Thread: Sad Sigil news?
View Single Post
Old 09-19-2013, 09:37 AM   #51
user_none
Sigil & calibre developer
user_none ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.user_none ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.user_none ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.user_none ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.user_none ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.user_none ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.user_none ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.user_none ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.user_none ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.user_none ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.user_none ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.
 
user_none's Avatar
 
Posts: 2,488
Karma: 1054509
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Florida, USA
Device: Nook STR
There are a few things I want to clear up.

1)
Quote:
Originally Posted by st_albert View Post
.. but since the source tree has been removed from google code ...
The source moved. The complete history was retained as part of the move. If you have a git checkout already from Google Code you can use the following to change the origin location you pull updates from:
Code:
 git remote set-url origin  <NEWURL>
We'll have to see how GitHub pans out but hopefully it works out better than Google Code.


2)
Monetary compensation isn't what I'm looking for. I have a full time job which I like more than Sigil. I don't want to make Sigil into a full time project and I don't want to deal with supporting a paid product (I get to do that already at work because we offer direct to developer support). The issue isn't money it's time constraints between Sigil and other things I'd like to do.

3)
Commercialization of Sigil. This is allowed by the GPLv3 license Sigil's code is released under. That said the GPL makes turning a project into a paid product very difficult. You can sell a package but the GPL requires you provide the source, and build files so anyone you sell the product to can build it themselves. It also says that you can't prevent someone from doing the same thing you're doing.

So selling binaries won't work. All that needs to happen is one person pays then they are allowed to re-distribute the binary as well as all source and build instructions to anyone. This is precisely what Red Hat deals with in regard to CentOS.

What Red Hat and other companies do is provide paid support. They also provide fee based development services. They also have bundling deals with hardware manufactures. That's how a commercial GPL project typically make money. Other open source licenses have different constraint and can be managed in a different manner in regard to commercialization.

The biggest headache really is support and I'd rather not get more involved in that. Especially as noted people are entitled enough when it comes to something they were given for free, once they've paid that entitlement sky rockets.

4)
The choice of the C++ language has been a hinderance to Sigil. It's a complex language and few people know it well enough that they're comfortable contributing. Pretty much every person whose contributed has said something like: "I know language X but C++ is confusing, is this patch correct?"

When I took over Sigil from Valloric he basically told me that if he knew what he knows now about how C++ would impact Sigil he would have used a different language for the project.

I'd think with Microsoft pushing C++ as their "system" language and embracing C++11 more people would be comfortable with it. But as it turns out C++ really is preventing contributors.
user_none is offline   Reply With Quote