OpenCroquet, OpenCobalt, Squeak, Pharo, and most every project on
squeak is released under the MIT license, and we went to a lot of
trouble to use that particular license. There is a lot of nice code
here that would be wonderful to incorperate into OpenCobalt
especially, but that is currently not possible because of the License
My observation in response:
one could make the case that taking code private than opening it up
again under a different license so that the original community can't
directly use the code is hardly a case of "giving back to the
community..."
> OpenCroquet, OpenCobalt, Squeak, Pharo, and most every project on
> squeak is released under the MIT license, and we went to a lot of
> trouble to use that particular license. There is a lot of nice code
> here that would be wonderful to incorperate into OpenCobalt
> especially, but that is currently not possible because of the License
> My observation in response:
> one could make the case that taking code private than opening it up
> again under a different license so that the original community can't
> directly use the code is hardly a case of "giving back to the
> community..."
One might reply that you don't know what you're talking about. There
was no working, community-developed codebase that Qwaq
commercialized. The Hedgehog codebase that became OpenCobalt was 100%
written by Qwaq. Howard and I, while working at the University of
Wisconsin, were the first to produce a working distro based on
Hedgehog; it was dubbed "Dormouse" (https://www.cs.duke.edu/~jdougan/ downloads/papers/croquet/dormouse.ppt). None of our code made it back
into Qwaq's codebase.
IIRC, the only major chunk of code that Qwaq adopted from the
community was the nice avatar-animation code written by Peter Moore
and others at the University of Minnesota.
If you're inclined to criticize Teleplace rather than thank them, at
least do it without rewriting history.
MIT and GPL compatibility are explained here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MIT_License "The [MIT] license is also GPL-compatible, meaning that the GPL
permits combination and redistribution with software that uses the MIT
License."
The company's reasons for initiating OpenQwaq are explained here:
http://teleplace.wordpress.com/2011/05/03/moving-immersive-collaborat... "More people need to be exposed to the technology. More people need to
add their insights about how the technology needs to evolve. A
platform needs to emerge that can be embraced by a broad community of
developers, users, and solution providers that collectively have full
confidence that the platform will continue to be enhanced for a long
time to come. And that’s why we decided to initiate OpenQwaq."
On May 3, 9:42 am, Saijanai <saija...@gmail.com> wrote:
> OpenCroquet, OpenCobalt, Squeak, Pharo, and most every project on
> squeak is released under the MIT license, and we went to a lot of
> trouble to use that particular license. There is a lot of nice code
> here that would be wonderful to incorperate into OpenCobalt
> especially, but that is currently not possible because of the License
> My observation in response:
> one could make the case that taking code private than opening it up
> again under a different license so that the original community can't
> directly use the code is hardly a case of "giving back to the
> community..."
I have just come out of a (Teleplace) meeting with the faculty at a university, who are absolutely ecstatic about the possibilities this offers. We are going to use Qwaq are a platform for producing all sorts of interesting e-learning experiments. Open sourcing the code is a huge win.
On Tue, May 3, 2011 at 14:22, @tnemelka <tony...@gmail.com> wrote: > MIT and GPL compatibility are explained here: > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MIT_License > "The [MIT] license is also GPL-compatible, meaning that the GPL > permits combination and redistribution with software that uses the MIT > License."
> The company's reasons for initiating OpenQwaq are explained here:
> http://teleplace.wordpress.com/2011/05/03/moving-immersive-collaborat... > "More people need to be exposed to the technology. More people need to > add their insights about how the technology needs to evolve. A > platform needs to emerge that can be embraced by a broad community of > developers, users, and solution providers that collectively have full > confidence that the platform will continue to be enhanced for a long > time to come. And that’s why we decided to initiate OpenQwaq."
> On May 3, 9:42 am, Saijanai <saija...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Tap...@gmail.com commented previously:
> > OpenCroquet, OpenCobalt, Squeak, Pharo, and most every project on > > squeak is released under the MIT license, and we went to a lot of > > trouble to use that particular license. There is a lot of nice code > > here that would be wonderful to incorperate into OpenCobalt > > especially, but that is currently not possible because of the License
> > My observation in response:
> > one could make the case that taking code private than opening it up > > again under a different license so that the original community can't > > directly use the code is hardly a case of "giving back to the > > community..."
My comment, valid or no, is simply a response to Tapple's comment
that I quoted above:
> OpenCroquet, OpenCobalt, Squeak, Pharo, and most every project on
> squeak is released under the MIT license, and we went to a lot of
> trouble to use that particular license. There is a lot of nice code
> here that would be wonderful to incorperate into OpenCobalt
> especially, but that is currently not possible because of the License
It's easy to flame me. Flame others who have the same concerns, also,
if you feel they are inappropriate.
Otherwise, it is just a personality game, no?
On May 3, 11:21 am, Josh Gargus <sch...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > OpenCroquet, OpenCobalt, Squeak, Pharo, and most every project on
> > squeak is released under the MIT license, and we went to a lot of
> > trouble to use that particular license. There is a lot of nice code
> > here that would be wonderful to incorperate into OpenCobalt
> > especially, but that is currently not possible because of the License
> > My observation in response:
> > one could make the case that taking code private than opening it up
> > again under a different license so that the original community can't
> > directly use the code is hardly a case of "giving back to the
> > community..."
> One might reply that you don't know what you're talking about. There
> was no working, community-developed codebase that Qwaq
> commercialized. The Hedgehog codebase that became OpenCobalt was 100%
> written by Qwaq. Howard and I, while working at the University of
> Wisconsin, were the first to produce a working distro based on
> Hedgehog; it was dubbed "Dormouse" (https://www.cs.duke.edu/~jdougan/ > downloads/papers/croquet/dormouse.ppt). None of our code made it back
> into Qwaq's codebase.
> IIRC, the only major chunk of code that Qwaq adopted from the
> community was the nice avatar-animation code written by Peter Moore
> and others at the University of Minnesota.
> If you're inclined to criticize Teleplace rather than thank them, at
> least do it without rewriting history.
I have been a member of the Squeak community for over 10 years. I am a
very big fan of the MIT license as are most Squeak/Pharo users. And I
would wager many of the OpenQwaq contributors are also. But this is a
business decision based on protecting a business model. The GPL is
quite appropriate and really doesn't limit most users in most
situations hardly at all.
What the GPL prevents is a large corporation from taking the fruits of
their labors and attempting to takeover the market with a product they
based on Teleplace software without any contributions back to either
the community or Teleplace. The MIT would not offer any such
protections.
The GPL doesn't diminish anybodies options from what they have outside
of this project. It just restricts how they can use this project. The
open sourcing of this project simply adds to the options one has and
does not decrease them.
Yes, the GPL prevents OpenCroquet, OpenCobalt, Squeak and Pharo from
taking code from the OpenQwaq platform and using it in those products.
But I would imagine that any code of value to those projects which
does not impact the business model of Teleplace could be provided by
the authors (should they and Teleplace so choose) to those projects
under an MIT license should such be desired and possibly requested.
Nothing prevents members of those communities from becoming a part of
this community and building up this project. This project isn't being
offered up in order for people to harvest from, but rather become a
part of the community and contributor to and user of the project. This
isn't a set of libraries, it is an application.
This is a fantastic privilege and opportunity. I for one give thanks
to all at Teleplace who contributed to this project and the open
sourcing thereof. Thank you very, very much.
I do not read anything into Josh's comments which flame anyone, but
rather make an attempt to correct some inaccurate information. If you
didn't like the tone of his reply, it was simply in response to the
tone you established. Don't dish it out if you can take it.
This project is a gift and a blessing. No one is required to
participate. If your offended, go build your own. Or you can repent,
appreciate the gift and become a productive member. The choice is
yours.
JMHO
Jimmie
On May 3, 11:42 am, Saijanai <saija...@gmail.com> wrote:
> OpenCroquet, OpenCobalt, Squeak, Pharo, and most every project on
> squeak is released under the MIT license, and we went to a lot of
> trouble to use that particular license. There is a lot of nice code
> here that would be wonderful to incorperate into OpenCobalt
> especially, but that is currently not possible because of the License
> My observation in response:
> one could make the case that taking code private than opening it up
> again under a different license so that the original community can't
> directly use the code is hardly a case of "giving back to the
> community..."
Well stated Jimmie. MIT does not have any provisions to keep others
from harvesting the codebase and creating a competing product, nor
does it require that people contribute changes back if they want to
distribute. GPL 2 is a great business decision, as is it a great
decision for the community.
Many thanks to Teleplace for their generous contribution to the FOSS
community and to Open Virtual Worlds.
I don't have a problem with Tapple's comment. It's a simple factual
statement.
On the other hand, you complained that Teleplace should not be
commended for re-releasing code that other people wrote. I corrected
your historical error. Maybe I was a bit snide, but flaming? I don't
think I raised the temperature much by mimicking your tone.
Cheers,
Josh
On May 3, 11:58 am, Saijanai <saija...@gmail.com> wrote:
> My comment, valid or no, is simply a response to Tapple's comment
> that I quoted above:
> > OpenCroquet, OpenCobalt, Squeak, Pharo, and most every project on
> > squeak is released under the MIT license, and we went to a lot of
> > trouble to use that particular license. There is a lot of nice code
> > here that would be wonderful to incorperate into OpenCobalt
> > especially, but that is currently not possible because of the License
> It's easy to flame me. Flame others who have the same concerns, also,
> if you feel they are inappropriate.
> Otherwise, it is just a personality game, no?
> On May 3, 11:21 am, Josh Gargus <sch...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On May 3, 9:42 am, Saijanai <saija...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > OpenCroquet, OpenCobalt, Squeak, Pharo, and most every project on
> > > squeak is released under the MIT license, and we went to a lot of
> > > trouble to use that particular license. There is a lot of nice code
> > > here that would be wonderful to incorperate into OpenCobalt
> > > especially, but that is currently not possible because of the License
> > > My observation in response:
> > > one could make the case that taking code private than opening it up
> > > again under a different license so that the original community can't
> > > directly use the code is hardly a case of "giving back to the
> > > community..."
> > One might reply that you don't know what you're talking about. There
> > was no working, community-developed codebase that Qwaq
> > commercialized. The Hedgehog codebase that became OpenCobalt was 100%
> > written by Qwaq. Howard and I, while working at the University of
> > Wisconsin, were the first to produce a working distro based on
> > Hedgehog; it was dubbed "Dormouse" (https://www.cs.duke.edu/~jdougan/ > > downloads/papers/croquet/dormouse.ppt). None of our code made it back
> > into Qwaq's codebase.
> > IIRC, the only major chunk of code that Qwaq adopted from the
> > community was the nice avatar-animation code written by Peter Moore
> > and others at the University of Minnesota.
> > If you're inclined to criticize Teleplace rather than thank them, at
> > least do it without rewriting history.
