Well, I was refering to back testing. I could use it for short time like a week. But much longer ( I don't know) and the memory had leaks and died and was very slow for historical testing. They said something about improving it on 7.0. Did they? Wayne
Well, this is a deal breaker for me. this sounds more like a ninja trader license than an open source license. You have gone from an open source project to a commercial project in a remarkably short amount of time. This should not be called/dubbed/misnamed GPL in any way. One of the basic tenets of open software is the ability to make derivative works, which you have just removed. From http://opensource.org/docs/osd Your license basically allows YOU the right to close the source at any time. Since no one else can make derivative works, there cannot be a fork. If you decide to go the the GPL / LGPL in the future, let us know, I would try to contribute something. Good luck, I will stick with Ninja Trader and Tradelink which uses the LGPL. The actual free license LGPL.
I have been developing automated trading systems for several years now. All have been custom platforms due to the shortcomings of the commercially available solutions you mentioned. However, I recently began using NinjaTrader more to allow me to focus on my strategies as it seems even years later I spend more time tweaking my trading platform code than actually working on strategies. So, when I saw this thread I have been following it very intently as it appears to offer a way for me to be able to contribute my platform development experience but not have to be completely engulfed in the work like I am with my own platforms. Hence, leaving me time to actually work on my strategies. But after reading your proposed license I have to agree with the poster above me, this is a deal breaker. Many times throughout this thread I have seen you take a tone which shows that you very much intend to commercialize this as soon as you can. Which there is nothing wrong with that, heck everyone is out to make a buck. No reason for you not to... but at the same time with this proposed license no way I would contribute code to this and I am sure others would agree.. This license makes it too easy for you to say in 6 months when the platform is very stable and many developers have contributed to making TickZoom great for you to simply commercialize the whole thing.... Which would then lock everyone out. Yea true the source code is free, so we could still get access to it.. no problem... but if you lock it out, we would be unable to fork it and continue developing as we are not allowed to distribute derivative works.. therefore all the time and effort we developers put into this will be for naught if we can't guarantee the project can survive and fork no matter what you decide to do with it in the future... I am looking for a long term solution, not something that we can be locked out of at any time...
Do you plan to create a derivative work? I respect your choice to use other software. I'm answering and correcting inaccuracies for the benefit of others. But you're welcome to reply. NinjaTrader never releases source code so it's totally different because TickZOOM will always provide source code. This license allows unlimited modifying the source code but only disallows copying except for private use. Incorrect. This is still free of charge software. And full source project. You get the entire source code. But it won't pass the "Open Source" term since it disallows copying. So I'm using the term "full source". It's a full source project. That's a very different partnership with users than a "closed source" agreement. We verified with the FSF and GNU that they only disallow using GNU, their preample to the GPL and the usage instructions. They welcome borrowing any other parts of the terms and we did borrows some of it. Here I'll give you the link: http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#ModifyGPL GPL stands for General Public License and it is a general legal term used by other licenses which simply means that it applies to anyone in the public without specifying anyone by name in the license.
Well I understand how you feel. However, just like my reply to the previous poster, I would like to somehow satisfy the concern of TickZOOM becoming closed source. That will never happen. I feel no system for trading automated is useful at all with closed source. And making a decision to close the source would kill the whole reason for creating TickZOOM. So it will remain full source and I would like to guarantee that some how. I will talk with an attorney and also accept any suggestions here if anyone has another idea. But creating derivative works is out of the question unless you get permission. This is about users getting full source. Nothing else. Hey does anyone support this? Otherwise, I won't bother to release it. Sincerely, Wayne
Does anyone want TickZOOM with full source and free? If not, I won't release it. So speak up if you do. Wayne
Good point. I will figure out something to add to guarantee that. Let me make sure I understand. Just probably mean that all new versions must also include full source code, right? How about something like this: (Attorney says to draft what we want and then he reviews and edits.) "Copyright holder guarantees that all future versions of this program shall provide full source code necessary to build and run the program."
Obviously full source for free is better than closed source to pay for... But has Linux become successfull because it's "full" source? If you want serious coding-support it has to be open source. I guess not many people will contribute code for a project where one person can dictate the future. Create a licence that excludes only commercial use in any way. You have to decide: broad support for open source or essentially "your own" software. Kind regards, 2fast P.S. I whish you the maximum success for this project, but therefore it has to be open.
"Excludes commercial use in any way"? Please forgive me, do I understand you correctly, not even GPLv3 does that??! FSF encourages selling software. It even specifies in the license itself for ANY price. http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/selling.html It says "Many people believe that the spirit of the GNU project is that you should not charge money for distributing copies of software... Actually we encourage people who redistribute free software to charge as much as they wish or can" So maybe you're just confused. None of the open source licenses rule out commercial use. Excluding commercial (if I understand you correctly) would be world class stupidity. So surely I didn't understand you correctly. Sincerely, Wayne