On Nov 24, 2006, at 11:21 AM, Christopher J. Mackie wrote:
Thanks for the reply, Maarten; I'm glad you see the Brahms license to be
comparable to Java--which is recently released under a 'true' open source
license, I am happy to note :-)
However, there is an important difference between a programming language
released by an immense multinational to enterprise customers with whom the
company has many other mutual points of leverage (and for which there are
now open source compilers), and a programming language released by a startup
to individual customers who have no other points of leverage; at least, none
on which they can rely, absent any clear understanding of the business
model. In the former case, we can all assume with great confidence that Sun
won't make any moves that will alienate its customer base, and that no
financial exigency will force it to do so; in the latter case, we can have
no such assurance. In fact, part of the reason Sun finally open-sourced
Java, after years of pressure, was that the company's financial situation
became dire enough that customers were starting to explore other options,
precisely out of the concern that Sun in its need might start to seek
revenue streams from Java licensing.
All this to say, (politely I hope :-), that you're not Sun, and Brahms isn't
Java, and some of us will need a little more licensing assurance if we're
going to bet our work-products, publications, and careers on it. I'd prefer
open source, to be sure, but it's not the only way to accomplish what I'm
talking about. You could, for instance, simply change the license to allow
use of the current version in perpetuity, provided it's only for research
and non-commercial purposes. That will leave you free to explore any
money-making options you can find, even to the point of commercializing the
entire product in some future version, and still protect me and my work
today.
In other words, I have *no* problems with you making money at this: your
hard work should be rewarded as much as anyone else's, and especially if
Brahms proves valuable to me, I'm eager to see you secure revenues
sufficient to prevent any need for the kind of conversation that Glen and
Marcus have been having :-). But, for exactly the same reasons you outline,
I'm concerned about protecting my own intellectual property; namely, the
models I build in Brahms. As long as you can take Brahms away at any time,
without reason, then even if it's free, it's too expensive for me.
I hope this helps, --Chris
_____
Sent: Fri 11/24/2006 2:30 AM
To: Agent-based modeling
Subject: Re: [Swarm-Modelling] RE: Brahms
Chris,
I see the Brahms license in the same way as the Sun Java license, as long as
it is used for non-commercial use. The Sun Java license can be revoked by
Sun at any time, it actually says "TERMINATION. This Agreement is effective
until terminated."
Maybe we should change the "non-commercial" part and let people use it for
whatever, whenever, but I feel that commercial firms, who make money of of a
product, should pay for its development. How much is up to the developers. I
would never want to ask much for Brahms, but as is evident from the Swarm
SDG debate, developing a tool is a time consuming and difficult thing.
To be honest, we created this license more than 10 years ago, and I haven't
looked at it ever since. However, as an example of how easy we are, we just
had someone from Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute ask for a five year
license key, and without question we simply gave it to them.
One issue that withholds me from making Brahms GPL is the bureaucracy at
NASA. It is just too much hassle to deal with the lawyers. Until I do this,
we can't give away source code. But, in my opinion, Brahms is like Java. You
don't need the source code, it is a language and a virtual machine to
execute the compiled byte code. Right now, as long as you do research you
can use it for free. You also get a development environment (the Composer)
developed in Java. We're working on a free Eclipse plugin. We are developing
much more modeling capabilities than are currently in Eclipse.
If you want to do something commercial with it, just ask and we can figure
it out together. I have not had any commercial firm ask for a commercial
license, although we do have commercial firms using Brahms for DARPA and
SBIR projects.
Doei ... MXS
_______________________________________________________________________
Dr. ing. Maarten Sierhuis USRA/RIACS
Senior Scientist Mail Stop B269-1
Human-Centered Computing NASA Ames Research Center
Moffett Field, CA
94035
Phone: (650) 604-4917
Fax: (650) 604-4036
_______________________________________________________________________
This communication is intended for the use of the addressee only and may
contain information that is privileged or confidential. If you are not the
addressee, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or
use of this communication is prohibited. If you received this communication
in error, please destroy it, all copies and any attachments and notify the
sender as soon as possible. Any comments, statements or opinions expressed
in this communication do not necessarily reflect those of NASA or
USRA/RIACS, its subsidiaries and affiliates.
On Nov 23, 2006, at 7:29 PM, Christopher J. Mackie wrote:
Maarten; I took a quick look at the Brahms web site, and it certainly seems
intriguing. Any idea when you're going to have the license issues worked
out? Some (not I) would be happy with a commercial license; others
(including I) would prefer GPL or equivalent; but few serious modelers, I
suspect, are going to want to invest much effort in a language that enforces
a license--even a 'free' license--that can be revoked by you, unilaterally
and without cause, on 30 days notice.
icense.html
.com/anonymous/pub/brahms/agentenvironment/v1.0b/License.html
.com/anonymous/pub/brahms/agentenvironment/v1.0b/License.html> >
--Chris
_______________________________________________
Modelling mailing list