So, for the record. You admit that you used another alias on ET to promote your product whilst pretending to be a neutral third-party observer under that alias. Then there's no need to adopt the shilling tactics you employed on ET to solicit new interest and membership. Even before you were a sponsor you hijacked numerous threads and tried to turn each one into a discussion about TickZoom. If you are honest and have a good product people will come and pay money for it. Unfortunately, I was put off participating by the way I observed your interactions with other ET members on your original thread about TickZoom. Once again, good luck with your endeavours. PS. If you want to be taken seriously, I suggest you get someone other than your kid to develop a logo and branding. It may be superificial, but presentation counts in business. Your shilling tactics may be in vein if people visit your website only to turned off by what they see.
Still at it, eh? You were made aware of the OSI's definition of open source months ago: http://opensource.org/docs/osd. And here you are, still calling your project "open source" when you discriminate on who can access the code and prohibit what they can do with it once they've downloaded it. Which, of course, is the ultimate bait and switch. And you wonder why people get so annoyed with you...
1) open source All the source code for the platform uses the standard LGPL license just to get the facts straight. Some components are LGPL originally by other developers that we include in TickZOOM and have further optimized. Most people qualify LGPL as "open source". But nobody ever said either, OSI or FSF, that is has to be free of charge. 2) Scam? A scam is where you pay money and never get what you paid for or expected. How can you do that with software? All the members of TZ already get the software and use it before they pay anything to join. Oh well, have it your way. 3) "bait and switch"? Bait and switch is where you publicly market one thing and then actually offer another. Everybody knows upfront about the open source, commercial source combination of TickZOOM. That's certainly not a secret. For everyone else, sorry to pile on this thread. I got an email notification again this AM. Now, I turned email notify off for my entire account and unsubscribed from in the ET profile. The next step will be to add a filter on gmail. Wait. I'm doing that right now. That will stop the ET emails for sure. Sincerely, Wayne
and "The Curious Story of TickZoom" continues... Maybe at some point this can be made into a screenplay and sold to hollywood as the next version of PI.
Not true. While the OSI and the FSF have always stated that you're free to charge whatever you want to provide support for an open source project, that does not extend to the access or distribution of source code. Both organizations state that the only charge that is acceptable for access or re-distribution of source code is a nominal charge to recover the costs for duplication and distribution. That makes sense since the core principle of open source goes beyond access to source code. It is about the free re-distribution of source code unencumbered by royalty, fee or agreement. In other words, once you give someone the source code to an OS licensed project they are completely free to re-distribute the source code, for free if they want to. That is simply not the case with TickZOOM. It's a closed-source, closed-community project.
For the record I was not "turned down" by Wayne/TickZoom. I balked at paying the $1500 and that was the end of it. Also, I've never been "burned" by a trading platform provider or any other type of provider as Wayne attributed to me. There are platforms that haven't fit my needs but that's not the same as getting burned/scammed. At what point does ET consider revoking the TickZoom sponsorship? Just by reading Wayne's posts on ET it's clear there's something wrong here.
You're partially correct. But you're obviously speaking without having consulted with any IP attorney. We have. TZ's setup is totally legal and there is zero limit on what you can charge to sell open source LGPL source code. Most of TZ code is LGPL so members can redistribute any of that if they wish or use it in their own systems. A lot of it is available elsewhere albeit without the optimizations added in. And you're right the community definitely is closed. You're definitely entitle to your opinion of whether you like that or not but the law is the law and facts are facts.
Bluelou, I'm very sorry about what happend. It was never our intention to upset you. By the way, you mentioned the decline phone call in your O.P.: The decline was partly because, as you stated in your O.P., you had many misgivings about TZ yourself. Especially the $1,500, you wanted 3 payments, and about the 14 day trial because you wanted at least 30 day to try it. I'm very sorry I couldn't split it into 3 easy payments or extend the trial period. And I recall you are correct that I later acquiesced to let you try it out since you explained you needed it and could maybe do the 14 day trial. But when we ended the call you said you agreed with the decision and better to apply again later. Well, the owner of ET agreed with the whole arrangement but surely never expected a backlash like this. And clearly, I botched the whole discussion with you or you wouldn't be so upset about the whole thing. So I apologize sincerely for that. If ET management feels this whole limited user arrangement will cause too much raucous. TZ willingly leave ET. Again, I'm very sorry, bluelou. Is there some way we can make it up to you? As far as the rest, I really need to limit the trial so that time is focused on existing paying members. It takes enormous time and energy to support and get new users up-to-speed while they are non-paying. And the current members are willing to assist new users also but it must be a very limited time--2 weeks. Perhaps later when another support person joins the team we could allow a longer trial period. Again, I'm very sorry, Bluelou. Sincerely, Wayne
If you really have consulted with an IP attorney who's familiar with the LGPL then you really should find another one. Anyone remotely acquainted with the L/GPL licenses understands the FSF position on the term "open source." Their position is that software licensed under the L/GPL be referred to as "free software," not "open source:" http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.html
I agree. You're correct about their preferred term. The attorney doesn't feel there's any ramifications or concern about saying open source, full source, or free source. The only thing legally binding is the license agreement. The only risk in using the term "open source" would be if there's a trade mark violation. But OSI failed in their attempt to trademark that term. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_source_software But most people get confused about the term "free source" and think it means "free beer" instead of freedom as the FSF acknowledges. So, in my experience, in professional development and otherwise, we use the term "open source" to simply mean "you get the source with the software" and nothing more. In the case of TZ we would usually call it "commercial open source". But that's a mouthful. But you're right, LGPL doesn't meet the OSI's definition of open source since it restricts the user from freely distributing by requiring they include the source for any modifications they make. so thanks for the clarification. Wayne Edit: Just for others information. The "L" in LGPL means that if you build plugins or other custom code for TZ or any other LGPL libraries, you can keep your source closed and even resell it without having to open your source. You only have to open your source code to any modifications or enhancement you actually make to the LGPL components themselves. The L stands for "library" exception so you can use LPGL libraries without opening your own source. That's how TZ can keep a limited area of functionality as commercial source and all the rest as LGPL open source (pardon me "free source") libraries.