Re: Whats the verdict on Cocoaruby from others ?

FROM : Sherm Pendley
DATE : Tue Jul 18 00:48:46 2006

On Jul 17, 2006, at 5:42 PM, Jakob Olesen wrote:

> On 17/07/2006, at 23.08, Sherm Pendley wrote:
>

>> I'm curious - are you saying that's a pro or a con? I chose the 
>> LGPL for my CamelBones bridge too. I made the choice of LGPL over 
>> the GPL specifically to limit the "viral" aspects of the license 
>> to the bridge code itself. It will not "infect" your app. I want 
>> my code to stay free, but your code is your business - maybe 
>> literally! :-)
>>
>> I'm not asking this to get into a flamewar. If my choice of LGPL 
>> is limiting my potential audience, I'd certainly consider changing 
>> it - it's a pragmatic issue for me, not a religion.

>
> This is a sensitive topic, no flames, please.


Agreed!

> For something like rubycocoa, I would have to make a lot of changes 
> before using it. I would have to make those changes public.


Well, that's pretty much the point. :-)

Of course, with the LGPL (as opposed to the "full" GPL), you'd only 
have to make your changes to rubycocoa itself public - you wouldn't 
need to release your app's source code.

> That is a nuisance, but not a big problem.


Whether you think of it as a problem or not is, of course, entirely 
subjective.

I chose it after being rather abruptly transferred from a project 
into which I'd put over two years time and a lot of emotional 
investment, when a higher-up demanded "the best Perl guy we have" for 
a pet project. Partly my own fault, of course, since I'd allowed 
myself to develop a sense of ownership in a project that wasn't 
actually my own.

I wanted to make sure that couldn't happen again, and the LGPL seemed 
like the best choice for that purpose. I'll always have the 
CamelBones code available to me; the fact that the license ensures 
that by making sure it's available to *everyone* is actually 
secondary in my mind. I don't see it as a moral crusade the way some 
folks do - in fact I'll freely admit that I chose it for entirely 
selfish reasons.

> I would also have to link it dynamically, typically as a framework. 
> This is a matter of taste, but I don't like it.
>
> http://www.wilshipley.com/blog/2005/11/frameworks-are-teh-suck-
> err.html


As far as shared frameworks vs. app-embedded, I agree with Wil. My 
first release used a shared framework. Problem was, I got a *huge* 
amount of negative feedback based on that. My users wanted, no 
*insisted* on an embedded framework so they could deliver a drag-and-
drop install to their users. Several flatly refused to use CamelBones 
if they couldn't deliver that.

As the saying goes, the tribe has voted...

Having said that though, one thing I think Wil missed is licensing 
issues. At Omni they owned both the spps and their frameworks, so 
there was no need to draw a clear legal line between them. Having a 
clear, well-documented line between "our code" and "their code" can 
be crucial in a business setting.

> I don't want to go into politics, but LGPL is a con for me. You 
> have limited your audience :-)


I'd be happy to sell you a commercial license if you'd prefer. :-)

sherm--

Web Hosting by West Virginians, for West Virginians: http://wv-www.net
Cocoa programming in Perl: http://camelbones.sourceforge.net