Licensing Opinions

[JSThePatriot]

If I would of had to pay to get the code, I'd would not have contributed.  That is not an acceptable solution, in my opinion.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I agree if I had to pay for the code I wouldnt be interested as much in helping the development.

JS

[Angel]

The comment on another thread last night really hammers it home, with someone suggesting an alternative program to AutoIt while blissfully unaware that it contains myriad functions from AutoIt (I'd show the list but it would shock too much), the non GPL-compiler, the help file formatting, and probably manages to stick to the letter of the GPL by putting "portions ©AutoIt" in the helpfile.  How about I stop actually _giving_ people the stick to beat me over the head with?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Wow, I just read autoitNOW's comment on AutoHotKey and Valik and Larry's answers and that just made me so crazy... I understand how you guys must be feeling

Are you sure that saying "portions ©AutoIt" is enough to satisfy the GPL?

Angel

[alexpere]

I just wonder if users who have just joined the forums and come up with fantastic features such as COM automation (see http://www.autoitscript.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=7639 ) would be bothered contributing if they have to go through a laborious waiting period until they are 'trusted' to get the source.

I think you will sacrifice some pace of development by closing the source. Jon may feel this is worth it.

[SvenP]

I just wonder if users who have just joined the forums and come up with fantastic features such as COM automation (see http://www.autoitscript.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=7639 ) would be bothered contributing if they have to go through a laborious waiting period until they are 'trusted' to get the source.

I think you will sacrifice some pace of development by closing the source. Jon may feel this is worth it.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I have to agree with alexpere. I wouldn't even bother developing the COM code, when I didn't had the source code. I was just one of the lucky guys who could download the 3.0.102 source before Jon 'closed' it.

If he had closed it a few months earlier, I woudn't waste my time on it. (noo Jon: ...it's no "waste of time" playing with AutoIt. :-)

And I, myself, don't even care if people leech my source code. In most cases the programs I develop are for own use. If other people want to profit from my code, it doesn't hurt me.

(I'm a real 'old style' programmer, born in the era when only TTY-terminals existed.

Hence, no graphical smileys in my messages. :-)

Regards,

-Sven

[Jon]

[SvenP]

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You look bothered, Jon.

If it's about the source code I modified: No, I will never publish those without your agreement. Most of my code is after all derived from your work.

Regards,

-Sven

[Jon]

You look bothered, Jon. 

If it's about the source code I modified: No, I will never publish those without your agreement. Most of my code is after all derived from your work.

Regards,

-Sven

Nothing to do with you

It's just a really tricky issue for me. I'm resigned to the fact that I am not happy with the way AutoIt source code has been used, and used against us. At least half the current devs feel very strongly also. The other half are just a little disgruntled

So in any case we can't go forward with the GPL. It just allows things that damage AutoIt, and consistancy and reputation are all we have to be honest. Using the odd bit of code doesn't bother me, but that's not what has been happening. We have competitors that aggressively market against us while using our work and laughing all the way to the GPL license. Also the thought of someone forking development worries me quite a bit. As Valik once said this is a niche area and the more variations out there the worse it is for users. I don't want someone to get a .au3 script and have to trawl the internet for the specific version of AutoIt that it needs - we have enough trouble with the release/beta versions!

It's quite bizarre that there have be no new programmers on board in the last six months, in fact I think that Holger is the only new contributor since the project started! That is until yourself and DaveF appeared from nowhere with some super useful code - almost to the day since I started this thread It's all stuff we were planning on doing but now that it is right here in front of us it certainly gives pause for thought.

What I was planning to do was to have a cut down version of the source that was complete apart from a handful of really cool functions - which is effectively what you and DaveF had access to with the 3.0.102 source. It would be perfectly possible to contribute based on that. Now after the last couple of posts I'm undecided again

A compromise could be to change the license (this code is part of AutoIt, not to be used without permission, any self compiled versions not to be publically released, blah blah), to keep the beta source private (as same as now) and to delay access to the source code for the latest version for maybe a month after a public release. That would at least give us a margin of "innovation" and also give us a big stick - at least morally - to use against anyone caught using the code in another open source app. Commerical apps would still take advantage though (it was "amusing" the number of commercial scripting languages that got Send/Control functionality shortly after the first source release...not that I'm accusing )

At any rate the license will change - i've completely had it with the GPL - it's just a case of working out the point that you lot would still contribute. If something like the above is workable then I _think_ I could resist the urge to close the source altogether. The "trust" method obviously isn't popular, even though you and Dave haven't had any trouble getting the source when it was immediately obvious the work you had put it with the 3.0.102 source was genuine. Hey-ho.

Difficult balance

[Somerset]

well i for one have used autoit for close to two years if not three. jon i don't know if i contributed much except silly stuff but i feel like this. even if it was closed source all the way. (how many people who don't develope stuff for autoit care.) i think you are right on the basis of having it only open to those int he past have shown intrest in helping out truly for the project. i help in any way that i can, because i believe in the people doing this project. jon at the end of whatever you may decide you have yet another backer on your final thought.

[sugi]

I thought for a long time if I'm going to write my opinion because first I wanted to see how the general spirit is, to see if all developers go into the same direction and it looks like most of the devs are.

Personally I have no proplem with a non-GPL AutoIt but I don't quite like the idea of closed source (meaning only a few devs can see the source). I think that Jons idea (to release binary only first, then after some time release source) is the best from my point of view.

What has been completely missing from this thread (and I hope nobody gets a wrong impression from it): Who has the right to release new versions? One person? Then what's going to happen to AutoIt if this person suffers from an accident and is unable to even grant the right to release new versions to another person? This is a problem that the GPL does not has but I think needs attention even if I hope it never shows to be neccessary.

[napgravy]

I have read many of the commonly available licenses out there - usually when suffering from insomnia. In my travels I found a pretty good link that has a quick table/summary of those licenses and many questions you need to ask yourself before chosing a license.

Maybe there is another license that you'd feed more confortable with - MPL/SCSL perhaps? I dunno.

Anyway, here is the link:

http://www.java.net/choose_license.csp

nap

[BasicOs]

I have been in the computer bussiness for a long time..,

and I feel myself like AutoIt were mine also, because I spend much time reading forum, and making my scripts for my own firm, and I do enjoy it, like I did if it were an sport.

The best should be to copy the facts of any success of some of the AutoIt-Rippers, and make it better. If they copy you,why dont you copy them, the good things they have. After that we can make better.

After this then close code, at 3rd option , code for the AutoIt family sound good. Also delayed GPL.

Anyway as I think, 95% humans will try to steal it:

(It is too bad, but human nature, that some people will take advantage of anything they can given the chance. I do not expect to ever know enough about the internals of AutoIt to be able to contribute anything to the source...condoman)... not bad the 4h

Anyway I feel that option 1 GPL, is good when Autoit can stand the pace of innovation, and innovate quicker than competitors.¿?

Whatever is decided, Jon, I support your decision. Personally, I would prefer something more closed (And less reliant on morals). (Valik)

Edited January 18, 2005 by BasicOs

[BasicOs]

I have an Idea: Making another project over AutoIt . Coder who want to live exclusively on programming. I am looking for joining a pool of 5 or 6 International-AutoItScripters to make a closed group to earn money and leave our normal jobs .

I mean the objective should be to join this group of selected scripters, who can give a minimum of 15 hours a week for developing end-user apps. Additionally, Autoit can be supported with a XX% of the profit, back for the developers team, for speeding up their low level coding efforts, that should be decided betwen the group.

IF YOU WANT TO MAKE THIS COMMUNITY TEAM , PLEASE TELL ME. PM.

THANKS.

it is the right moment to make your mind up for a new amazing challenge .

THAT MEANS probably closed code.

Edited January 18, 2005 by BasicOs

[Valik]

BasicOS, I'd like to point out one glaring flaw in something you said... Quite obviously, if somebody is stealing our code, then they aren't doing any inovating of their own, so what is there to steal from them?

[BasicOs]

I dont think anybody is so short to copy Autoit code, and not make new proposals nor include in a another softw. I mean if somebody steal, he may have any idea we forgot to make before him. If not this new copy will die.

this right innovation they made of their own, I mean you dont need their code to catch it, but to imagine who was coded, even, you can improve this again.

What do you think of the Idea I explained, of making a group to develop closed end-user-code? $$

Edited January 19, 2005 by BasicOs

[Helge]

I have an  Idea: Making another project over AutoIt .  Coder who want to live exclusively on programming. I am looking for joining a pool of 5 or 6 International-AutoItScripters to make a closed group to earn money and leave our normal jobs .

I mean the objective should be to join this group of selected scripters, who can give a minimum  of 15 hours a week for developing end-user apps. Additionally, Autoit can be supported with a  XX% of the profit, back for the developers team, for speeding up their low level coding efforts, that should be decided betwen the group.

IF YOU WANT TO MAKE THIS COMMUNITY TEAM , PLEASE TELL ME. PM.

THANKS.

it is  the right moment to make your mind up for a new amazing challenge .

THAT MEANS probably closed code.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The idea of earning some money really sounds great, but not like this..

I don't know how to say this, but it would feel like we were abusing the result

of Jon and the other devs hard work by earning money this way...

Jon are kind enough to give away this program for free (heey, it's even open-source),

and then you want to make money like this...

And, who would pay for a friiikin script anyway ?

Not me, that's for sure.

Edit : Just curious...were you even serious ?

Edited January 18, 2005 by Helge

[BasicOs]

In which world do you live?, you live in the world of Coca-Cola, MS and big corporations and capital.

The heaven is not all white. Dont you think that 99% of people working in bussiness who pick up autoit code or in the Support forum, are using it for helping their grandmam? or doing something like GPL? That is helpful for people.

I think you didnt read well my whole post. This topic says about future of autoit. And I meant that should be a way to support it in a more developed idea:

Additionally, Autoit can be supported with a XX% of the profit, back for the developers team, for speeding up their low level coding efforts, that should be decided betwen the group.

anyway if I had time i could do it all alone, and of course, I feel (most dont) that I should pay back to donate and support Autoit. Money means people doing things and new ideas. If you dont oil your car I think it will not run. That is the deep side I read in this Topic. By example Lawyers.., webs.., admins needs to be payed.

thanks for answering, I may have not explained it properly, and many can have the same thought than you.

Edit: You dont disturb. not at all

The idea of earning some money really sounds great, but not like this..

I don't know how to say this, but it would feel like we were abusing the result

of Jon and the other devs hard work by earning money this way...

Jon are kind enough to give away this program for free (heey, it's even open-source),

and then you want to make money like this... 

And, who would pay for a friiikin script anyway ?

Not me, that's for sure.

Edit : Just curious...where you even serious ?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Edited January 18, 2005 by BasicOs

[Helge]

Oopps...I'm very sorry.

It's long days here, and I'm starting to get extremely tired now...

I'm not gonna disturb you anymore.

I'm off to bed. Night !

[BasicOs]

going on with my thoughts,

this is a nice topic about licensing I saw lately,

http://www.autoitscript.com/forum/index.ph...wtopic=7550&hl=

after reading this topic I concluded that delayed GPL, has an objetive: stopping the leechers to innovate to much or even to make bigger the gap to an innovative solution compared to the legacy programm-Autoit.

Beta version can be kept for ever, till the next innovations make this gap big enough, again. I have seen to many good things in the beta for giving so quickly till something wonderful and new is backed.

Answer , Anybody is interested in my proposal of joining to quit actual jobs ?, read two posts upper, please

[ezzetabi]

I dont think anybody is so short to copy Autoit code, and not make new proposals, I mean if somebody steal, he may have any idea we forgot to make before. If not this new copy will die.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Actually someone IS SO SHORT, the whole thread is about that problem.

[autoitNOW]

An advocate's opinion...

I think there are 3 issues at work here...

Issue 1, is the violation of AutoIT's rights under the GPL. If a company or person takes AutoIT's code and does not give them credit than they are in violation of the GPL. I think Jon and the other developers should take legal action against such persons.

Issue 2...

This issue is about the time, hard work, and effort various developers had to go through to add features to AutoIT. Personally, I think major consideration should be given to reward this effort, but their is a "catch" in this.

Catch 22

If a company or various AutoIT users pays money to the developers of AutoIT, than myself and many others would expect for AutoIT to be responsive to our needs, requests, and offer user support. Open source development often follows a "go where the wind blows", "develop however I feel", etc... path. Thus there is a "conflict" for various developers to have to answer to "customer" requests and demands versus them being able to do whatever they fell like doing.

Issue 3...

If the source becomes close than you may create a situation where you get less developers and a disconnect with various user requests. The small family of developers may PUSH AutoIT into a direction where starts to do a bad job of addressing user's need. I think one of the reasons that AutoIT became such a good program was because how Jon and many of the other developers responded to user requesting with solutions and increased functionality in AutoIT. A closed door small family on the other hand, may have disdain or less concern for users, so the overall popularity and support for AutoIT may decrease. AutoIT has many competitors like AutoHotKey (based on Jon's AutoIT2), WinBatch (good program, but really hate their licensing), Euphoria (very powerful language with simple syntax, can do COM/OLE, create DLLs, etc.. http://www.rapideuphoria.com/ ). Many "loyal" followers might feel left in the cold by a "small family of developers" and "jump ship". This would be a shame, because AutoIT is a really good programs and deserves to increase in popularity and fame.

After reading all the posts my humble opinion to resolve the issue is...

1. Go after those people that violate AutoIT's GPL. Hunt them down and punish them legally. In fact make it publically known who they are, because I think many AutoIT users will also be pissed and help go after them.

2. Keep AutoIT open source. I think it should stay open source freeware because you increase the number of developers that are interested and its a great learning tool for part-programmers and interested power users. But I do think AutoIT's license should change to address Jon's concerns and those of the core developers.

Possible solutions might be:

1. Allow various developers and business to sell programs based on AutoIT's source code if they want to. This would require a special license for this purpose where resellers could include AutoIT source code but would have to pay a fee. Users and developers would be free to use or request the source code as freeware. If they use it a part of a program they are selling than their would possibly be a ONE-TIME SET FEE and signing of an agreement..

I think a set fee would be much better and preferred to a subscription. Various programs try to hit users up for yearly subscriptions or have UNKNOWN rates for charging users to use their source code which seem to be based on a "case by case" basis and it sucks. Usually those program's sales go nowhere or they are holding end users "hostage" because those users don't have any other programs to use. A one time set fee and where they sign some type of agreement, would just clarify the situation and make it simple. The developer wins, because they can now resell AutoIT as part of a great product that they spent a lot of hard work on and hopefully that product has value to many users. Businesses win because, hopefully, the can get additional support services from AutoIT developers or modify AutoIT as they see fit and necessary. The developers fee and business use licenses should probably be separate because they would deal with different issues.

2. Or you could have a more general license where AutoIT would be open source and free for non-commercial use, but businesses would have to pay a fee. Hopefully, it would be a single charge.

I think number 1 is better, because if developers have to pay for the source code or where "shut out" from getting easy access to the source code than they might stop developing. By allowing developers open source code for non-commercial uses would continue to encourage them and allow AutoIT to develop. If their is a SET FEE for the source code in order to use AutoIT's source code for commercial use, allow people to use it in their programs if they pay a fee, or allow developers to sale modified versions of AutoIT than this should further AutoIT's development, choices, and reward certain developers.

Whatever is done to enhance, speed up, increase AutoIT development than I'm all for it. Whatever will decrease, cut-off users, slow-down AutoIT's development is something I'm against and hope will NOT be instituted.

Edited January 21, 2005 by autoitNOW