Electrónica Weather routing a lo barato

[Capitanlanmar]

With all my respect to your work, and my best wishes for your success on the android program, I agree a 100% with Tropelio. I don't want to see things happening this way. Looks like "opensource" image is used as a marketing strategy to get a good user base, and then after a while...

Start from the beginning as commercial software or shareware and do what you want with it.

The problem is that I would have never spent time learning to use your program.

You have "used" us as beta testers and in some case (as tropelio) as collaborators without our consent for a commercial venture. Simply not fair.
Good luck. I'm starting to like the Opencpn weather routing plugin.

Originalmente publicado por Capitanlanmar

With all my respect to your work, and my best wishes for your success on the android program, I agree a 100% with Tropelio. I don't want to see things happening this way. Looks like "opensource" image is used as a marketing strategy to get a good user base, and then after a while...

Start from the beginning as commercial software or shareware and do what you want with it.

The problem is that I would have never spent time learning to use your program.

You have "used" us as beta testers and in some case (as tropelio) as collaborators without our consent for a commercial venture. Simply not fair.
Good luck. I'm starting to like the Opencpn weather routing plugin.

It could be said louder, but not clearer....

Tropelio

It seems to be still under GPLv2.

Maybe I'm wrong?

[maitai]

Sorry that you feel like that.

I didn't use anyone, and the idea of the spanish translation was not mine, I was just trying to help not to fool anyone.

I have removed the spanish translation from the package...

qtVlm 5 might return to open source one day, but not now.

qtVlm 3.4.4 is open source... It all depend on people willing to continue to develop it, as it should.

I didn't expect that posting to propose a free product would end up in being treated like that.... anyway.

@pinguino we will post a 64bits package as soon as possible.

Fair winds to all.
Philippe.

[sailoog.com]

Originalmente publicado por maitai

Sorry that you feel like that.

I didn't use anyone, and the idea of the spanish translation was not mine, I was just trying to help not to fool anyone.

I have removed the spanish translation from the package...

qtVlm 5 might return to open source one day, but not now.

qtVlm 3.4.4 is open source... It all depend on people willing to continue to develop it, as it should.

I didn't expect that posting to propose a free product would end up in being treated like that.... anyway.

@pinguino we will post a 64bits package as soon as possible.

Fair winds to all.
Philippe.

I dont like your decision but you are in your right to do it. However I think it is a big mistake because you could find some ways to monetize your work keeping it opened instead of closing it. As you know, free software does not always means "gratis" software.

It is a pity but anyway I wish you luck in your new field. I think proprietary software is not as rewarding as free software in any case.

I am working in a project involving zyGrib and I would like to know if you are planning to turn it into proprietary software too in order to start searching alternatives. Thanks.

[Empecinado]

Originalmente publicado por sailoog.com

I dont like your decision but you are in your right to do it. However I think it is a big mistake because you could find some ways to monetize your work keeping it opened instead of closing it. As you know, free software does not always means "gratis" software.

It is a pity but anyway I wish you luck in your new field. I think proprietary software is not as rewarding as free software in any case.

I am working in a project involving zyGrib and I would like to know if you are planning to turn it into proprietary software too in order to start searching alternatives. Thanks.

Actually, that is completely wrong... he is not in his right to do so.

Once a software has a license, everybody is legally bound to adhere to the rules specified by it. In the case of GPLv2 here is a summary :

https://tldrlegal.com/license/gnu-ge...lic-license-v2

Short answer:

* If version 3.X was GPLv2 then version 5.X is GPLv2 by defaullt. You are not allowed to sublicense, unlicense the GPL license. It's sticky!
* Commercialization is allowed. Meaning you can distribute binary packages and charge for it. No problem there. Free as in fredoom, not free beer.
* Disclosing the source is mandatory. This means that whenever you make a binary distribution available (free or paid) you are bound by the GPL license to hand over the code with it.
* Anybody can grab that source and modify/distribute it as long as it recognizes the source of it.

So it's a pitty that you are "close sourcing" the code for it, as you are not allowed to do so.

You gave it away to the world, sorry if you regret that.

Few, this is a lovely post to start off in a new forum!

Best Regards everybody!