Komodo in violation of Mozilla Public License?

[David Ascher]

phil hunt wrote:
> 
> On Tue, 10 Apr 2001 15:23:08 -0700, David Ascher <DavidA at ActiveState.com> wrote:
> >
> >   Komodo is not Open Source or Free Software, true.
> 
> If i write some Python programs in Komodo, and then wish to modify
> them in a system that doesn't include Komodo, will I have any problems?

No!  Komodo doesn't "own" the code written with it.  It's just an IDE! 
Even Emacs doesn't spread the GPL to code written with Emacs =).

> (For example. many Java IDEs include a window-painting application
> that lets you dynamically build GUIs, and generated Java code from
> that. If you subsequently want to alter your GUI, you can either
> use the same tool to alter it, or edit the generated Java code
> directly (which means you can't subsequently use the tool to edit
> your modifications)).
> 
> Does Komodo include a GUI painting application, if so, does it have
> this caharacteristic?

No, and even if it did, we'd make sure that we didn't put any
restriction on any generated code.  These kinds of restrictions are
(IMO) silly to the point of counterproductive -- we want people to be
productive programmers and have no fear using our tools, we don't want
to own your work!

> Avoiding lock-in needn't prevent a software company from gaining
> revenue from the sale-value of their software; a time-deleyed oepn
> source license allows both criteria to sit comfortably. Have
> ActiveState considered that for Komodo, e.g. a license that releases
> the current Komodo code as GPL (or some other license) in, say,
> 3 years' time?

We always consider licensing choices, and are always open to
suggestions.  However, I think it's important to note a key difference
-- Komodo is not necessary for doing anything.  It's not like Komodo is
a key piece of IT infrastructure which you (the customer) would ever be
in a position to rely on to the point of being locked in.  This is
(again, speaking for myself) the key factor which drives whether what
ActiveState does is Open Source or not -- technology which is 'key
infrastructure' should be Open Source because it lets people and
companies build the systems they want to build with no lock-in.  Hence
PyXPCOM is Open Source -- we think it's really really cool technology,
and we're proud of it, and it cost us a fair bit of money to develop,
but we think it belongs in the 'key IT technology' category, so we don't
try to extract revenue from it.  The same need is not as present for
technologies and products which simply make people more productive, make
a process more efficient, or otherwise 'enhance' a process or
procedure.  We think it fair to get some revenue from the latter.  It is
always up to the customer to decide whether the benefit is worth the
cost.

Cheers,

--David Ascher

PS: If people have concerns about corporate licensing policies, they
should feel free to express them, of course.  Typically, however, such
feedback is more likely to be effective if it's directed to the
companies directly instead of posted on a newsgroup. Now, I have no
problem with having this particular discussion out in the open [*], but
I can assure you that companies react more favorably to constructive
emails sent to the appropriate people than to what some perceive as
'attacks' out in the public.  It's just how companies operate, for
better or worse.

[*] I do have a very small issue with conversations about ancient
theories of cognitive science going under the heading "ActiveState going
the wrong way", but that's Usenet and I live with it =).

PS: My own take on the recall/storage/reading/lookup/encoding/memory
topic is that after getting a PhD in cognitive science and seeing
theories come and go and reading through dozens of experimental reports
and suffering through my fair share of experiments, I'll stick with
Conan Doyle, William James, and the like.  They wrote much better than
modern scientists typically do, and their intuitions are much more
entertaining than most data. =)

PPS: Andrew, you should mine James for quotations if you haven't
already.  My PhD advisor has an collection, although I don't think he's
indexed it.  See for example "The Principles of Psychology" nicely
available at: http://www.emory.edu/EDUCATION/mfp/james.html.  The man
figured out most of cognitve science and cognitive neuroscience a
hundred years ago =).