Licensing Opinions

[sugi]

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..

In my opinion this would very likely kill AutoIt. Who would get the money paid for the license? How is this money going to be used? Do only the developers get money? What about those being on the forum providing support to others? This is just too explosive.

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.

Don't forget that AutoIt seems to stand on threelegs:

1) Commercial software distribution / automation

2) Writing game bots

3) Writing small private utilities

Charging money for 1) would very likely reduce the usage of AutoIt a lot since e.g. I would have problems getting a license because I'm able to do most of my work with batch files and cmdow.exe. Also don't forget that my company is already paying for AutoIt. Not by sending money to Jon but by me being on the forum and providing a bit help to others while I'm at work.

For companies there's no big difference between paying 1 USD or paying 100 USD. It just takes longer to get the money back. But there is a huge difference between getting something for free and paying money for it, even if it's only 1 USD. The next problem is the support: If a company pays for a product they demand having professional support.

So the points you brought up aren't bad, but you have to think about them a bit more to see their disadvantages and think careful if the advantages outweight the disadvantages. In my opinion that's not the case.

Edited January 21, 2005 by sugi

[Jon]

Oh god there is going to be no money involved!

There is a similar topic in the private devs area and it's looking like the binary will go under a freeware/autoit2 type license (free for all, do what you want with it and the scripts) and the source code will be released after some sort of delay under a personal/modify for your environment type license.

Pretty much certain that is what I will do anyway.

[SlimShady]

I don't understand how a delay can stop leechers.

[BasicOs]

I don't understand how a delay can stop leechers.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I explained my point of view about it in my post, upper.

Edit: @Larry, I was speaking not only about features but also including more general points, because, for sure, features will be copied it they work well.

***************

AUTOIT

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.

Sure Not. Have a look to MS and some more apps I know? it takes all the money and Jon makes the good work. Are you so kind to inform MS about your point of view, we are waiting for a windows which no sucks. Edited January 21, 2005 by BasicOs

[BasicOs]

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..

You speak of being Autoit a provider of features or modules to commercial firms.

The only way to do it is to close the code, or most of the code, and sell every module to companies which will, in fact be in competition with AutoIt or use for other more complex projects.

Dont think they will pay for it if they can. Even with the law in the hand, dont forget it is closed code what they make.

GPL=

Go for the source

Pick the part is missing in their project or they like

Leave saying good bye,Folks, and Thanks, see you next time I need something without pay.

Edit: I told here, before, if Autoit remains GPL, is to copy the good facts of this copiers. Anyway I support you solution for it, completely Jon.

Edited January 21, 2005 by BasicOs

[autoitNOW]

Well if is clear that there is not going to be any money involved than this changes the perspective.

I think AutoIT needs an "source code available upon request" type of license solution. A user requests for the source code via e-mail, his request is considered, and they then have to sign an agreement.

I don't think the delay is a bad idea, but I do see some issues with it. Many potential develpers and interested users may get "cut off" because of the delay or "turned off" by the delay, unless there is some way for them to get access. AutoIT development team could be working on version 4.x and AutoIT version 4 is released for general use, but the source code is out for only AutoIT version 3.x A programmer may want to add features, but he has to wait 6 months before he can get hold of version 4. By the time he gets it, its already outdated, and the development team are working on something new. This method may discourage develpment of AutoIT, decrease the number of develpers, AutoIT's develpment may be tightly controlled, which may make it less user friendly, reduce ideas, etc...

An "offical release of the code delay" is OK, IF potential develpers and users still have some way of getting access BEFORE the general public release. If users could still request for the code via e-mail at anytime or join the developers club at anytime, than perhaps this would be OK.

Also, delay or not, the source code is still going to leak out. A company can pay somebody on the develpment team or developer group to give them access to the code. I think AutoIT is still going to have to be aggressive with legal action against those that violate their license and don't give them credit.

Also skilled programmers can possibly decompile the code, but perhabs being at that skill level means you should not have to decompile AutoIT's code to do what you want in the first place. Of course, it might just depend on various factors...

Also new features in AutoIT will still be targeted. Sometimes you don't have to see the source code, but just know about what the feature can do to get ideas. This point should not be underestimated. Many time its not that other can't do it, but they have not thought about it. If they see somebody else do it, than they CAN copy (but not directly) or be inspired by the idea/concept. In fact, the copy sometimes is better than the orginal, because they also thought of ways to improve something and not just copy it.

Also, AutoIT's "locking down" of source code may encourage its other script and software contributors to "lock down" their source code too. So if a guy make a new tool for AutoIT, he may not share his source code. "Well if "you" can do it than why should I give out my source code?".

Last but not least, if AutoIT begins to "hide" or "delay" its code, than this may open the door for OTHER scripting languages that make their source code open and free. A potential developer may go "fine since I can't be on AutoIT's develpment team than I will go an be on "X" scripting language's team". AutoIT is not thee only automation/scripting language "on the block". So... a VERY unintended effect about this source code issue may happen.

Like I typed... I'm for anything that speeds up development, increases functionality, makes it easier to use, etc... for AutoIT and makes it better. If the "net effect" of "something" on the great AutoIT scripting/automation language is going to bad, than I'm against it.

Edited January 22, 2005 by autoitNOW

[BasicOs]

dont forget AutoIt dev is really modular.

I noticed many devs ,who couldnt access to the 103 code, did the new features they wanted in the 102 code(I cant remember their names), after this new func was ready, they sent it to Jon.

It should be better that some of the devs who worked in the "old source",said if they had problems for this point or not.

Also, AutoIT's "locking down" of source code may encourage its other script and software contributors to "lock down" their source code too. So if a guy make a new tool for AutoIT, he may not share his source code. "Well if "you" can do it than why should I give out my source code?".

Is the tools code also locked by now, or will it be?

I support it should be up the the tool dev, as they made the tools free also.., ist it now like that?

Edit:If I make a new Autoit tool, can I decide how its license should be?

Edited January 22, 2005 by BasicOs

[Valik]

autoitNOW, you have a lot to say, but most of it is just hot air on this subject. Being a developer and reading the shit you're posting is really pissing me off. I'm sorry if I over-step the bounds on what should and shouldn't be said here, but I'm sick of seeing you be blissfully unaware that the crap you're posting is the very reason we're all so upset. The competition you've so callously referred to a couple times and its chief developer are the primary problem, yet you totally missed the boat on that, even after Larry's comments and my own earlier in this thread.

A certain "other" open-source project was started because a whiny-ass-bitch was unintentionally ignored by Jon so he goes off and starts his own language and leeches off both the success of AutoIt and the code base. He could of added these to AutoIt, the source was either available or soon to be available. Also, The marketing tactics employed by (un)said person were so pathetic and immoral to rival any big-businesses approach to getting their software out there.

Now you come in here with all this drivel and don't even have a clue what you're on about. You obviously don't know anything about why this change has come about, judging from the things you've said. This open-source model didn't work. Sure, it got a lot of good developers to join, but it also caused a very bad bastard child to be born which turned around and not only started biting the hand that fed it but is gnawing around at about the elbow, now. Something has to be done about it.

[Valik]

dont forget AutoIt dev is really modular.

I noticed many devs ,who couldnt access to the 103 code, did the new features they wanted in the 102 code(I cant remember their names), after this new func was ready, they sent it to Jon.

It should be better that some of the devs who worked in the "old source",said if they had problems for this point or not.

Is the tools code also locked by now, or will it be?

I support it should be up the the tool dev, as they made the tools free also.., ist it now like that?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Of course its up to the author. You write it, you license it. All the Microsoft Window's DLLs are technically "tools" since they "work" with AutoIt, they sure as hell aren't free or open, now, are they? Not every tool thats been written has had the source released for it.

[alexpere]

Valik (and oh boy do I know I'm asking for it), I believe autoitNOW as brought up many interesting discussion points which are worth considering along the path to making a decision here. I don't see how insulting someone (which potentially discourages others to post) helps here. What's happened has happened. This discussion is about making the right decision for the project's future, with the emphasis on discussion.

Personally I would be happy with keeping the previous version open source and the current (and development) version only available to devs. Maybe after a certain time (e.g. three months, I think six is too long) the source for the current version could be released as mentioned by others before.

I don't think the source for the development version should ever be released.

[autoitNOW]

...autoitNOW, you have a lot to say, but most of it is just hot air on this subject.  Being a developer and reading the shit you're posting is really pissing me off...

...A certain "other" open-source project was started because a whiny-ass-bitch was unintentionally ignored by Jon...  He could of added these to AutoIt, the source was either available or soon to be available...  Also, The marketing tactics employed by (un)said person were so pathetic and immoral to rival any big-businesses approach to getting their software out there... 

...This open-source model didn't work.  Sure, it got a lot of good developers to join, but it also caused a very bad bastard child to be born which turned around and not only started biting the hand that fed it but is gnawing around at about the elbow, now.  Something has to be done about it...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Sorry Valik if my kind of opinions "disturbs" you, but I'm entitled to have one as you are to yours.

Actually, Valik, I know more about this than you think. I seriously look into and even study these type of issues. Remember that every action has a reaction. Many time people react to something and it turns out to "back fire" on them. I'm by no means saying that any solution you guys think up will 100% have this negative consequence, but I am saying that stepping back and looking at this from a broader perspective might be helpful.

How many more "bastard children" do you want to create??? Are you solving the issue about their creation and subsequent actions or are you on the way to creating MORE of them?

[BasicOs]

autoitNOW, you have a lot to say, but most of it is just hot air on this subject. Being a developer and reading the shit you're posting is really pissing me off. I'm sorry if I over-step the bounds on what should and shouldn't be said here,@AutoItNow, You should make some legal movements against this "clever " copier, by yourself. Supoussing you are with Autoit

@ Valik At last, I told in one post, human nature of 95% ppl is bound to steal what belongs the others.(this time code).

A certain "other" open-source project was started because a whiny-ass-bitch was unintentionally ignored by Jon

Now Jon, can feel happy to have ignored this "clever" one in this moment, but sorry not to ignore months ago. Because, this guy was thinking about stealing the project a long time ago, and then after pressing, and pressing, when he could not get more milk out, he knew when the moment was.

This open-source model didn't work.

It was discussed in this topic why.

I THINK THIS CLEVER GUY IS NOT GOING ANYWHERE, because he cannot have new ideas. I think Autoit boat has to move in his way, and copier boat will sunk alone.

@Valik It is supergood you dont say his name here, and you delete 80% of the words you wrote for him, BECAUSE HE IS NOT SO IMPORTANT, HE IS PAST,(HISTORY).

Edit: Well, another LAMER... you can see when they are coming if you open your eyes.

Edited January 22, 2005 by BasicOs

[Valik]

autoitNOW, you may understand these situations in general but you most assuredly don't know the details of this specific one other than the little hints here and there that we've dropped. Until you are on the development team and having code leeched and are pissed about it, your ideas and discussion seem valid, but get a little pissed off over the whole situation and suddenly all your points sound like hypothetical and highly unlikely bullshit. How about you step back and analyze it from a broader perspective and see what its like to have your work lifted and turned around and thrown right back at you as competition. Forgive us developer types for going off a bit, but you haven't seen nor hear even a drop in the bucket. I rarely see profanity from Jon, but this subject brings out the "big words" from him. I know that Larry is none to happy as well. Stop worrying about the people who aren't here and actually start noticing that the people who are here don't like things right now.

[autoitNOW]

autoitNOW, you may understand these situations in general but you most assuredly don't know the details of this specific one other than the little hints here and there that we've dropped.  Until you are on the development team and having code leeched and are pissed about it, your ideas and discussion seem valid, but get a little pissed off over the whole situation and suddenly all your points sound like hypothetical and highly unlikely bullshit.  How about you step back and analyze it from a broader perspective and see what its like to have your work lifted and turned around and thrown right back at you as competition.  Forgive us developer types for going off a bit, but you haven't seen nor hear even a drop in the bucket.  I rarely see profanity from Jon, but this subject brings out the "big words" from him.  I know that Larry is none to happy as well.  Stop worrying about the people who aren't here and actually start noticing that the people who are here don't like things right now.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

As you should know, I have tremendous respect for you Valik and the rest of the AutoIT development team. Your are right that I can't tell exactly how you feel, since I'm not a member of the development team and have to see my work stolen.

I'm just thinking that it would be a shame to have even more "bastard children" running around, when it is not necessary. I'm just hoping that what ever solution happens that a bigger "bastard doorway" is not opened by those wanting to modify or get access to the AutoIT source code, but at the same time a good solution needs to be found for all the hard working AutoIT developers.

I, and many others, are big fans of AutoIT and would hate for its "rocket powered" progress to slow down, have unhappy users or development team members fighting each other, or have it get involved in ugly legal battles.

I wish only the best for AutoIT.

[autoitNOW]

......I THINK THIS CLEVER GUY IS NOT GOING ANYWHERE, because he cannot have new ideas. I think Autoit boat has to move in his way, and copier boat will sunk alone.

@Valik It is supergood you dont say his name here, and you delete 80% of the words you wrote for him, BECAUSE HE IS NOT SO IMPORTANT, HE IS PAST,(HISTORY)......

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I could be wrong, but I think "he" is not going anywhere. Also that "he", is now a small "group". A group can EXPAND its membership at anytime. Its far too late to easily kill the copier boat. "The "fork" has created a clear path." It will not just die from "lack of attention" and its is big enough now that trying to kill it would take nothing less than "open war". Even that, I think will fail, unless its also in the form of a long nasty legal challenge.

Knowing this and the path being taken by AutoIT, it all scares me a bit. It is just so easy to trip over a "landmine" and blow off a "leg". I don't want to see that happen.

I just want AutoIT to kick the butt of VBScript, Visual Basic for Applications, and Visual Basics COMBINED. I want that day to arrive when there will be people that will be like "Visual what??? nah... never used that... Just use AutoIT, it's so much easier."

[BasicOs]

Yes, I could say, there are lamers everywhere, go on fighting your way, devs, this battle make you bigger.

I feel myself, so do many scripters, like they had stolen also a little of our own work. Serious.

I DONT SPEAK ABOUT NOBODY, BUT IN GENERAL FOR ALL WHO ARE NOT SMART AND GENTLE.

DONT FORGET, Lamers ussually have no future, believe me. Because they survive for a while, so long as they can suck the other's blood.

Lamer is a term used on interactive Web sites to describe an irritating or immature

participant.

You're even more lame if you don't understand why you are lamer.

You are a lamer if you born as a lamer.

http://redwing.hutman.net/~mreed/warriorshtm/lamer.htm

Edited January 22, 2005 by BasicOs

[Jon]

Well we managed 5 pages before it began. That's a fairly good record. It will probably degenerate into a flamefest now, so *click*.

[Jon]

I rarely see profanity from Jon, but this subject brings out the "big words" from him.