#21

I agree. I’ve probably spent a little longer thinking about “ownership” issues around open source as a result of having once ('99-'00) worked for a company that was selling a dual license open source product to enterprise customers. An unusual situation that in hindsight isn’t entirely in the spirit of open source, in my honest opinion.

But I also wonder about certain efforts around open source projects with my current employer. Sometimes companies will take an open source project, slap a very thin UI on top of it, and some authentication and payment mechanism, and then rent it out as a SaaS. In effect, the company has taken some “ownership” of the thing. It’s odd.

1 Like
#22

IANAL… but I think the default is that you own your own copyrights. Some open source projects include a contributing document that suggests any PRs (or similar) imply either a transfer of copyright ownership or some sort of license that allows the owner to do whatever they wish. GNU make you sign papers before you can make non-trivial contributions.

On the one hand ‘un-owning’ it is to place it in the public domain. Doing so is a bit murky though. I think you can use the CC0 license to do it.

But that’s not really what we want. The Linux Kernel is somewhat ‘un-owned’, as in there are so many different copyright holders as to make it unmanageable to ever change it’s copyright status.

1 Like
#23

Got a response from Jetbrains today,

We have checked your Open Source project to see if it meets all the requirements of JetBrains’ Open Source License Program.

As you correctly wrote in your application, we cannot support OS projects that provide commercial services. We believe that once the rules are set they should be applied for everyone, therefore unfortunately I cannot approve your request even though the project looks very inspiring.

Thank you for your time and consideration. Should you have any further questions - we are happy to help.

Not really surprised. If there’s other reasons to change the relationship between monome and the open source projects, then this would be a side benefit. It’s not worth changing just for this software, I’m not sure there’s any benefits to changing it otherwise, so - keep on keeping on?

Also - I started playing around with Xcode, seems like a very reasonable C dev environment. Though given my level of non-expertise, I’ll probably just stick with Atom or Emacs until I know enough to take advantage of a full blown IDE.

#24

so i gave clion a spin for most recent cmake projects and, damn, i think its quite good

in agreement with OP, i think main function of an IDE is to help with refactoring, error checking, and debug (vs straight up text editing powr) ; once again jetbrain does those things incredibly well, to the extent that i think the $100/yr personal sub is a sound investment in productivity.

it does require you to use cmake. i’m ok with that but would be nice if it directly supported plain makefiles (which is in the short-term roadmap), and dang now i wish jetbrains did something for iOS too.

2 Likes
#25

Like AppCode?

2 Likes
#26

haaa yes i guess like that

1 Like