Re: Whats the verdict on Cocoaruby from others ?
Re: Whats the verdict on Cocoaruby from others ?
- Subject: Re: Whats the verdict on Cocoaruby from others ?
- From: Sherm Pendley <email@hidden>
- Date: Mon, 17 Jul 2006 18:48:46 -0400
On Jul 17, 2006, at 5:42 PM, Jakob Olesen wrote:
On 17/07/2006, at 23.08, Sherm Pendley wrote:
I'm curious - are you saying that's a pro or a con? I chose the
LGPL for my CamelBones bridge too. I made the choice of LGPL over
the GPL specifically to limit the "viral" aspects of the license
to the bridge code itself. It will not "infect" your app. I want
my code to stay free, but your code is your business - maybe
literally! :-)
I'm not asking this to get into a flamewar. If my choice of LGPL
is limiting my potential audience, I'd certainly consider changing
it - it's a pragmatic issue for me, not a religion.
This is a sensitive topic, no flames, please.
Agreed!
For something like rubycocoa, I would have to make a lot of changes
before using it. I would have to make those changes public.
Well, that's pretty much the point. :-)
Of course, with the LGPL (as opposed to the "full" GPL), you'd only
have to make your changes to rubycocoa itself public - you wouldn't
need to release your app's source code.
That is a nuisance, but not a big problem.
Whether you think of it as a problem or not is, of course, entirely
subjective.
I chose it after being rather abruptly transferred from a project
into which I'd put over two years time and a lot of emotional
investment, when a higher-up demanded "the best Perl guy we have" for
a pet project. Partly my own fault, of course, since I'd allowed
myself to develop a sense of ownership in a project that wasn't
actually my own.
I wanted to make sure that couldn't happen again, and the LGPL seemed
like the best choice for that purpose. I'll always have the
CamelBones code available to me; the fact that the license ensures
that by making sure it's available to *everyone* is actually
secondary in my mind. I don't see it as a moral crusade the way some
folks do - in fact I'll freely admit that I chose it for entirely
selfish reasons.
I would also have to link it dynamically, typically as a framework.
This is a matter of taste, but I don't like it.
http://www.wilshipley.com/blog/2005/11/frameworks-are-teh-suck-
err.html
As far as shared frameworks vs. app-embedded, I agree with Wil. My
first release used a shared framework. Problem was, I got a *huge*
amount of negative feedback based on that. My users wanted, no
*insisted* on an embedded framework so they could deliver a drag-and-
drop install to their users. Several flatly refused to use CamelBones
if they couldn't deliver that.
As the saying goes, the tribe has voted...
Having said that though, one thing I think Wil missed is licensing
issues. At Omni they owned both the spps and their frameworks, so
there was no need to draw a clear legal line between them. Having a
clear, well-documented line between "our code" and "their code" can
be crucial in a business setting.
I don't want to go into politics, but LGPL is a con for me. You
have limited your audience :-)
I'd be happy to sell you a commercial license if you'd prefer. :-)
sherm--
Web Hosting by West Virginians, for West Virginians: http://wv-www.net
Cocoa programming in Perl: http://camelbones.sourceforge.net
_______________________________________________
Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored.
Cocoa-dev mailing list (email@hidden)
Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription:
This email sent to email@hidden