I'm available for open source projects.

[karl wettin]

I'm sick and tired of all my projects. Send me an email and tell me what
your project is about, what you need my help with, and I might help you.

I prefere working on projects with a commercially viable license.



karl

--
http://sf.net/projects/silvertejp/

[Human]<|--+--[Woman]<>-- +mother +child {0..*} --[Human]
\--[Man]<>-- +father +child {0..*} --[Human]

"arghhh .. it's all in geek" - objectmonkey.com

 

[Roedy Green]

Send me an email and tell me what
your project is about, what you need my help with, and I might help you.

I come up with ideas for projects far faster than I could ever
implement them. Perhaps something at
http://mindprod.com/projects.html will give you an idea for something
interesting.

 

[Ike]

Hey Roedy,

Btw, there have been a couple of requests/attempts at a reverse
iterator.....if you;re ever bored. Also, perhaps, an Amanuensis on
Collections...creating/iterating/addind/removing from.....Ike

 

[Brad BARCLAY]

I'm sick and tired of all my projects. Send me an email and tell me what
your project is about, what you need my help with, and I might help you.

I prefere working on projects with a commercially viable license.

Go over to SourceForge.net, and look over the "Project Help Wanted"
section. This is the best way to find an Open Source project that is to
your liking.

BTW, what do you consider a "commercially viable license", and which
one's do you not?

Brad BARCLAY
Lead Developer & Project Administrator,
The jSyncManager Project.
http://www.jsyncmanager.org

 

[Sudsy]

There was a famous math professor lecturing.
He scribbled his proof on the board while the students watched. A
student piped up, I don't understand that last step. How did you get
from there to there?

He stared at it. Ruffled his hands through his hair, paced back and
forth, and finally left the room. A few minutes before the end of the
class he came back in, and announced "It's trivial" and continued with
the proof.

Better story (and true): non-tenured Calculus prof at Scarberia College
worked out problems on the board, textbook in hand, and still got them
wrong!

 

[Roedy Green]

Btw, there have been a couple of requests/attempts at a reverse
iterator.....if you;re ever bored. Also, perhaps, an Amanuensis on
Collections...creating/iterating/addind/removing from.....Ike

One of the problems is after a while things seem so easy you don't
need to explain them or create amanuenses.

Yet I look at some of my torturously complicated explanations I came
up with while I was still wrestling with understanding.

Perhaps you need a team of novice and old timer to write this
introductory documentation well.


This reminds me of a reputedly true story Professor Z. A. Melzak told
our combinatorics class. There was a famous math professor lecturing.
He scribbled his proof on the board while the students watched. A
student piped up, I don't understand that last step. How did you get
from there to there?

He stared at it. Ruffled his hands through his hair, paced back and
forth, and finally left the room. A few minutes before the end of the
class he came back in, and announced "It's trivial" and continued with
the proof.

 

[Ike]

Yes BUT I think we all utulise elements of Collections that work for us. For
me, that means I either use an ArrayList or a HashMap.....and yet there is
so much more to Collections. Its just easier for me to stick with the tried
and true for me, than to kludge around with something new to me.

Thats why Mamie is such a fine ole broad -Ike

 

[Ike]

Better yet Roedy....extend a collections class such that a key traverses a
RANGE, and no more than one value overlapping a RANGE.

I am thinking in terms of a datebook, where, something to be done, at a
particular time, extends from a start time to an end time. No other thing
can overlap at this time. Perhaps there is a means of extending something in
Collections to do just that? -Ike

 

[karl wettin]

Go over to SourceForge.net, and look over the "Project Help Wanted"
section. This is the best way to find an Open Source project that is to
your liking.

I was there prior to posting here.

BTW, what do you consider a "commercially viable license", and which
one's do you not?

I don't consider GPL and LGPL to be commercially viable licenses.
I consider BSD, Z-lib and other non restricted licenses to be so.



karl

--
http://sf.net/projects/silvertejp/

[Human]<|--+--[Woman]<>-- +mother +child {0..*} --[Human]
\--[Man]<>-- +father +child {0..*} --[Human]

"arghhh .. it's all in geek" - objectmonkey.com

 

[Brad BARCLAY]

I don't consider GPL and LGPL to be commercially viable licenses.
I consider BSD, Z-lib and other non restricted licenses to be so.

Okay...than my next question is: what do you have against the GPL and
LGPL? And why do you consider them "not commercially viable"?

I know lots of commercial operations that have made use of GPL and
LGPL'd code. I know many that have _made_ money off GPL/LGPL code. So
what about them do you consider "not commercially viable"?

If you own a PalmOS-based handheld I can probably find tasks for you in
the jSyncManager Project (http://www.jsyncmanager.org and
http://sf.jsyncmanager.org) -- but it's all GPL/LGPL.

Brad BARCLAY
lead Developer & Project Administrator,
The jSyncManager Project.

 

[karl wettin]

Okay...than my next question is: what do you have against the GPL and
LGPL? And why do you consider them "not commercially viable"?

I know lots of commercial operations that have made use of GPL and
LGPL'd code. I know many that have _made_ money off GPL/LGPL code. So
what about them do you consider "not commercially viable"?

Sorry, but I'm not going to argue with you on this.

If you really don't know the diffrences between the (L)GPL and the BSD
licences, I recommend you to read them both. It's about the possibillity
to extend, bundle and redistribute as closed software.


karl

--
http://sf.net/projects/silvertejp/

[Human]<|--+--[Woman]<>-- +mother +child {0..*} --[Human]
\--[Man]<>-- +father +child {0..*} --[Human]

"arghhh .. it's all in geek" - objectmonkey.com

 

[Brad BARCLAY]

Sorry, but I'm not going to argue with you on this.

I'm not looking for an argument. I'm asking what your reasons are for
not wanting to work on a project based on it's license, that's all. If
you don't want to provide an answer, that's fine with me -- but I'm
certainly not trying to start something negative.

If you really don't know the diffrences between the (L)GPL and the BSD
licences, I recommend you to read them both. It's about the possibillity
to extend, bundle and redistribute as closed software.

I know the differences between these licenses exceedingly well,
thank-you-very-much. I'm simply curious as to your reasons for not
wanting to work on a project based on its license, that's all.

I'd also disagree with your "viability" qualification -- the GPL and
LGPL are certainly "commercially viable" -- they're just not as easily
exploitable. But we can leave that for a different thread some other time.

Brad BARCLAY

 

[Brian Palmer]

Sorry, but I'm not going to argue with you on this.

If you really don't know the diffrences between the (L)GPL and the BSD
licences, I recommend you to read them both. It's about the possibillity
to extend, bundle and redistribute as closed software.

I think Brad's point was 'not commercially viable' is a horrible
phrase to substitute for 'closed source compatible'.

 

[karl wettin]

I'm not looking for an argument. I'm asking what your reasons are for
not wanting to work on a project based on it's license, that's all. If
you don't want to provide an answer, that's fine with me -- but I'm
certainly not trying to start something negative.

There are more potential employers who will give me a job based on a
peice of software I wrote and they enjoy enough to extend it, if the
licence don't demand them to give away all their code. Not everybody
is a friend of open source.

Thus, BSD is a more commercially viable license than (L)GPL.

I have nothing against (L)GPL, but if I'm not the copyright holder,
there is no way for me to can't change the license in a way it allows
my potential employer to branch the software and redistribute it as
closed software.




karl

--
http://sf.net/projects/silvertejp/

[Human]<|--+--[Woman]<>-- +mother +child {0..*} --[Human]
\--[Man]<>-- +father +child {0..*} --[Human]

"arghhh .. it's all in geek" - objectmonkey.com

 

[Brad BARCLAY]

There are more potential employers who will give me a job based on a
peice of software I wrote and they enjoy enough to extend it, if the
licence don't demand them to give away all their code. Not everybody
is a friend of open source.

Thus, BSD is a more commercially viable license than (L)GPL.

Okay -- I see where you're coming from, but you should modify your
misusage of the concept of "commercially viable".

GPL/LGPL projects are certainly "commercially viable" -- I won't
belabour the point, but will point out that commercial entities such as
RedHat and IBM do quite well selling GPLed/LGPLed software. Linux
itself is quite "commercially viable", and most of what goes into each
distro is GPL-LGPL, including all of the core OS components.

I have nothing against (L)GPL, but if I'm not the copyright holder,
there is no way for me to can't change the license in a way it allows
my potential employer to branch the software and redistribute it as
closed software.

That's fine -- I'm not particularily one for espousing a source-license
"religion" like some people do. In my lifetime I've done development
under a variety of different license models. I have no problem if you
prefer to work on projects are aren't viral in nature -- you should
simply refrain from calling them "not commercially viable", as it's
quite untrue.

Brad BARCLAY

 

[Dale King]

Okay -- I see where you're coming from, but you should modify your
misusage of the concept of "commercially viable".

GPL/LGPL projects are certainly "commercially viable" -- I won't
belabour the point, but will point out that commercial entities such as
RedHat and IBM do quite well selling GPLed/LGPLed software. Linux
itself is quite "commercially viable", and most of what goes into each
distro is GPL-LGPL, including all of the core OS components.

Just stepping into this minefield, but I think the issue is for whom is it
commercially viable? RedHat and IBM basically package the GPL software and
perhaps add some non-GPL enhancement. But for the actual creator of the
software, I fail to see how it can be commercially viable. Are any of the
writers of the software going into those distros making any money? How can
they? So I don't think it is commercially viable to develop software and
license it with GPL/LGPL because there is no way for you to make money on
it.

Of course not all software necessarily needs to be commercially viable and
there can be non-monetary reasons to distribute things open source, but I
think it would be false to say there is way you can make money from
developing open source software.

 

[Bent C Dalager]

Just stepping into this minefield, but I think the issue is for whom is it
commercially viable? RedHat and IBM basically package the GPL software and
perhaps add some non-GPL enhancement. But for the actual creator of the
software, I fail to see how it can be commercially viable. Are any of the

I am more worried about the user of the software, and then
particularly about the poor programmer who is spending time learning
how to use some GPL library or other only to later find that this
knowledge is difficult or impossible to make use of in a normal job
situation.

Of course, this will no longer be an issue once everything in the
whole world is GPL compatible, but I wouldn't advise anyone to hold
their breath waiting for _that_ to happen.

Of course not all software necessarily needs to be commercially viable and
there can be non-monetary reasons to distribute things open source, but I
think it would be false to say there is way you can make money from
developing open source software.

I expect the JBoss crowd might disagree with you

Cheers
Bent D

 

[Brad BARCLAY]

Just stepping into this minefield, but I think the issue is for whom is it
commercially viable? RedHat and IBM basically package the GPL software and
perhaps add some non-GPL enhancement. But for the actual creator of the
software, I fail to see how it can be commercially viable. Are any of the
writers of the software going into those distros making any money? How can
they? So I don't think it is commercially viable to develop software and
license it with GPL/LGPL because there is no way for you to make money on
it.

Why not? There is nothing in the GPL/LGPL that prevents anyone from
charging for software under its license. It only requires that if you
distribute the binaries, that you also have to make their sources
available to anyone you distribute it to. you don't even have to
_include_ the sources in the distribution -- if you want, you can
require that the recipient has to "mail away" for them.

There are GPL/LGPL'ed projects that make money. I'll admit that it's
rare, however it is certainly possible.

And BTW, BSD and Apache style licenses often face the same problems as
you point out -- it isn't the person who's writing the software who
makes any of the money. Indeed, this is even _more_ common in the BSD
world than it is in the GPL world (as any entity can take the code and
release it with whatever modifications they desire, without having to
donate those changes back to the community or redistribute their
sources, and then charge for it). Microsoft includes BSD code in their
OS's. Do you think they paid the developers of that code anything for
this privledge? And yet they charge you, the user, for it.

If that were the original posters definition of "commercially viable",
then _no_ Open Source license would be commercially viable.

Thankfully, this isn't what defines commercial viability, and both the
GPL and BSD (and other) Open Source licenses are equally commercially
viable.

Brad BARCLAY

 

[Dale King]

I am more worried about the user of the software, and then
particularly about the poor programmer who is spending time learning
how to use some GPL library or other only to later find that this
knowledge is difficult or impossible to make use of in a normal job
situation.

Of course, this will no longer be an issue once everything in the
whole world is GPL compatible, but I wouldn't advise anyone to hold
their breath waiting for _that_ to happen.


I expect the JBoss crowd might disagree with you

I doubt it. They only make money on consulting. They do not and cannot make
money on the software itself. And someone else besides the developers could
offer consulting services and the developers get nothing.

 

[Dale King]

Why not? There is nothing in the GPL/LGPL that prevents anyone from
charging for software under its license. It only requires that if you
distribute the binaries, that you also have to make their sources
available to anyone you distribute it to. you don't even have to
_include_ the sources in the distribution -- if you want, you can
require that the recipient has to "mail away" for them.

So you can make money on your very first copy sold. At that point that user
must be able to get the source form you and has the right to give it to
whoever they want. Everyone else can get for free from them instead of
paying you. How do you make any money on it.

There are GPL/LGPL'ed projects that make money. I'll admit that it's
rare, however it is certainly possible.

I know of none that make money off the development itself. Some make money
on consultancy or by packaging a bunch of software or by adding non-GPL
extensions. Please give examples that contradict this.

And BTW, BSD and Apache style licenses often face the same problems as
you point out -- it isn't the person who's writing the software who
makes any of the money. Indeed, this is even _more_ common in the BSD
world than it is in the GPL world (as any entity can take the code and
release it with whatever modifications they desire, without having to
donate those changes back to the community or redistribute their
sources, and then charge for it). Microsoft includes BSD code in their
OS's. Do you think they paid the developers of that code anything for
this privledge? And yet they charge you, the user, for it.

Pretty much my point.

If that were the original posters definition of "commercially viable",
then _no_ Open Source license would be commercially viable.

As I stepped into this late and don't know what the OP meant, I don't care
if this was his definition. It is my defintion and that was my point that
developing open software is not commercially viable as a money making
enterprise. That is not to say that money cannot be made in connection with
open source software, but just not for the development. And there can be
non-monetary benefits, for example IBM gets benefit from Eclipse being open
source, but not directly monetary.

Thankfully, this isn't what defines commercial viability, and both the
GPL and BSD (and other) Open Source licenses are equally commercially
viable.

I don't see how it is for developers.

I am not anti-open source and I use and believe in open source, but I think
we need to be realisitic and not spread false information.