Calling all open source developers

[David Bovill]

Replying here:  I think Peter forked this thread :)

2009/10/20 Richard Gaskin <ambassador at fourthworld.com>

>
> Great stuff, David.  More than just a grand vision, it appears well thought
> out on many levels.
>
> One thing I don't understand with GPL'd code, though:
>
> What if rather than contributing, someone wanted to drive traffic to their
> own site by forking the project and enhancing a new version of it?
>
> Are there any ways to ensure that a common pool doesn't get fragmented like
> that?
>

Good stewardship. Good code. Listening and being open to change. Peter is
right that you can;t force this structurally - you have to do the opposite
and welcome the possibility of forking, just try to make sure your fork is
the best :) Like many people I wouldn't join a project that was closed, that
I couldn't get my data back out of it it were to go pear shaped or in a
direction I did not like.


> Also: Would a Rev stack need to use LGPL to maintain a clear distinction
> from the engine, or is GPL sufficiently clear on that?
>

I looked a this and discussed it with a number of people / lawyers.
Initially I assumed too that LGPL, was what was needed. I was told that GPL
was a reasonable choice - despite much of the confusing talk - most of which
relates to issues regarding low level languages and is not relevant to
scripting languages. After further research I found that there are a number
of communities that have taken this route, and it seems to have worked out
fine for them.

Adobe Flash is not open source. However you will find plenty of well
respected ActionScript that explicitly license their code GPL. I see no
reason why RevTalk cannot be licensed on the same basis as ActionScript, and
the advice I have sought and research I have done has not contradicted that.
In short there is no good reason I can find that we don't do a similar this
to say a project like Open Source
Flash<http://osflash.org/open_source_flash_projects>- I just think we
can do it better.

We gain stronger and better protection than simple licenses alone, by
ensuring that the project is collectively owned and open to any developer
that is interested in joining. Given that the copyright belongs to that
collective organisation they are free to ammend and relicense the software
under new licenses under whatever good council they get. However you can;t
retract openness and the project can allways be forked if enough people
don't like what we do. In short if there were to be a problem with a
particular form of license, we have the added protection that the community
can release a modified license in good faith.

To the best of my knowledge the combination of both the licensing, the
limited liability and open organisational structure, together with a clear
and agreed social purpose as expresssed in the member agreement gives us the
soundest basis for creating a thriving and sustainable open content
community built around Revolution. We've got a strong community, but I think
we can improve it, and learn from each other and other projects outside of
our community.

I hope that is entertaining enough Richmond?