Re: Open Source

[Frank BENNETT <bennett@example.com>]

On Wed, Oct 04, 2000 at 07:04:53AM -0700, Scott M. Stone wrote:
> On Wed, 4 Oct 2000, Jonathan Shore wrote:
> > > From: Frank BENNETT [mailto:bennett@example.com]
> > >
> > > ... How
> > > does one decide whether enough demand exists, and if the answer
> > > is "yes", what
> > > decision on disclosure follows from that?
> > 
> > Good question - I think I know where you're going with this.  Two ways both
> > with advantages and disadvantages:
> > 
> > * put the source out there and see
> > * guess
...
> maybe I, in classical "me" fashion, am colossally missing the point again,
> but couldn't you, if the need exists to develop something short term, just
> DO it and then post the code up LATER after you've announced it?
...
> So why is that "not ok"?  or am I missing the point?  can't you just write
> the thing and then release the code as GPL/LGPL when you're ready?  Or is
> it that to comply with the bizarre..er, BAZAAR model, you have to have it
> open *while* you're writing it?

As for missing the point, "Nope".  The discussion has just gotten a little
frayed from use.

As far as licensing is concerned, the GPL and its brethren generally impose
the obligation to publish source only in the event of redistribution.  So
until the author of a derivative work publishes his, her or its binary, the
source could be scratched on a piece of bark with the blunt end of a wooden
stick; how to handle it is entirely up to the author.  If the author is a
corporation, internal use is not a form of redistribution, so as Steve T has
pointed out, the license permits the author hold the source closely in this
situation, even though the author is deriving competitive benefits indirectly
from the original target of the GPL.

Jonathan S had written that in his view, whether the particular source for his
project is thrown open depends upon whether there is "enough demand".  I
assumed that his project is aimed at developing software for exclusively
internal use by his firm.  Otherwise, the source must be published (as
required by the Mozilla license), and that's that.  (I misspoke in my
response to Jonathan S's post above when I said that if the product is
popular, the source would be too -- the assumption *must* be that there is no
product)

Assuming that it's a case of discretionary disclosure, I was still curious how
you could gauge the level of demand for the source without throwing it open in
the first place.  As the Billy Joel lyric has it, "I'd start a revolution but
I don't have time".  Jonathan has responded by saying, I think, that the local
benefits to the firm are not great enough to justify the effort of publishing.
I argued in return that he loses benefits of coordination with the original
archive by holding the source closely.  But all of this assumes (or should
assume) that he is not distributing binary code that is based on publicly
licensed source.

Cheers,
Frank Bennett