Change License to WTFPL #1
22 participants
and others
While I'd applaud the switch to a more liberal license, it might be worth discussing Allan's motivations here. Obviously GPL wasn't an accident. I'd be interested in seeing if some exceptions can be made so porting to iOS or similar would constitute distributable work. Currently GPL is a no go there but LGPL might be a nice compromise.
License choice is briefly explained in the announcement post.
I am not interested in changing it and you are not allowed to redistribute my work under another license, so please revert your license changes from your fork.
@sorbits You had the gall to request patches in public domain though so that you could benefit (financially) from other people's work while they can't benefit from yours. If you're going to open it up, please actually open it up (with a permissive license) rather than using this as a publicity stunt/attempt to get free work.
Edit: I've been a Textmate 1.5 user for 6 years, I'm happy to pay for good software. I'm also happy to contribute patches to truly open software. I'm not willing to support this kind of gaming the system. If your motivation was to open it up for everyone else, then you'd 1.) Make it at least GPL2 (a license I still don't like, but at least it accomplishes your supposed goals) and 2.) Require patches to be in GPL2 as well as that you're committing to the same level of openness that you're requiring of others.
@sorbits I think it's awesome you released all this work under a free and open source license. Thanks! Don't let the trolls get to you.
@hbons Believe it or not, I'm not trying to troll. I'm pointing out the extreme inconsistency of asking people to give up rights to their work without giving rights to your own. He's dual-licensing it: this is a one-way proposition.
@jcoleman I don't see what's the problem; he distributes his code as GPL in his branch, you can distribute your code (and his) as GPL in your branch. Seems to me like you have as much rights as he does.
@icebraining If you patch it, he requests that the patch be public domain so that he can incorporate it onto both of the dual-licensed branches--i.e. not just on the GPL branch but on the closed-source branch. Now of course I could refuse to license a patch as public domain, but my point is that he's asking for free work that would also benefit his closed-source branch, and that request goes against his stated reasons for opening up the code.
Yeah, I gotta admit, this is pretty lame of @sorbits. Not trying to be an ass, but accepting open source patches yet preventing others from putting this in any closed source is not free as in free speech, it's free as in cable television free speech. "You can say anything you want... Except this, this, and that."
Lame
Sounds like somebody just gave you a car but you didn't like the colour...
@hbons The problem isn't necessarily that he wants to restrict how we use the code (though I don't think that that encourages open-source participation at all--there's a reason the future of the open-source community has moved away from restrictive licenses like the GPL to ones like BSD and MIT), the problem is that he wants to restrict how we use the code while ask us to donate code WITHOUT THE SAME RESTRICTION.
From the practical point of view of @sorbits, this makes sense: if a critical patch is going into the GPL version as GPL-only, it would mean having to rewrite the functionnality in the closed source version.
However, as others explained earlier, it's neither elegant nor in line with the motivations behind opensourcing TextMate 2.
I can see this requirement severely limiting the number of pull requests and involvement from the community.
Exactly why dual-licensing with GPL is so ridiculous. It's intended keep the unlimited rights of the original author while limiting the rights of the contributors. If @sorbits really wanted to open source it so that anyone could benefit, then he wouldn't have kept a closed alternative license for his own branch.
@jcoleman I agree with you that it's not encouraging for contributions, but just fork it and make it more awesome than is was instead?
"Just fork it" is not a great solution imho. Hostile forks rarely ever bear edible fruits in the long run.
Also, people need financial motivation to work on large projects. Even people like Stallman need an income if they're going to work most/all of their work week on an open project. So Stallman makes income through the FSF (whether that be donations of through giving talks etc.) Other options include corporate sponsorship and donations, obviously, but GPL-ing it without anyway of benefiting makes it very difficult for anyone to fork this and spend the time necessary to make something "more awesome." If it were a permissive license, obviously someone could fork it and close it, but then they have financial incentive to work on it (should they choose to sell it.) Alan is attempting to maintain his ability to sell it without granting other's the same incentive.
At this point, considering that it seems like Alan doesn't have time to finish TextMate 2, it will probably never be finished.
@michelv Agreed! Also, you can't fork it and change the license. That's whole problem with the GPL--you can't just create your own fork (and be able to incentivize work on it through selling a closed-source version.) You're bound by the original creator's restrictions.
@hbons open source isn't about forking it into your own silo. It's about the community sharing code, patches, and improvements, not copying it into their own project. And, in this case, you can't even fork it in a private repo.
Some people have no idea what the GPL is and what the ideas behind it are.
Allan open sourced his work. He could have kept it closed and dropped TextMate entirely. Allan didn't. He can distribute his hard work the way he want, because it is his work. He can sell it, he can give it without restrictions, or he can choose whatever license please him. Stop moaning about the GPL, it the very same discussion since the GPL exists. Everything's been told about it. Several times.
You do not like the GPL? You do not want to release your work under such a license? Fine. Your call. Allan chose it, his call. Deal with it.
I saw nowhere Allan calling for people giving work for free then earing piles of gold with that work. Did I miss something?
Disclosure : I truly think the GPL is the shittiest license out there. It does more harm than good to open source software as some software pearls are left alone to die because of the viral nature of the GPL. It's a contagious disease. Nevertheless, Allan can do whatever he wants with his work, including infecting it with the GPL. I fully respect that. You should too.
@fabrice See the README Section "Contribution" point 6: "we are still allowed to create non-free derivatives...to make it easier for us (and avoid any legal issues) we prefer if patches are released as public domain."
So yes, he's asking that he can financially benefit from your work while saying that you cannot financially benefit from his work.
If you patch it, he requests that the patch be public domain so that he can incorporate it onto both of the dual-licensed branches
No, that's only if you patch it and ask him to incorporate the patch into his own branch. You can just patch it and share your patch with everyone under the GPL, without letting anyone - not even Allan - sell it under a closed license.
@jcoleman Read about the GPL. You didn't understood what the GPL is, clearly.
@icebraining I didn't say he required it, but rather that he asks for it. I stand by that observation, after all, I'm just quoting him where he says that he "prefer[s]" that patches be public domain so that he can pull it into both licensed versions. He doesn't mention anything about "ask[ing] him to incorporate the patch into his own branch [as opposed to merely the GPL branch]".
@fabrice I'm not sure what you're referencing. I've read a lot about the GPL, I'm just pointing out that Alan wants the ability to keep a closed source version (including your patches) separate from the GPL version. He's of course free to do this under the GPL, but I'm arguing that it's inconsistent with his stated reasons for using the GPL.
Please know that by “non-free derivatives” what I have in mind are things like:
- Distributing binaries in the app store.
- Re-release the source under a more permissive license (should I come to agree that GPL does more harm than good for F/OSS).
- Create entirely new Mac software (which may or may not be GPL to start with) that may e.g. re-use the software updater from TextMate.
- …
And for the records, I will be grateful for patches regardless of the license they are under :)
@jcoleman The whole section is prefaced by:
You can send pull requests via GitHub. Patches should:
So, it only applies to patches that you want him to include in his branch.
@icebraining That's an artificial distinction. Open-source works best when there is one clear "master" repository from which to get the software. So of course (unless you're just making a change that suits yourself) you'd want to submit it back to the primary repo.
@jcoleman I do not see any inconsistency. Allan allows everybody to create derivative work of his own work, so anybody can improve the software. He also wants to keep the full ownership of his work, whatever the form is (TextMate close sourced and sold or any other software making use of parts of TextMate source code). Seems perfectly clear and understandable. But maybe my understanding is wrong, English is by far not my best language.
@fabrice Yes anyone can improve it, but only Allan can sell it (practically speaking.) So he can make money with anyone's improvements, but you wouldn't be able to do that yourself.
@jcoleman Well, he also did build the software in the first place. If anyone else wants to sell a closed source text editor then maybe they should build their own instead.
@jcoleman GPL.
Yes, he can. But you know what, that's wonderful, he can only if you decide to give him your improvements, so if you don't want to, here is the wonder, DON'T. Fantastic. You can not contribute. Freedom.
Once again, open source licensing is a great source of amusement (and pain). How many posts till the first Godwin point?
@marcusk That's cool. But that doesn't address the point. Let's say someone writes split-pane functionality for TM2. That'd be a big feature. And if you submitted the patch as public domain then Allen could sell it and make money off your work, but you can't make money off the part you created (as it's no good standalone.) The real problem here is that it removes incentive for someone to write big features like that, so in the end less code gets written and nobody benefits.
@fabrice I promise to not be the first Godwin point. The libertarian (now watch /real/ flame wars break out) would point out that this code isn't actually free because it comes with restrictions. That's not freedom.
btw while this might be ethically on the edge, it is worth noticing that many other projects have the same dual-licensing policy: mysql, asterisk, qt until recently, and many others.
@jcoleman You're right on that one. The code is not free. It is under the GPL. GPL is not about free software as in free to do whatever you want with other people's work, it is about open source software that must stay open source. Same discussion over and over again. Same conclusions. Since what, 25 years? Everything has been told already.
@fabrice But not everyone has heard already :) The majority (particularly newly released) of open source projects have moved to/used a permissive license, so it's unfortunate to see a new open source project use the GPL.
@jcoleman If TextMate had stayed closed source would that have been better?
@marcusk If it was being actively developed, then I wouldn't have a problem with that. The problem is that it wasn't (apparently) getting much work done on it. Hence the open sourcing. It seems like open sourcing it was a way to keep development moving forward without Allan having to spend much time on it. In that case, it doesn't make sense to not fully let go of the project (after all, it has been what, 5 years at least since TM2 started development.)
@jcoleman You can use the code for yourself. You can modify & redistribute it. Unless I am misunderstanding, you have the choice to write your code and not allow it to be used in paid software. This touches all the bases for FOSS unless I'm mistaken.
It seems you're saying "this is not good enough, I want to be able to use the work and repackage and sell it myself." @sorbits merely forbids this last thing. I'm not sure why you feel entitled to this final privilege, (why you think it's appropriate for you to demand @sorbits make his work not only free for you to use, but to resell), or why you want to tell him how to license his own work. Possible solutions:
- Make a pure GPL fork, release your own build for free.
- You don't like the license so don't contribute to the project
Do neither of these choices seem acceptable to you?
As @fabrice mentioned, this has been gone over many times. Rather than re-arguing the GPL side: here's an article that covers pretty well why some chose the GPL.
He is allowed to repackage and sell his fork (although not under the TextMate name) — but that package will be under the GPL. The package I can sell, does not. I guess that is what he finds offensive.
Anyway, you can’t please everybody…
@jcoleman I absolutely agree with your posts, and then some...Anyone who's paid any real attention to the open source universe has seen projects running in droves from GPL3.
This whole philosophy that Allan should never be criticized for making disputed decisions about TextMate is horseshit. Sometimes you make something, and it becomes bigger than you. Does he have a right to pick any license he wants? Sure! But that doesn't mean the discussion is over.
It's kind of like a previous trope that went around the lists before TM2 came out. "Blah, you can always use TM1.5, there's nothing wrong with it," Again, horseshit. Just because I use TextMate doesn't mean I have to like everything about it, or believe that it's in some state of perfection, far above criticism.
Lame responses like, "If TextMate had stayed closed source would that have been better?" are basically flamebait. The fact is, Allan is fortunate that so many people was willing to put up with what certainly looked from the outside to be a lack of interest in continuing this project in earnest. In fact, it may be that the primary reason Allan open-sourced TM is so people would shut up about how he should open-source TM. I think it's fantastic that it's been open-sourced, but I'm not going to get that excited about it until I see a significant improvement in the current state of TM2. Just because there's a GitHub repo doesn't mean the project is really free/libre.
Seriously, have any of you apologists actually ever tried to start an open-source project? It's not easy, even with a pre-existing community of developers at your disposal — in fact, that might make it harder. The more restrictions placed on contributing to the project, the more difficult it is to find developers to help.
I'm optimistic about the future of TM, but only because I want it to continue to succeed, not because I've seen any particular evidence that it will.
@Sequoia I'm saying that if I significantly alter the project, then I should be able to close source the derivative work. I'm not saying that he has to change it to satisfy me, I'm saying I think the choice is counter-productive in general. Now of course, Allan disagrees. That's fine. He's allowed to disagree. And I'm also allowed to suggest that there is a better way.
@sorbits While it's true that I can sell the GPL version, that's really a false benefit as there is no reason for someone to buy a piece of software that they can download/build for free (particular since this software targets developers!) That was the point behind the GPL anyways, it sounds good because it still allows selling, but in reality it discourages it.
@philchristensen Thanks! You've explained it far better.
And I'll admit, I could have made the point in a less flaming way. But the point still stands. If the real goal is to encourage open source participation, then it's best to not limit/dis-incentivize possible contributors. Again, this is why most newish open source projects have opted away from GPL.
"there is no reason for someone to buy a piece of software that they can download/build for free"
Oh really? That's sad. I bought softwares I could have built from sources. I bought several licences of some softwares even when the updates were free. Growl, TextMate, ChronoSync, some JavaScript and Ruby libraries, those are a few examples among others. I paid for sharewares or donationwares I could have used for free. When I use something well made somebody worked hard to built... I pay for it. I was able to finance my engineering school because some people paid for a shareware I wrote.
Some people have reasons to buy software even when they don't have to.
@fabrice Let's face it, though, that's definitely a minority position. I've donated to developers for free software as well. But I'm also well aware that most people won't (even if they would pay for the same piece of software if it weren't free.)
@jcoleman It's interesting that you bring up people not wanting to pay for something they can get for free, and that's why you want to be able to close & sell your TM derivatives, but (it seems) you want the sources for free. Have you approached @sorbits about paying to license the codebase from him for non-free use?
You want your users to pay for the product, so I assume you are willing to do the same. Idk if this sort of thing interests Allan but if you are saying "give me it for whatever I want including making money" and getting indignant that he's not doing that, I would assume/hope you've already offered to pay for it. Have you & if not why not?
And for the records, I will be grateful for patches regardless of the license they are under :)
If you accept patches that are copyrighted by someone else then you wouldn't be able to change the license later or use them in the commercial version, correct?
I don't understand how the discussion went from "dual-licensing is not a good idea for contributors" to "some evil contributor wants to sell a fork OMG let's flame them".
Let's all remain civil and stick to the point.
The problem discussed here is the imbalance in rights brought by dual-licensing and accepting only PD patches, not that someone else would like to dual-license too.
@rgigger Commercial versions are fine for most licensees, even GPL. However, if your patch is under GPL or any other kind of copyleft then it can't be included in a proprietary version.
@rigger you can change the license later on; you'll need to ask permission from every contributor of such patches though.
I can't understand why my company buys volume licenses for RHEL... maybe because of the support? Ah, who knows.
C'mon, selling GPL'ed stuff has its own place. It's not generally profitable, nevertheless it has its own place. By the way, don't feed the troll.
To trolls: have you heard if you start a flamewar, it will burn your monitor? Ha.
@michelv My issue isn't that someone wants to fork & sell TM, it's that someone wants to fork, close source, and sell the code, but doesn't appear willing to pay for the code himself. Contact the copyright holder and ask to license the code for commercial use: why is this option not being discussed? People are discussing it like "give it to me free with restrictions" and "give it to me free without restrictions" are the only two options. Want it free -> pay it forward. Want to sell -> pay cash. What's wrong with this model?
@jcoleman There are other ways to sell GPL'ed code. An example that works for some is to sell binaries:
http://ardour.org/download
http://lunduke.com/?p=3606
http://games.slashdot.org/story/12/06/30/1933259/the-everyone-gets-the-source-code-donations-get-you-binaries-software-model
If the project is enough of a pain in the butt to build, people will gladly pay for binary versions. We're about to do the same for the project I work on, GNU Octave, a free numerical computing environment mostly compatible with Matlab. It will still be free even if we sell binaries, because there is no inherent contradiction between free and commercial. There's only a contradiction between free and proprietary.
At any rate, I agree that it's kinda douchey to not allow me to patch Textmate with GPL'ed code. I think the GPL is great, but it should be a two-way street. Share-and-share-alike. If I give, I don't want you to take away either any more than you would.
you can change the license later on; you'll need to ask permission from every contributor of such patches though.
Yes, but as the number of contributors grows that becomes completely impractical. Also they might say no. Then you have to either strip out those patches or just leave the license as is. Again completely impractical. If he starts accepting patches from different contributors that aren't public domain or BSD or similar, then the license is never going to change.
@Sequoia There's nothing wrong with that model. But if starts accepting patches that are under the GPL and they don't transfer the copyright of those patches to him and they don't put it in the public domain then he can't even offer to sell it under a non GPL license. He would have to keep a totally clean version free from those patches to do so. Is that not correct?
If the project is enough of a pain in the butt to build, people will gladly pay for binary versions
Do you really want to have pressure on the project to make it hard to code for? "Don't improve the build process or you'll dry up our main revenue stream."
The general problem here is that the GPL was created in order to force people to adhere to one definition of "free" (a highjacked definition, I might add.) And it tries to force people into it who don't necessarily buy into the argumentation. I don't like that forcing at a philosophical level.
@Sequoia The reason that no one is talking about buying a license for commercial use is because the real point isn't necessarily that someone will fork it and close source it, but that removing the ability to do that removes incentive. People don't like to be put upon, especially when you're asking for donations. That's why often the projects that have permissive licenses actually have the most contributions. People like it when you trust them with complete freedom rather than treating them like they'll do the wrong thing. GPL is intended to be like a virus, and it was created to be that way because the creators didn't trust people to do the best thing for the group. Instead, it assumed the worst and attempted to force compliance. That approach often doesn't make the best of friends.
Also, even when a project is forked and closed-source, the forker will often contribute back "patches" (as opposed to huge new features), so it's still a win-win for both parties involved.
@rgigger To my knowledge: yes he wouldn't be allowed to incorporate the GPL'd code into his closed project, but no, he wouldn't have to maintain a clean version. You -or whoever wants a collaborative, free TextMate- would have maintain a libre version. Again, the code is here, nothing is stopping anyone from maintaining their own version and taking TM into the next millennium; by GPLing the code @sorbits is inviting you to do just that.
@jcoleman "People don't like to be put upon, especially when you're asking for donations" yet here you are, all but demanding that Allan not only give you his code for nothing, but allow you to repackage it as "your" software and sell it, without any obligation to compensate or even credit him. You are asking for donations.
"That's why often the projects that have permissive licenses actually have the most contributions." This must explain why everyone uses BSD and no one uses Gnu/Linux. ;)
"I don't like that forcing at a philosophical level. ... [it] attempted to force compliance." Jesus christ... this is just over the top melodrama. Please tell me when someone forced you to use FOS software. No one is forcing anyone to do anything. GPL just says "hey, you wanna use our code? Please do! Just please share it forward so others get the same benefit that I am giving you." So Allan or whoever does a ton of work, puts his B,S&T into some software and gives it to you for nothing, you take and put a file browser on it and you're outraged that you are forced to be as generous with the sources as he was with it? I absolutely do not understand your stance here. Why should you get to take what someone shares (with a "pay it forward" request) and insist that you have no obligation to honor their request or to share it with anyone?
Anyway I think reasonable people can disagree about GPL vs. MIT but please stop saying you are being "forced" and "coerced" etc. by the someone choosing to release their work on terms you don't like. It's just silly.
You're still going on the idea that all this is about some people who want to sell their forks too.
The real issue is that the author releases code to the community, says the ideals of free software are great, then proclaims that ticket to entry in participating to the code is to give it away so he can sell it too.
The agreement here is such that @sorbits can just decide, upon seeing a nice big PD patch, that it's so great that it will go into the closed source version and not land in the standard GPL version.
Nothing in theory stops fork maintainers from applying those patches, but how many forks do we need?
The way this dual-licensing is handled is a slap in the face of traditional free software collaboration.
@Sequoia I never said that I'm being forced to used the code. But it is still true that the GPL is a viral license that attempts to coerce a certain type of philosophy. And the real inconsistency problem with is not necessarily that it has a philosophy, but that it wants to be labeled free. It isn't free, anymore than if I gave you $10,000 for free but said you couldn't buy this or that and, oh by the way, if you give any of these dollars away that requirement is binding on the beneficiaries too. That's not free. It's buying/enforcing behavior.
Incidentally, I'll point out again that if @sorbits reasons for using the GPL are precisely what he's stated, then he should at least do us the favor of using V2. Even Torvalds himself is against the V3. [http://www.techspot.com/news/22385-torvalds-blasts-gpl-version-3.html]
But @michelv points out the biggest problem. This isn't a pure GPL project. It's put forward like a front for getting donations to the closed branch. Sure anyone can make a GPL only fork--if you wanted to do that. But let's face the reality here: for it's very hard for open-source to be successful when there are multiple competing forks.
And your BSD/Linux discussion really doesn't have any meaning because history gives a lot of other reasons for popularity other than licensing. Like, for example, which one has been open for longer. And it hasn't made Linux the best (most stable) either. In fact, many of the top (most stable) web hosts use BSD not Linux. That's all a side point, though.
"The real issue is that the author releases code to the community, says the ideals of free software are great, then proclaims that ticket to entry in participating to the code is to give it away so he can sell it too."
+1 @michelv.
This is the root of my challenge to @sorbits. If FOSS is so great, then dive into it completely. Dump the dual license. I don't think you will, and that proves my point. If you aren't willing to do that for yourself, that there's no philosophical commitment to FOSS at the heart of it and you shouldn't try to enforce a philosophy on others that you don't fully hold yourself.
@jcoleman I have no “private” fork of TextMate per se. The binaries I release will be built from this Git repository.
I have already stated the reasons why I prefer to receive patches under a more permissive license (see previous comment in this thread), but down the line I could certainly see moving to a less restrictive license (rather than accept patches under GPL), but given that this is the first time I release a big commercial project as F/OSS and I don’t know of others that have experiences with this, I am taking small steps here.
As for @michelv’s comments, I feel he is pulling a straw man, as a) I am not claiming to be any Richard Stallman (I am mainly about freedom 0 and 1), and b) this closed source fork he speaks of does not exist.
Hey ! look ! gpl is like hitler !
May we stop arguing now ?
@sorbits sorry for such a mess, was a pretty bad joke finally.
Every discussion involving the GPL turns like this one. Well, no, usually it's worst than that.
In defense of @jcoleman et al., it is peculiar that Allan is releasing the code under "pay it forward" terms going outward, but "give it to me without restrictions" going back into his master branch (if I understand correctly). It would seem more sensible to allow the same terms for inflow and outflow of code, rather than outflow GPL with a proprietary one-way-street in the other direction. I'm a FS proponent but @sorbits it seems you want to have your cake and eat it too here... is the software Free or isn't it? If not, why not MIT it and offer other contributors the same rights you are requesting from them?
Still: no one is under any obligation to offer their code/patches up for proprietary use w/o restriction, not Allan or anyone else, so if you want to patch and don't like Allan's terms, just release your patch GPL and he has the same rights to your code as you have to his. If he really wants it, he can offer to pay for it, just as you can offer to pay for his source if you really want it for proprietary use.
Anyway none of this ^ (dual license complication) is an argument against the GPL itself, but the way it's being used here.
Jesus… stop mentioning my name (I am trying to keep this thread muted)!
You guys are just arguing for the sake of argument, as you clearly haven’t even bothered reading my reasons above. If you want to actually have a constructive dialog, deconstruct my arguments, show me how I am mistaken, tell me how GPLv2 is better than GPL3, don’t just add more of the same “wants his cake and eat it too” clichés.
@sorbits Here's a response to some of your reasons:
"Distributing binaries in the app store."
The fact that it's questionable as to whether you could release an entirely open-source project into the App Store is a great reason to avoid the FSF's idiocy.
"Re-release the source under a more permissive license (should I come to agree that GPL does more harm than good for F/OSS)."
The reasons have been given many times in this thread already how impractical that becomes as soon as GPL patches are in the mix. That's one of the reasons why we want you to switch /now/ as opposed to later. The GPL is designed to make it very hard to switch away from in an open-source development context since patch-contributors and disallow the change of license on their code.
@sorbits github has a "block user" button. I just used it; you might want to consider doing so as well.
(and apologies for highlighting you again, but hooopefully that'll work to make this the last one)
I should like to point out that I mentioned Allan in that last post (note that I didn't do it in this one) because I was explicitly responding to his comment.
I don't think it's hard to understand why Allan is nervous to release this under a BSD or MIT style license. It would suck to watch other people or some other company take the code, add on a bunch of new features, not share their code and release a competing product that kills his off. Right now someone else could do builds of the GPL'ed code and give them away for free and still dry up his revenue stream but at least everyone would still have access to all the changes.
He says that he wants patches submitted in the public domain so that he can change to a more permissive license or do other things (like the app store) that would benefit everyone. People seem to be doubting that and assuming he's doing it so he can profit off of the work of others, while giving nothing back. But as far as I can tell everything Allan has done is evidence that he can be trusted to do what he says.
I would also like to add that he didn't ask anyone to transfer the copyright on their patches to him. That is what many dual GPL/commercial license companies ask. So any patch that someone puts in the public domain is free game for anyone to use, not just Allan.
I think there is sufficient benefit to the community to be had by complying with Allan's request. It will help to avoid having a million forks that can't ever get off the ground. It will allow TextMate 2 to resolve it's problems and continue an awesome editor on the Mac. These are things that are important to me, and I assume are also important to other people here. Allan has just made a huge leap with his business and given the world his code. Cut him some slack. I think he has earned our trust. If you don't feel what he's asked is fair then don't send him any pull requests. But I see no reason to keep acting like he has some nefarious purpose for what he is doing. If he proves me wrong by going back on what he has said then I'll take all of this back. But I have no reason so far to think that he will do so.
No description provided.