hsoft wrote:Please guys, have you read my link about Fairware? I'm telling you that the "money/open source" problem is something that I think can be addressed. Why keep answering "but open source means no money / hobby development"?
That being said, it's re-assuring to know that Jon would rather see ST being open source than to see its development stall. However, I still think that there's a danger similar to TextMate's death for ST. If ST makes a lot of money without any work on Jon's part, then he has no incentive to either work on it or make it open source. Will he stay true to his principles? I hope so, but for the user, it's still a risk.
Now, please, tell me stuff like "your Fairware thing can't work because...", but not stuff like "open source means no money".
BTW... I tried ST alpha yesterday. It's pretty cool. Rough edges (of course) so I can't replace TextMate yet, but cool...
Praxis wrote:Because, generally speaking, open source means no money/hobby development.
Listen--I respect your view, but I think you're wrong. I think many users are fair. I think most users are...lazy. And cheap. If there's an easy download that's free, they'll do it. If there is no easy download that's free, but an easy way to pay ,then many will take it (the iTunes effect). I think that there are many, many developers out there who don't care about intellectual property despite their avocation. An open source version would siphon a ton of sales, even if there's no downloadable binary (we *are* developers after all, we can get it built). And a downloadable pirated binary would become available anyway; heck, it *will* be available even as things stand now. There'll be a ton of demand.
Praxis wrote:Perhaps most importantly: it's an issue of *control*. Jon, thank goodness, seems to be taking extreme care in how his creation is being crafted. Have you seen Notepad++ lately? It's good for what it is, and has tons of features, but it doesn't have people raving about it like TextMate (and now, Sublime Text). The way it goes right now, Jon has every bit of control over his interpretation of what a text editor ought to be like. Happily, I rather agree with him (and apparently most of you do, too).
Praxis wrote:I have every bit of confidence that should Jon not wish to make money from ST any more, he would open source it. No, I don't know him. He doesn't know me. I'm just not that concerned, though. I respect those who are concerned, but I just can't bring myself to tell someone to give away their work. You want to invest all that time and make it open source? Great. Just don't insist that others do the work and release it on your terms.
adresden wrote:The fact that ST is not open source is just ridiculous. Please correct this situation as soon as possible before something better comes along that IS open source.
Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot], Yahoo [Bot] and 22 guests