no, and that's the goal: people come and go, organisations remain. I don't care what the names of the developers of LibreOffice, Gimp, KDE or Debian are. What I care to know is that "they" (whoever that is) will organise in a way that key people are replaced and the software is maintained.
You're right, and that's also my reason to use FreeCAD, as I have told many times.Another point -- as several times discussed in the forum -- is the vendor lock-in
This is mutually exclusive, and the exact problem I try to report. You cannot have it both ways: nobody will pay for a feature that might get stuck in limbos for years, even though it's ready in a development branch, without any reason, discussion and feedback. And without any person to address-to. If a company pays for a development, they want to be sure that it will be shipped when it's finished.nobody can force them to implement certain features [...] they have the possibility to directly pay a developer to implement it.
Well, you might be right if the company's interest is to have integrated this feature into the official FreeCAD project. But a possibility is that this feature will be implemented inside a new and independent module/workbench whose source code does not even have to be published.This is mutually exclusive, and the exact problem I try to report. You cannot have it both ways: nobody will pay for a feature that might get stuck in limbos for years, even though it's ready in a development branch, without any reason, discussion and feedback. And without any person to address-to. If a company pays for a development, they want to be sure that it will be shipped when it's finished.
but that would defeat the entire open-source argument then. Again, you cannot argue both ways.
I think the point rather is... are we pro or against a sort of FreeCAD organization like a FreeCAD foundation? (i guess we are pro @Zolko, since several steps have been already taken in that direction by kurt and yorik with "FreeCAD partnership with Software Freedom Conservancy", is it?) and that's a good argument to me for 1.0 for example.wmayer wrote: ↑Wed Jun 17, 2020 2:42 pm
A couple points to consider here - first, "open source" and "free software" (GPL) are inherently different things. Open source exists because free software licensing wasn't broad enough to allow for commercial adoption in the mid-late 1990's. Second, I'd agree no company would pay for development of a feature if the community refuses to maintain it, presuming the company is not willing to maintain their own fork. It's probably common enough, but whenever I see companies paying developers to work on an open source project for their own benefit, they're usually maintaining their own fork, too, because the features are proprietary. Really, the argument fails *ony li* the company paying for development expects their work to be upstreamed without vetting and commitment from the community. That's just how it works.
and what about LGPL ?
looks like someone has listened to you:they're usually maintaining their own fork, too, because the features are proprietary.
jaisejames wrote: ↑Thu Jun 18, 2020 11:05 amParametric CAD modeler – CAD Builder from Open Cascade
https://www.opencascade.com/content/op ... d-modeler
From what I understand, Stallman hates the LGPL because it leaves out a key feature of the GPL - requiring all software linking it to also be GPL. That's the 'viral' nature of the GPL that so many commercial vendors despise and it's the key difference between open source and free software.