What's a good license for My Library?
in [JavaScript]
|
From: Matt Sach on 6 Jan 2010 06:36 On Jan 5, 10:57 pm, David Mark <dmark.cins...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > As for the "goals":- > > * Mobile is more important than Internet Explorer > > Apples are more important than oranges? :) I think "lemon" would be a more appropriate citrus fruit to represent IE ;) I've been looking at My Library, due to your arguments against jQuery. I've already been stripping jQuery out of code at home since starting to read c.l.js, as the detailed arguments against it here have clarified my own uneasy feelings about including such a huge pile for (usually) simple tasks. A more permissive license for My Library would help me try to wean other webdevs at my office off their jQuery dependence. I've been trying to push them myself, in order to get them thinking and learning (not necessarily from my tutelage; I'm certainly nowhere near you and others here), but it's very difficult to get folks to learn when they have an "easy" way out that they already know. It's my own fault, really; I encouraged them to use it in the first place because I could see some of them waving dead chickens over their javascript to get things working. I should have made them learn, rather than make it "easier" for them :( Matt
From: David Mark on 6 Jan 2010 08:05 On Jan 6, 6:36 am, Matt Sach <matts...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Jan 5, 10:57 pm, David Mark <dmark.cins...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > As for the "goals":- > > > * Mobile is more important than Internet Explorer > > > Apples are more important than oranges? :) > > I think "lemon" would be a more appropriate citrus fruit to represent > IE ;) Touché. :) > > I've been looking at My Library, due to your arguments against jQuery. That's a good side effect. > I've already been stripping jQuery out of code at home since starting > to read c.l.js, as the detailed arguments against it here have > clarified my own uneasy feelings about including such a huge pile for > (usually) simple tasks. Yes. And even if it were a pile of something _good_. ;) > > A more permissive license for My Library would help me try to wean > other webdevs at my office off their jQuery dependence. NP. It's coming. But try to let them know that they don't need a _general_ pile of anything to do cross-browser scripting. > I've been > trying to push them myself, in order to get them thinking and learning > (not necessarily from my tutelage; I'm certainly nowhere near you and > others here), but it's very difficult to get folks to learn when they > have an "easy" way out that they already know. All you have to do is demonstrate how it fails. :) As for help doing that, it's coming (is it ever). For anyone who hasn't seen the signs, cinsoft.net is going to be the new quirksmode.org (for libraries and frameworks, rather than browsers). Oh, and with competent explanations. :) > It's my own fault, > really; I encouraged them to use it in the first place because I could > see some of them waving dead chickens over their javascript to get > things working. So you gave them a turkey? We all make mistakes. The learning curve is steep in this business. Admitting the mistakes is the first step to recovery. > I should have made them learn, rather than make it > "easier" for them :( Sounds like you got it! :)
From: Matt Kruse on 6 Jan 2010 09:19 On Jan 6, 7:05 am, David Mark <dmark.cins...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > For anyone who hasn't seen the signs, > cinsoft.net is going to be the new quirksmode.org (for libraries and > frameworks, rather than browsers). ETA? Matt Kruse
From: David Mark on 6 Jan 2010 09:39 Matt Kruse wrote: > On Jan 6, 7:05 am, David Mark <dmark.cins...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> For anyone who hasn't seen the signs, >> cinsoft.net is going to be the new quirksmode.org (for libraries and >> frameworks, rather than browsers). > > ETA? > I should have the initial effort up later this month.
From: Lasse Reichstein Nielsen on 6 Jan 2010 12:56
Jorge <jorge(a)jorgechamorro.com> writes: > On Jan 5, 1:38�am, David Mark <dmark.cins...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> I've decided to release My Library under some sort of free license. >> Haven't thought about free licenses in a long time (decades), so I am >> open to ideas. > > "The Software shall be used for Good, not Evil" ? Bad idea. It lacks a definition of both "Good" and "Evil", making the license ambiguous, and if it had one, it would probably run afoul of the Open Source Definition (6. No Discrimination Against Fields of Endeavor). /L -- Lasse Reichstein Holst Nielsen 'Javascript frameworks is a disruptive technology' |