AlexHamilton 14y ago
    The Mozilla Public License v2 is a good compromise, as it is less aggressive than the GPL on links (it operates at the file level)