- #Textmate globe users 2013 Patch
- #Textmate globe users 2013 software
- #Textmate globe users 2013 code
- #Textmate globe users 2013 license
You could just send it under GPL, and I'll ask the day I need to do something non-GPL with the source," he said.
#Textmate globe users 2013 Patch
"A GPLv3 patch is definitely magnitudes better than no patch. That's not to say Odgaard won't accept patches that come with a GPLv3 license. "I would need the upstream patches to not be GPLv3." Advertisement "Presently, a friend of mine is actually using some of my frameworks in a closed source app, so he would not be able to continue to do that if I got GPL'd patches," Odgaard explained.
#Textmate globe users 2013 code
It would also allow him to release future versions or portions of the code with a more permissive license, should he decide it makes sense to do.
#Textmate globe users 2013 license
However, asking for a public domain license for submitted patches means that those patches could be distributed in a future Mac App Store version, "in case I ever want to do that-which I doubt," Odgaard said. GPLv3 allows Odgaard to prevent others from legally forking his code and creating separate closed-source versions. The problem, unfortunately, is the tug-of-war between FOSS principles and the desires of commercial ventures.ĭistributing compiled binary applications via avenues like the Mac App Store presents problems for code released under a GPL license. Many open source proponents and would-be code contributors were vociferous in their opposition to Odgaard's choice of version 3 of the GNU General Public License, while asking upstream code patches to carry a public domain license.
"It took a bit of guts, too, because there’s a chance I could lose the revenue generated from it." Non-reciprocal license The decision was not really the direct result of any particular action by Apple, but more "a long process of maturing, of opening up," according to Odgaard. "As people started to write plug-ins based on reverse engineering TextMate, though, I started to realize that there was talent out there," Odgaard said. And Odgaard felt that customizations belonged in community-created bundles, not in the TextMate "kernel." Finally, he was concerned that the barrier to entry in writing code for TextMate was much higher than bundles, and might limit useful contributions. "But," Odgaard said, "I felt it was good to keep the kernel closed source for a few reasons." One reason was the ability to package TextMate and charge money, supporting future development-any developer's basic business plan. Bundles are add-ons that enable TextMate to work with different programming languages, or process text in new ways they allow TextMate users to customize the app to their particular workflow. "Open sourcing TextMate is actually something I wanted to do early on, when I experienced the community around bundles," Odgaard said. In a blog post announcing that TextMate 2.0 code is available via GitHub, Odgaard justified his decision by saying that he wanted to give users freedom to "tinker with their environment" and as a "small attempt of countering such trend" by Apple to "limit our freedom."īut Odgaard told Ars the reasons are actually more far-reaching. "I need to continue to work on it, rather than make PR statements." "Of course, many perceive this as me giving up, but for that, I just need to prove them wrong," Odgaard said. But seven months later, even with much progress made, he is no closer to committing to a final release date.
Promise was renewed somewhat in late 2011, when Odgaard announced an early alpha was available to registered users. As years passed, TextMate 2.0 became a sort of Duke Nukem Forever of text editors.
A major 2.0 was first promised in 2006, and delayed repeatedly. TextMate's design, extensible "bundle" plug-in architecture, and early embrace of OS X technologies made it a favorite text and code editor for developers, writers, and website creators. It's easy to see why skeptics aren't quite ready to believe Odgaard, however. "I haven’t given up on TextMate," Odgaard told Ars. We spoke to Odgaard hoping to clear the air on the matter, though he wasn't very confident that his explanations would "affect public perception of the project." However, he was adamant that his decision to open source TextMate 2.0 was not a sign that he was giving up on the now six-year-long endeavor to build a new version from scratch. Ars readers chimed in via comments, our Open Forum, and Twitter, questioning Odgaard's motives and slamming his current choice of GPLv3 license. Lead TextMate developer Allan Odgaard's decision yesterday to open source the code for the long-awaited version 2.0 was met with a lot of criticism.
#Textmate globe users 2013 software
Odgaard ostensibly instructs his niece on the finer points of software freedom on a recent holiday.
0 kommentar(er)
