Comments on: Fusebox's Noose https://www.barneyb.com/barneyblog/2010/02/02/fusebox-and-its-noose/ Thoughts, rants, and even some code from the mind of Barney Boisvert. Thu, 11 Sep 2014 09:58:12 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2 hourly 1 By: Alan McCollough https://www.barneyb.com/barneyblog/2010/02/02/fusebox-and-its-noose/comment-page-1/#comment-205468 Alan McCollough Wed, 17 Feb 2010 18:08:25 +0000 http://www.barneyb.com/barneyblog/?p=1202#comment-205468 Now that I read TT paid $10k for the rights, I can see why Michael Smith would like to get something out of it. I mean c'mon folks. If you paid $10,000 for a car that had belonged to, oh, a community-ran car collector's club; you'd probably expect to get your $10,000 back if another club was interested in it. If no money was involved, sure I could see the indignation. Now that I read TT paid $10k for the rights, I can see why Michael Smith would like to get something out of it. I mean c'mon folks. If you paid $10,000 for a car that had belonged to, oh, a community-ran car collector's club; you'd probably expect to get your $10,000 back if another club was interested in it.

If no money was involved, sure I could see the indignation.

]]> By: Sean Corfield https://www.barneyb.com/barneyblog/2010/02/02/fusebox-and-its-noose/comment-page-1/#comment-205015 Sean Corfield Fri, 12 Feb 2010 20:28:39 +0000 http://www.barneyb.com/barneyblog/?p=1202#comment-205015 I realized I hadn't answered James' question about the dollar amount... Michael Smith did not ask for a specific figure but he told 4CFF he had paid Hal Helms and John Quarto von-Tivadar $10,000 for Fusebox when TeraTech took ownership. I realized I hadn't answered James' question about the dollar amount… Michael Smith did not ask for a specific figure but he told 4CFF he had paid Hal Helms and John Quarto von-Tivadar $10,000 for Fusebox when TeraTech took ownership.

]]> By: Jose Galdamez https://www.barneyb.com/barneyblog/2010/02/02/fusebox-and-its-noose/comment-page-1/#comment-204502 Jose Galdamez Sat, 06 Feb 2010 18:35:36 +0000 http://www.barneyb.com/barneyblog/?p=1202#comment-204502 John Resig, author of jQuery, decided a while ago that he would transfer over the rights of the framework to an independent non-profit entity. One of the reasons for doing this was to avoid identity clashes like this. If Michael wants to argue that he should be compensated for the cost of hosting the source files and buying the framework off Hal, et. al., fine. It's a weak argument, but at least it would be fair (ignoring the fact that he has made significant revenue by way of Fusebox consulting and training). If he's trying to walk out with a meaty profit, on the other hand, then that alone speaks for where he truly stands on the philosophical side of true open source, community-driven development. Leech. John Resig, author of jQuery, decided a while ago that he would transfer over the rights of the framework to an independent non-profit entity. One of the reasons for doing this was to avoid identity clashes like this. If Michael wants to argue that he should be compensated for the cost of hosting the source files and buying the framework off Hal, et. al., fine. It's a weak argument, but at least it would be fair (ignoring the fact that he has made significant revenue by way of Fusebox consulting and training). If he's trying to walk out with a meaty profit, on the other hand, then that alone speaks for where he truly stands on the philosophical side of true open source, community-driven development. Leech.

]]> By: John b https://www.barneyb.com/barneyblog/2010/02/02/fusebox-and-its-noose/comment-page-1/#comment-204215 John b Thu, 04 Feb 2010 07:36:41 +0000 http://www.barneyb.com/barneyblog/?p=1202#comment-204215 Very disappointing! Very disappointing!

]]> By: John Farrar https://www.barneyb.com/barneyblog/2010/02/02/fusebox-and-its-noose/comment-page-1/#comment-204147 John Farrar Wed, 03 Feb 2010 18:35:51 +0000 http://www.barneyb.com/barneyblog/?p=1202#comment-204147 OK, let us practice a little equity. First we would be asking what it was sold for in the first place. I was never in favor of the "rights" to Fusebox going private. Those issues are in the past and not of value to dig up again. What we should be asking though is if it was right for Hal and John to sell then what is wrong with Michael to resell it. If he thought he considered it best to put the goods up on public auction and pricing then he could of course but that would be his choice. If you or I don't agree with controlling a property like this then we should (since this is an option) create a legal fork or personally go to Michael and make an offer. Not saying anyone pushed at this point but we should avoid pushing also. Property rights is not a value that should be sacrificed for the greater good here. ( IMO ) Now if Michael wants to sell we would welcome his letting people know. OK, let us practice a little equity. First we would be asking what it was sold for in the first place. I was never in favor of the "rights" to Fusebox going private. Those issues are in the past and not of value to dig up again. What we should be asking though is if it was right for Hal and John to sell then what is wrong with Michael to resell it. If he thought he considered it best to put the goods up on public auction and pricing then he could of course but that would be his choice. If you or I don't agree with controlling a property like this then we should (since this is an option) create a legal fork or personally go to Michael and make an offer. Not saying anyone pushed at this point but we should avoid pushing also. Property rights is not a value that should be sacrificed for the greater good here. ( IMO ) Now if Michael wants to sell we would welcome his letting people know.

]]> By: James Brown https://www.barneyb.com/barneyblog/2010/02/02/fusebox-and-its-noose/comment-page-1/#comment-204144 James Brown Wed, 03 Feb 2010 18:09:56 +0000 http://www.barneyb.com/barneyblog/?p=1202#comment-204144 What dollar amount is TeraTech asking for the Fusebox copyright and name? What dollar amount is TeraTech asking for the Fusebox copyright and name?

]]> By: Sean Corfield https://www.barneyb.com/barneyblog/2010/02/02/fusebox-and-its-noose/comment-page-1/#comment-204142 Sean Corfield Wed, 03 Feb 2010 17:49:54 +0000 http://www.barneyb.com/barneyblog/?p=1202#comment-204142 My understanding is that Hal and John sold the Fusebox name and copyright to TeraTech which is no doubt why TeraTech think they should be paid if they assign it to someone else. 4CFF isn't in a position to buy Fusebox, which is why that's a sticking point. My understanding is that Hal and John sold the Fusebox name and copyright to TeraTech which is no doubt why TeraTech think they should be paid if they assign it to someone else. 4CFF isn't in a position to buy Fusebox, which is why that's a sticking point.

]]> By: Shaun McCran https://www.barneyb.com/barneyblog/2010/02/02/fusebox-and-its-noose/comment-page-1/#comment-204133 Shaun McCran Wed, 03 Feb 2010 16:29:53 +0000 http://www.barneyb.com/barneyblog/?p=1202#comment-204133 An interesting post, with a thorough exploration of the back history of the framework. I for one am massivley greatful to the community, and several key figures for their work on some of the more prominent coldfusion frameworks, fusebox included in that statement. If it wasn't for figures like yourself harnessing their genuine interest in the field and turning it to the benefit of the community then we would all be a few years further back. I love the fact that fusebox is open source, I use it regularly for projects and encourage others to do so. I'm not even a contributor to it and it irks me to see that a company is trying to monetise it for their own benefit. An interesting post, with a thorough exploration of the back history of the framework. I for one am massivley greatful to the community, and several key figures for their work on some of the more prominent coldfusion frameworks, fusebox included in that statement.

If it wasn't for figures like yourself harnessing their genuine interest in the field and turning it to the benefit of the community then we would all be a few years further back.

I love the fact that fusebox is open source, I use it regularly for projects and encourage others to do so.

I'm not even a contributor to it and it irks me to see that a company is trying to monetise it for their own benefit.

]]> By: barneyb https://www.barneyb.com/barneyblog/2010/02/02/fusebox-and-its-noose/comment-page-1/#comment-204131 barneyb Wed, 03 Feb 2010 16:26:15 +0000 http://www.barneyb.com/barneyblog/?p=1202#comment-204131 John, The point isn't the work I've just completed, the point is that TeraTech's contribution pales in comparison to myriad others. This recent work has already been assigned to TeraTech in any case, but there is nothing preventing the entire Fusebox codebase from being used as the basis for a fork, so nothing has been "lost", even though the rights have already been assigned because of the ASL's terms. John,

The point isn't the work I've just completed, the point is that TeraTech's contribution pales in comparison to myriad others. This recent work has already been assigned to TeraTech in any case, but there is nothing preventing the entire Fusebox codebase from being used as the basis for a fork, so nothing has been "lost", even though the rights have already been assigned because of the ASL's terms.

]]> By: John Farrar https://www.barneyb.com/barneyblog/2010/02/02/fusebox-and-its-noose/comment-page-1/#comment-204130 John Farrar Wed, 03 Feb 2010 16:22:35 +0000 http://www.barneyb.com/barneyblog/?p=1202#comment-204130 Why don't you donate the work to a fork project? Why don't you donate the work to a fork project?

]]>