7 ms·

There's a cost to open sourcing software. I like that the OP pointed that there was software that was sub-licensed and needed to be excised. Netscape took close

by barce 12y ago

There's a cost to open sourcing software. I like that the OP pointed that there was software that was sub-licensed and needed to be excised. Netscape took close to a year to open source their browser as Firefox using every significant company resource.

danielweber 12y ago
He should have always been (trying to be) aware of all the licenses he was using from the start. You can't just use any code you find on the net and staple it into your project.
- ahlatimer 12y ago
  There's a difference between knowing "I can use this" and "I can let you use this." Even if he was up to speed on his use of various bits of software, that doesn't mean he was fully aware of whether or not he could sub-license it. In fact, in one of the instances (the theme), he was distinctly aware that he could not sub-license it.
- DatBear 12y ago
  He obviously was aware of the licenses he was using, as he listed them in the post...
- nirvdrum 12y ago
  I was well aware of the licenses. I was optimizing for delivering value to my customers, not for the best way to give everything away should I go out of business. The world of licensing gets considerably more complicated once you decide to distribute it. There are plenty of things I'm free to use in a service capacity because I'm not distributing them. The issue of linking or derived works or license compatibility doesn't come into play for many licenses if you're not actually distributing software. And that says nothing of the commercial products I licensed that I knew I wouldn't be able to sublicense. But, the name of the game was expediency. I liked the theme on WrapBootstrap. I paid ~$20 for it and got up and running in a weekend. Recreating that would have been considerably more effort at significantly more cost. I made a trade-off, as businesses need to do. It's technical debt, one I'm not obligated to pay and don't see the long-term value being worth it.
- marktangotango 12y ago
  Why the down votes? This is a valid point, although coarsely stated.

by barce 12y ago

danielweber 12y ago

He should have always been (trying to be) aware of all the licenses he was using from the start. You can't just use any code you find on the net and staple it into your project.

ahlatimer 12y ago
There's a difference between knowing "I can use this" and "I can let you use this." Even if he was up to speed on his use of various bits of software, that doesn't mean he was fully aware of whether or not he could sub-license it. In fact, in one of the instances (the theme), he was distinctly aware that he could not sub-license it.
DatBear 12y ago
He obviously was aware of the licenses he was using, as he listed them in the post...
nirvdrum 12y ago
I was well aware of the licenses. I was optimizing for delivering value to my customers, not for the best way to give everything away should I go out of business. The world of licensing gets considerably more complicated once you decide to distribute it. There are plenty of things I'm free to use in a service capacity because I'm not distributing them. The issue of linking or derived works or license compatibility doesn't come into play for many licenses if you're not actually distributing software. And that says nothing of the commercial products I licensed that I knew I wouldn't be able to sublicense. But, the name of the game was expediency. I liked the theme on WrapBootstrap. I paid ~$20 for it and got up and running in a weekend. Recreating that would have been considerably more effort at significantly more cost. I made a trade-off, as businesses need to do. It's technical debt, one I'm not obligated to pay and don't see the long-term value being worth it.
marktangotango 12y ago
Why the down votes? This is a valid point, although coarsely stated.