Posted by
Robert Dougherty on
Oct 12, 2005; 5:23pm
URL: http://imagej.273.s1.nabble.com/ImageJ-SourceForge-tp3704686p3704694.html
It appears that not all projects on SourceForge are covered by GNU licenses,
but most are. I'm concerned that, even ImageJ itself is kept in the public
domain, a connection with SourceForge would encourage plugin authors to use
the GPL. As for the implications of various open source licenses, the most
useful reference I've come across is "Open Source Software Licenses:
Perspectives of the End User and the Software Developer," by Paul H. Arne
and John C. Yates, The Computer & Internet Lawyer, Vol 22 No. 8 August 2005.
It is difficult to find it free on line, but a similar document is at
http://www.oslawblog.com/2004/10/white-paper-open-source-software.html.
Part of my take-away message was that GPL is popular with programmers who
think software should be free. Their employers may have a different view.
Regarding plugin maintenance and cataloging, I agree that there are
problems. I'm constantly posting messages to this list pointing out that a
plugin on my site does X in response to a question on the list seeking a
plugin that does X.
I don't know what to do when someone requests capability Y that does not
quite exist and would be easy and fun to provide, but I can't justify doing
it for free and nobody seems to be stepping up. I'm trying to create a
semi-commercial mechanism for this situation, but I'm reluctant to promote
it and it needs some tuning.
Maintenance of my free plugins can be hard to prioritize for things that I
don't need and nobody is paying for.
Maybe SourceForge is the answer for some of these issues, but it would be
necessary to overcome some fear and ignorance. In any case, Wayne's opinion
is the one that matters.
Bob