Licensing - comments needed

[StanHelton]

I'm not very good at 'legaleeze', but here's what I've got so far.

Licensing is still very open and I know some of us have reservations. One option would be to bundle 'evaluation versions' of existing 3rd party tools. This is an important issue to those who have commercial tool sets on the market. I haven't tried to address this issue directly below.

Please add, change, delete where you think it is needed. We will all have to agree on the final version that we actually use.


Terms

Converter = The VB6 to PowerBASIC Converter, including source and binaries.

PBWin = PowerBASIC for Windows 8.0

PBCC = PowerBASIC Console Compiler 8.0

Project Team = us

team = also us

Alpha = development version, NOT for distribution

Beta = functional test version, for limited distribution

Release = functional version, for distribution


License

1. This is an open source project, but distribution is limited.

(My Suggestion: The source will be available to developers who have purchased and registered at least one copy of PowerBASIC for Windows. The source will be targeted to version 8.0. PBCC version to follow later.)


2. You have the royalty free right to use the Converter in its compiled form, modify the source for you personal use, and to use any modified versions for your personal use.

3. Subject to the restrictions below, you may distribute the Converter in its original form provided all documentation files, including licensing and copyright restrictions, are distributed together. You may not distribute modified versions of the Converter.

4. You may distribute the compiled executable from original source designated Release to anyone who is using or considering using PBWin for purposes of evaluation. This provision does not allow distribution of versions designated as Alpha or Beta without properly authorized prior written Project Team permission. This provision does not allow distribution of source code.

5. Any Converter source code designated Alpha (automatic upon first submission to the team) may be distributed to the Project Team only.

5. Any Converter source code designated Beta by the Project Team may be distributed for testing purposes as the team decides.

6. Any Converter source code designated Release by the Project Team may be distributed under item #3 above.

7. The Converter and all supporting documentation is copyright by the Project Team. All rights not specifically granted in this license are reserved to the Project Team.

8. NO WARRANTY IS MADE REGARDING FITNESS FOR ANY PURPOSE OR RELIABILITY OF THE CONVERTER. USE ENTIRELY AT YOUR OWN RISK. THE PROJECT TEAM ACCEPTS NO LIABILITY FOR DAMAGES OF ANY KIND RESULTING FROM THE USE OF THE CONVERTER.

[Chris Holbrook]

Stan, as the converter is worthless without PB, why not make releases to PB, Inc (subject to licence), and let them have the hassle of distributing it, which they are well equipped to do?

[StanHelton]

Hmmmm. Straight to the point. That's a good idea, I think. It also solves the problem of bundling 3rd party demos as has been suggested recently.

More comments, any one?

Stan

[John Spikowski]

Keep in mind that we are creating a converter for a legacy version of VB that may have lost most of it's users to VB.NET. How many developers do you think are still using VB6? I see this utility as a means of converting old VB applications that need a second life and a way to use a huge library of code in PowerBASIC.

This is a great open source project that has a good chance of seeing completion if it was open to the PowerBASIC community to contribute. Making it a closed project with license restrictions may work against us. I may be wrong and the members that already committed to helping have enough spare time on their hands to get this done.

Will this project have enough clout to have changes made to PowerBASIC to make this work better or will this end up being a creativity contest?

I still think doing this as an external open source project (LGPL) with a few key members as managers that would work directly with PowerBASIC staff to resolve issues at the language level makes more sense.

I'm just a minor contributor to this project as I already have a open source project I manage that takes most of my free time.

FYI: Has anyone thought about using Google Groups (open or closed) for this project? I think a mailing list with a group site that allows file uploads and has a built-in wiki like page creation feature might work better and keep the contributing members more up to date with what's going on. Not everyone checks the forum on a regular basis but they do read their e-mail and more likely to respond and keep in sync with the project.



John

[StanHelton]

I'm walking a thin line with that proposed license text. Some folks who have developed 3rd party add-ons could be concerned about contributing some types of code. So what I wanted to do was give the team a little more protection than the GPL (and LGPL?).

If I understand your comments, I may have been overly concerned on that issue?

Release to PB sounds like an excellent idea to me. It removes all concerns over distribution in my personal opinion.

Keep the discussion going. We're going to have to live by this one when we settle on something.

Stan

[Chris Holbrook]

How many developers do you think are still using VB6?

Also consider how many miles of VB6 are still in use, and what is their future. At some point it is not just developers who will be the audience, but Users, maybe even Users with Budgets!

FYI: Has anyone thought about using Google Groups (open or closed) for this project?

Dunno. There are so few people involved in this one (so far) that we could do it by phone.

[John Spikowski]

There are so few people involved in this one (so far) that we could do it by phone.

I think the PB members feel left out being a closed forum. Joining means commitment and may scare some away that have good ideas or sniplets of code they are willing to contribute but can't make a commitment at this time.

I think the Google Groups approach will keep the project fresh in the minds of those participating. It has everything we need to make this happen.

This is a open source project. I wouldn't worry about the vendors here that are making a buck off their efforts. Let their products speak for themselves and we shouldn't worry about stepping on toes.

John

[StanHelton]

I think the PB members feel left out being a closed forum....

You've mentioned this before. I noticed Jose Roca posted some useful code in the Open Invitation thread.

What do you think about using this forum for project management and keeping at least one active thread going on in the public forums all the time? By staying public that way, we could keep the PB community at large interested and contributing like Jose did.

Stan

[StanHelton]

Okay. Maybe some folks don't know exactly what we're talking about when we say 'open source'. Here are some must read links.

General Public License - the whole thing is free and derivatives must be free:

http://www.opensource.org/licenses/gpl-3.0.html

Lesser General Public License - free, but may be used as a library in commercial applications:

http://www.opensource.org/licenses/lgpl-2.1.php

Their discussion on the difference between the two:

http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/why-not-lgpl.html

Stan

[John Spikowski]

What do you think about using this forum for project management and keeping at least one active thread going on in the public forums all the time? By staying public that way, we could keep the PB community at large interested and contributing like Jose did.

PowerBASIC sponsored forum
Why make this forum private. (asked before as well) We can use all the help we can get since this is a volunteer based project. Unless you make it a 'sticky' in the one of the other open forums it will get lost in traffic.

Using other free resources

What's wrong with the Google Groups idea for the public side and you guys keep this private as an interface with PowerBASIC staff?

License

The Open Source Definition (Annotated)

John

[John Spikowski]

I really don't want to work on this project, but I can't seem to help myself in terms of being interested in it.

I think the PB members feel left out being a closed forum. Joining means commitment and may scare some away that have good ideas or sniplets of code they are willing to contribute but can't make a commitment at this time.

I think Fred's post validates my point.

John

[Chris Holbrook]

I think the PB members feel left out being a closed forum. Joining means commitment and may scare some away that have good ideas or sniplets of code they are willing to contribute but can't make a commitment at this time.

Why not give everybody R/O access to the project forum and let each one of them opt in/out of the project (rather than be signed in by an administrator) on the basis that they think they have something to contribute at the time. The admin can then keep the membership clean by clearing out inactive members every month or so. That way they will think twice before posting but will not feel excluded or at a disadvantage because they don't know what has been said in the closed forum. Anyone abusing the system (pretty unlikely) can be dealt with by the administrator.

This is a open source project. I wouldn't worry about the vendors here that are making a buck off their efforts.

Agreed, except for PB Inc, and bearing in mind that people may (for all I know) have non-disclosure agreements with these vendors which should be respected. The logic of keeping close to PB is simple, they will be in a position to assist the project more than anyone else, and are more likely to do so if the project is in close. Also, visitors to their website will see (better if it is made visible to all) that there is a rather good project going on here, which will reflect well all round.

Note to Stan have you considered doing a press release - ideally jointly with PB who will no doubt have a contact list?

[John Spikowski]

Agreed, except for PB Inc.

I don't think PowerBASIC has anything to worry about being the compiler for the project.

Most of the active posters have been a member for a long time. My vote is to open this forum segment up to all that want to contribute.

John

[Chris Holbrook]

My vote is to open this forum segment up to all that want to contribute.

That is close to what I was getting at, but it needs to be directed effort, danger is that it will go off into sub-projects which will end up not communicating. That could happen anyway I suppose. The question is, can the project organise itself quickly enough to start showing results before V2PC-lites start emerging? I'm not saying this to knock Fred Harris's effort, BTW, which is more of a "step on the way".

ATEOD it will be better all round to have one product, preferably with endorsement, or at least a kind word, from PB Inc. This can only raise the profile of PB, in a way which will benefit existing PB developers. The alternative is a nest of tools supported by rival factions, which will not look good from anywhere.

[StanHelton]

Why not give everybody R/O access to the project forum and let each one of them opt in/out of the project (rather than be signed in by an administrator) on the basis that they think they have something to contribute at the time. ...

I like the idea of R/O access. OTOH, Friction is inevitable in any group project. Do we really want to risk airing 'dirty laundry' in public?

...
Note to Stan have you considered doing a press release - ideally jointly with PB who will no doubt have a contact list?

An inspired idea! I'll speak to PB about it today.

Stan

[Chris Holbrook]

Do we really want to risk airing 'dirty laundry' in public?

That will happen anyway, as today's little spat illustrates. The main thing is to get results flowing. Today has been a good day for alternative architectures, hasn't it? At first reading Chris Boss's and Daniel Corbier's ideas are the opposite ends of the spectrum. In fact we don't know what is in the uCalc box (could be a midget with a PhD?), so comparisons may be dangerous. However, Daniel is assuming that the form of VB code is wel-behaved enough to be re-engineered using a compactly-expressed set of rules, whereas Chris argues from the opposite point of view. I think I would need examples to understand his point, as a)the structure and syntax of the language don't seem very unusual, b) I'm almost a VB virgin (working on it, legal copy arriving shortly)

[John Spikowski]

The www.vb2pb.org site was just turned off and is still intact. I'm willing to donate the resources to this project and let other manage the site. The dedicated server is running at a data center with less then 1-2% being used. (hosts ScriptBasic.org and a real estate search engine and a few clients)

We could quickly add services to the site as they are needed. (wiki, bug tracker, file repository, ...)

The reason I turned it off is I didn't want to give the impression that I was derailing the PowerBASIC sponsored effort in any way. If the site is to be successful, the project managers would have to make an announcement that the public side of the project reside there.

Let me know. It only takes a minute to re-enable the site.

John

[Chris Holbrook]

Question for John Spikowski - does ScriptBasic do OOP? - couldn't find any reference to it when skimming ScripBasic homepage.

[John Spikowski]

does ScriptBasic do OOP? - couldn't find any reference to it when skimming ScripBasic homepage

ScriptBasic is a general purpose Basic interpreter that comes in three flavors currently.

1. Console mode
2. Multi-threaded Basic HTTP server (with memory based session supportl)
3. Embeddable as a DLL or compiled in lib. (I know of a router company that uses it in this manor)

I think ScriptBasic is pretty much in the same boat as Gambas as far as the language goes and they added the VB OOP on top of the interpreter. I'm going the GTK route with ScriptBasic using the www.gtk-server.org interface.

BTW: I turned the http://www.vb2pb.org site back on for the team here to evaluate if it's a good fit for the public side of the project.

John

[StanHelton]

...
BTW: I turned the http://www.vb2pb.org site back on for the team here to evaluate if it's a good fit for the public side of the project.

John

How much trouble would it be to include R/O threads or subForums? I'd like to be able to post a ToDoList style task list I've set up and a project calendar, something the admin could update based on user input.

Stan