Probably because we haven't had the time to pick our way through the minefield that is Open Source nomenclature

Open Source means "free as free speech", not "free as free beer".

EDIT
Forum Admin wrote:


Sounds more similar to MicroSoft' Shared Source, that *IS NOT* open source.

Here's the Open Source definition (www.opensource.org/docs/osd):


Hope that helps to clarify the situation.

> Of course we're not averse to the idea that external developers might contribute to the
> software, but I think we have to avoid a free-for-all where we get a million different
> versions

A model of how this situation can be handled is provided by Cinelerra.

There is one source for the official branch (I suspect the developing team counts more or less 1 very talented participant).

Then there is the "community version", which is maintained in parallel to the official one, is clearly distinguished, and can be chosen as an alternative.


Another model is the one I was suggesting earlier: There is one source for a single official development branch, to which contributions are submitted for consideration (but decisions are made by the central managing team).

Any software project today is likely to include open source parts, so the latter model is much more widespread than one might expect, even in the non-open market. Most browsers, for instance, include open source libraries for several functions (PNG image handling, data compression...); even Internet Explorer does. This is also true for hardware products, like smartphones. As an example, when I bought my current TV set, it was accompained by the GPL license. It turned out that it includes open-source components, one of which is embedded Linux.

In the typical case this happens for general-purpose components, like libraries, but I don't see a relevant difference in the case of specifically contributed components or patches.

Forum Admin wrote:

Thanks you for talking about your standing point in such an honest and open way. One rarely gets that from companies when the topic is such a sensitive one.

That said, this is a rare exception when I have to agree with the license-zealots. What you are describing is NOT open-source. The core idea behind open source is free access to the source. Access is NOT read-only. In that case, it would only be some kind of exhibition of the code, you can look but cannot touch, kinda weird interpretation of "open". Derivative works are an inherent part of open-source as well. As others pointed out, there are simple ways to protect the integrity of your brand and product. The Lightworks name, logo, UI design elements, and all the essential parts of product identity can be kept under copyright. You can also choose not to open-source certain key elements of the product. But if you don't actually give away code, at least for non-commercial reuse, then I don't see why would anybody volunteer to contribute to development, so in that case it would be a closed model in practice.

But it's really your choice, and I agree that most people will not care. The real revolution will be about democratized access to Lightworks itself, that is what your real users will care about. Democratized access to the source code is just a nice-to-have bonus, and will likely satisfy a group that is not your target market anyway. But I think it would have a huge indirect effect, so it would help you in your original goal too.

It makes a lot of sense that you prefer to go with your own licence, but don't be too restrictive on the terms, it wouldn't make sense even from business aspect IMHO.

And, to make the open-source community happy, so they don't feel cheated for whatever reasons, I would consider taking a few little parts of your code, and releasing those little parts under GPL. That way you really do contribute to the open source community, and still keep most of your work under your terms.

My two cents: I don't believe in any volunteer developer, experienced&knowledgeable enough to put his sticky fingers inside any serious NLE source code, period! If it sounds offensive to anybody, just tell me, where are these serious NLEs, written by the community of volunteer developers??? And please, don't argue with a plethora of Linux NLEs - with the full respect, I cannot compare them to LW, Avid, EDIUS, etc. One Cinelerra is an exception, developed by single person. Cinelerra CV cannot exist without it.

Forum Admin said: and I believe it!

drkuli wrote:

That is a valid point, although I don't necessarily agree. There are loads of successful projects where decision making is centralized, but contribution is democratized. Writing a good NLE is certainly a complicated task, but it is obviously not more complicated than writing an operating system kernel, and Linux itself is being developed in exactly the same way.

Also, its totally fine if one doesn't want either contributors nor derivative works based on their code, but in that case it is indeed an abuse of the term if the project is said to be "open-source".