Leo and Iron Lute
Feb 04, 2004
Iron Lute

Rand Anderson blogs
about Iron Lute and his preferred outliner Leo

Seems he's aware of Leo (my
outliner of choice) but wants an outliner that allows the use of the
outline structure for all content (as opposed to having a body for
free text associated with each tree node, as Leo does).

Read the rest (592 words)

Iron Lute License
Feb 04, 2004
Iron Lute

I want to be able to discuss Iron Lute's planned license in a posting
in response to somebody's blog here, but first I need to discuss
it. So here are the licensing plans I have for Iron Lute. I'm very
interested in feedback on this.

I'd would like Iron Lute to be open source, likely GPL with
explicit exclusion of plug-ins (i.e., you are explicitly allowed to
create new Node Types, etc., and release them under any license you
like). (This is not quite the LGPL because you still can not
take Iron Lute and build another application around it; limiting as I
will means you can "connect" Iron Lute to your application but that
you can not just pick up Iron Lute and make it be your
application.) But that depends on the usage and support pattern it

If nobody uses it and nobody helps me with it, then eventually,
I'll stop supporting it. (No surprise there.) I'll keep it online and
quite possibly continue using it in my own personal projects, but
unless somebody else shows an interest, no public sign of development
will continue.

(Truthfully, call me arrogant but I do not consider this likely. I
think there's a definate niche in the Open Source world for what I am
creating here, partially because of the lack of an outlining widget
that I mentioned in my original post.)

If I get significant contributions from other developers and other
people (including documentation, help, community helping each other
out a lot, etc.), I'll make it the aforementioned limited GPL. The
threshold for this is "if I had to remove all contributions other then
mine to date, how painful would that be?" If it can be done swiftly
and painlessly, then I may go to the third option.

The third option is "a lot of people use it and like it, but nobody
is helping with the development". In that case I'll do an analysis,
and either stop development, or try to take it commercial, depending
on feedback.

I'm thinking of a cut-off date of a year after the initial "stable"
release, which would be some months after the first public release, of
course, so we're talking about at least a year and a half window,

I'd like to say up front that I want this to be open
source. I want to experience new features of Iron Lute that I didn't
have to write myself. However, I do not want to tie my hands by
committing to a license "come hell or high water"; the condition above
is not intended as a "loophole I can jump through" so much as a way of
pointing out that two pages of docs and a node type do not
constitute "significant contributions" in the sense I am
mentioning. Believe me, I will err on the side of "open source" if
anybody gives me the chance.

So, what license this is released under is at least partially up to

I will make this commitment though: I will not pull the rug out
from underneath you. Should I end up going commercial, the last "free"
version will be clearly marked, never crippled, and will never
expire. You just won't get updates and improvements.


Site Links


All Posts