On 5 May 2001, at 11:44, Patrick O'Keeffe wrote:

> I currently have two options on the table at the moment:
>
> 1. I give it to Jason and make it Trustware.
>
> 2. Put it under the MPL and use something akin to the model you
> describe.
>
> I have to admit that based on current input from existing customers,
> that I am currently leaning towards 2.

The trustware model, could actually work better if it's done
correctly. What I mean is that, anyone can download it off the
Internet, but to re-distribute it, or get the source code you need to
have a registered licence. This means the resources are avilable for
Jason or yourself to hire a couple of programmers for it. People get
to review the code, and even fix their own nits. We could even add
to the startup screen, "compliments of " and our company names, so we
can get a little advertising as well.

The problem is that if I need to buy a seperate copy for every client
site, it eats into my profits, and I need as much of those I can get.

Paul











> I plan to release the source code to Marathon 2.0 and not 1.6. This is
> because the 2.0 code base is streets ahead in maturity and builds on
> 1.6 anyway so to release 1.6 would be a waste of time and add to the
> confusion. I also plan to release all of the WIP R&D I've done
> relating to Marathon over the last couple of years - all in all it's
> about a million lines of code.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Patrick
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Paul Schmidt" <paul@...>
> To: <IBObjects@yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Saturday, May 05, 2001 2:33 AM
> Subject: Re: [IBO] Open Source Marathon
>
>
> > Patrick:
> >
> > On 4 May 2001, at 20:17, Patrick O'Keeffe wrote:
> >
> > > Due to my shifting priorities it has become nigh on impossible to
> > > meet my commitments to Marathon and my customers as fully as I
> > > would like to. To this end we have decided to open source
> > > Marathon.
> > >
> > > This decision has been a long time in the making and was not easy
> > > to come to as it is difficult to 'let go'.
> > >
> > > I am basically writing to canvas your opinion on the best way
> > > forward before I just 'chuck the source out there'.
> >
> > The best open source model, has to be the Linux Kernel, Linus
> > (Torvalds) maintains an official tree, encourages submissions of
> > changes to him, and makes sure of the quality of the code. He
> > doesn't do all of this personally, there is a group of people, each
> > responsible for certain pieces, submissions that are not properly
> > written, or break other components are either fixed or rejected.
> >
> > If your going to open source something, then please make it open
> > source, the open/closed model seems to be growing in popularity, IB
> > is a perfect example, Borland opened the source so they could get
> > other people to contribute, but they can keep their changes hidden
> > (closed), and charge bix bucks for them, read the licence. The
> > biggest problem with this Open/Closed model, is that it often
> > results in a code fork, in IB's case the code forked into Firebird,
> > almost immediately. The purely open Linux Kernel hasn't forked
> > although it's been around for nearly 10 years.
> >
> > I haven't used Marathon, although I will download a copy today, I
> > sincerely hope that in opening the source you don't make the other
> > mistake that Borland did, they kept all previous versions closed,
> > with big licence fees.
> >
> > ybe that is the first step, you need to decide if you want a fully
> > open source project like the Linux Kernel, open that is open only to
> > registered users (like IBO), or an Open/Closed model like IB.
> >
> > Paul
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Paul Schmidt,
> > Tricat Technologies
> > Email: paul@...
> > Website: www.tricattechnologies.com
> >
> >
> >
> > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
> > http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
> >
>
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
> http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
>


Paul Schmidt,
Tricat Technologies
Email: paul@...
Website: www.tricattechnologies.com