X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: f996b,f7d991da3cc3c27e X-Google-Attributes: gidf996b,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2001-07-16 06:20:56 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!newsfeed.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!newsfeed.gamma.ru!Gamma.RU!newspeer.clara.net!news.clara.net!news5-gui.server.ntli.net!ntli.net!news6-win.server.ntlworld.com.POSTED!not-for-mail Newsgroups: alt.ascii-art Subject: Re: Jave1.1 released References: <3B4D80FB.63F9A3ED@rz.uni-karlsruhe.de> <1gB37.35076$B56.6848104@news2-win.server.ntlworld.com> <3B4EEEBC.AF5833DC@rz.uni-karlsruhe.de> <3B519ABC.49126441@rz.uni-karlsruhe.de> From: Russell Marks Lines: 110 User-Agent: Gnus/5.0807 (Gnus v5.8.7) Emacs/20.7 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Message-ID: Date: 16 Jul 2001 14:13:53 +0100 NNTP-Posting-Host: 62.252.9.44 X-Complaints-To: abuse@ntlworld.com X-Trace: news6-win.server.ntlworld.com 995289323 62.252.9.44 (Mon, 16 Jul 2001 14:15:23 BST) NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2001 14:15:23 BST Organization: ntlworld News Service Xref: archiver1.google.com alt.ascii-art:6677 Markus Gebhard wrote: > Russell Marks wrote: [...] [Markus wrote:] > > > 1) As kind of an experiment I have made the Jave Movie Player an open > > > source project (http://www.jave.de/player/). This applet is a part of > > > > Bad choice for an experiment, IMHO. I suspect only people already > > using Jave would look at this > > Tha Jave movie/animation player project is not based on Jave - it work's That doesn't matter. The point is, only people using Jave would be interested in looking at it, however it may happen to be implemented. > Up to now there were no advantages for me (and others) by releasing it > as open source. But how do you know this? > > - and why would you use Jave if you were > > a fan of open source? > > I am a fan of freeware rather than open source software. If someone does I don't mean "you" specifically, I mean people in general. > When using freeware I always know that there is somebody who feels > responsible to fix bugs and to provide a stable version. With open > source software I see two scenarious: There is at least one you missed. Let me offer it to you here: 0) The zgv scenario :-) A slightly non-mainstream program gets mostly developed by one person working alone, with a steady stream of bug reports and, occasionally, a patch to add a new feature. Though I mention zgv just because it's `mine' :-) and I know it fits the description, IME this scenario is by far the most common one for open source programs. Don't confuse open source with `the bazaar'. > 1) The apache scenario > There are a lot of highly qualified people working on something that a > lot of people need: A highly configurable web server, faster and more > secure than others and not from a monopol company like MS. Ok, we can agree that Jave isn't likely to fall under this one... :-) > 2) pick-one-of-the-many-releases-and-fix-it-yourself scenario > I think about the thousands of web sites with open source projects that > are in fact dead. I have had this experience when looking for a good Open source code cannot die, as you are always free to hack on it yourself (as are others). (Example: I use an open-source Z80 assembler first written over 20 years ago.) If I stopped maintaining zgv, for example, I'm sure someone else would take over if they were sufficiently interested. Compare this with Jave; everyone is absolutely 100% dependent on you to keep maintaining it. If you stop, it really *is* dead, and all anyone can do is keep running the existing binary. > I do not think Jave belongs to scenario 1). And I do not want Jave to > pass away. [...] But this is one of the strongest possible arguments for making it open source. I'm amazed that you would think this an argument *against*! > There is one more thing you have to know: As soon as Jave becomes open > source I will lose my motivation on working on it. And I am not going to Why's that? > be someone who coordinates new releases then. Jave grew from the fun I > had and still have in writing extraordinary cool algorithms/tools. I don't understand this - why would it stop being fun just because people had access to the source? > > If you provide matching binaries, > > then any source code that compiles and has a licence is in an > > acceptable form for release (since you wouldn't expect users to > > compile it, just programmers). So this reason is invalid. > > So there are no disadvantages for me to release the source code, but > what are the advantages? Why should I release it? Ok, a few things to be said here which I've not already covered: - Even if you don't think anyone else will want to work on Jave, making it open source would mean that you'd no longer be the only person who could fix any bugs in it. - Jave is much more likely to get bundled with Linux distributions if it is open source. (Being written in Java is a bit problematic, but not as much as it used to be.) This could be an additional source of users, if that's something you're interested in. - If there are *no disadvantages to releasing the source* (as you seem to say above), it seems slightly bizarre not to release it. :-) > > And again I must ask - why not? > > And I ask: why? Indeed, but given the above I think "why not" may be the more compelling question. -Rus.