[user_none]

So much to clarify...

First, thank you to eping for thinking and wanting to discuss ways to make Sigil better. I want to say specifically to eping even if people are resistant or dislike an idea that doesn't mean it wasn't worth discussing.

I want to clarify a few things. Commercial doesn't automatically mean non-free. It also doesn't automatically mean closed source. Commercialization only means shifting focus to generate profit. The goal of profit in this case would be for developers to work on Sigil full time and being able to move it forward and response to issues faster.

Currently I have no plans of commercialization simply because it doesn't fit into what I want to do with Sigil. I also don't see a viable option at this time. Commercialization isn't a bad or evil thing. Pretty much everyone here has or does work for a commercial enterprise of some sort. It's how the economy works.

Also, just so everyone is clear. Sigil is not, will not, and I have no intention of making Sigil closed source. Any future commercialization would not included closing Sigil's code.

Originally Posted by Doitsu

BTW, since Sigil is CC BY-SA 3.0 licensed...

Only Sigil's documentation is is CC licensed. The Sigil source code is GPLv3 licensed. The ability to create a derivative under a different name is still permissible under the GPL.

Originally Posted by weatherwax

Are you part of the Sigil team?

eping is not but it doesn't matter as he was trying to open discussion on the topic and gauge community (as well as developer) interest.

Originally Posted by eping

What shocked me most is that I saw nearly 1000 viewers on calibre while no more than 10 viewers on Sigil in this forum at the same time.

calibre is a more general application. calibre is to iTunes as Sigil is to ProTools. Calibre by what it is will have a wider audience (ebook consumers) while Sigil's is by it's nature smaller (ebook producers).

Originally Posted by eping

Btw, I wish I could take part in development of Sigil, but too bad, I know nothing about C++, the language Sigil uses.

This has been an issue for quite some time. Valloric even stated at one time that if he could go back in time and start over he would have used a different language. C++ is such a large barrier to entry that it has caused fewer people to contribute and it also means people who take the leap have to invest a lot more time getting up to speed.

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

I'm fairly certain remaining free and open-source was one of the conditions (or at least the intention) when the original creator/maintainer passed the torch to user_none. He strikes me as someone who would honor that intention.

One of the considerations when I volunteered to take over was that Sigil was GPLv3 so it cannot be closed.

Originally Posted by mmat1

I'm a bit puzzles why you think that this will make things better.

I only work on Sigil in my spare time. Being a commercial project the intention would be myself as well as others could work on it full time. A few hours a week vs 40 would make big difference.

Originally Posted by mmat1

Free developers aren't able to handle huge projects ? What's this Linux, Firefox etc. etc. etc. I heard recently about ???

Commercial projects. The largest Linux contributors are corporations. Firefox is funded by the Mozilla corporation. In both cases companies pay people to develop these full time as their day job. That doesn't mean they don't allow outside contributions but for all intents and purposes these are commercial projects.

Originally Posted by mmat1

Free developers aren't able to deliver quality software ??

I don't think that was implied.

Originally Posted by mmat1

If the developer does a good job, software will be fine, otherwise trash. Doing a good job isn't always a question of money.

The quality of the software doesn't always mean it will succeed. If there isn't a market it doesn't matter how well designed it is. Also, history has shown the best product doesn't always win. Betamax vs VHS anyone?