Hacker News Reader

I disagree, it is Open Source, just not all of it.

To me Open Source means the source code has been published under a licence that allows me to make changes and to some extent redistribute it. A good indicator is if the licence is approved by OSI (https://opensource.org/licenses)

It does not mean:

- they take contributions

- there is a “community”

- there is support

- that it is “developed in the open”

- that there is a public bug/issue tracker

- that they provide you with details in how to compile or run it

- there is any documentation

- that the source code is in a complete state and wouldn’t need changes to get it to run

If it ticked those boxes it’s an “Open Source Community Project”.

If the source code (or at least a significant portion of it) is available under a OSI approved license then it’s Open Source. If not all the source is available they should probably say it’s “partially Open Source” to be better citizens.

I believe the FSF would even mostly agree with that list for their definition of “free software”, however they have stronger thoughts about the licences and restrictions they apply.

Here is a free (as in) beer, except for the molecules contributed by the hop, those are 2$ a per glass of beer.

> If the source code (or at least a significant portion of it) is available under a OSI approved license then it’s Open Source.

It's the part in brackets I disagree with... If a significant portion of a piece of software is available under an OSI approved license, then a significant portion of it is open source.

It's still wrong to call the product open source, because "the product" includes integral parts that are not open source.

What percentage of code is needed for you to call something open source?

    If not all the source is available they should probably say it’s “partially Open Source” to be better citizens.

Indeed, sounds like you also agree with not calling this open source then?

If you can't build it from source, then it doesn't qualify as open-source to me. If they eventually decide to make the "free" version compile, then I'll be fine with them calling it open source (even if paid features aren't available). However, until then, a more apt description seems like "an open component of a proprietary application"

Yes, it's not open-source by that definition.

It was fully open-source until v3: https://github.com/alin23/Lunar/tree/lunar3

I've kept that around, it's still compilable, but probably not that useful.

When making Lunar paid in v4, I didn't want to remove the possibility of sharing knowledge, so I kept the non-paid parts open-source.

This allowed other apps like MonitorControl [1] and DisplayBuddy [2] to port some Lunar features (like DDC on M1) to their own code. So I'd say it's still useful enough.

[1] https://github.com/MonitorControl/MonitorControl

[2] https://displaybuddy.app

Your software looks amazing, unfortunately I use a Windows computer at work. What’s the best equivalent?

Thanks! Monitorian is the closest thing on Windows.

> This allowed other apps like MonitorControl [1] and DisplayBuddy [2] to port some Lunar features (like DDC on M1) to their own code. So I'd say it's still useful enough.

When I was trying to do some iOS dev, I basically noticed that having open source or even open core projects accessible for free helped a lot. It ranged from some hard-to-google things, like "how should I structure this part of the code", to fulfilling the utter lack of good documentation.

So, thank you for releasing this!

I'm not sure if it still holds, but Blink app (for ssh, €21) could be built yourself, but I still paid for it because it seemed easiest. So there is some possibility to keep source open while offering a paid app. Not everyone is going to bother to build it.

Just to clarify, I am okay with paid software existing. It is even better if you share (parts of) the source code to the community in a permissive license. But unless your incentives are aligned with community, I would be crystal-clear and not advertise it as open-source.

Your incentives aren't aligned with the community. Should a free, open-source alternative to Lunar exist with all its features, your sales would go down. It is in your best interest to:

    1. Create the best possible product that works the fastest, smoothest, without bugs, etc.  
    2. Create a minimal viable free product maximizing the amount of new trial users for Lunar.  
    3. Maximize the difference between the free and premium product to convert the most users from #2.

Open source contributors shares incentive #1 with you. They don't share incentive #2, but there's no conflict here. But incentive #3 directly clashes with those of an open source contributor if only the free product is open source.

I want to assume good intentions here, because the malicious interpretation would be that one wants to take advantage of the open source community by getting free work done on incentive #1 while rejecting anything that would cross incentive #3.

So what is your goal? You obviously want to make money - we all do. What else? Is your goal to give to the open-source community for similar applications that wouldn't directly compete with you? It's noble, but risky, as you can't enforce that. If your goal is to conduct a 'business transaction' with the open-source community: "access to my source code in exchange for potential contributions under conditions w.r.t. incentive #3", that's fine too. But that is not open-source.

If you simply publish the source code explicitly stating that parts of the source code of Lunar is available under a permissive license, that you only merge contributions that fix bugs or add pre-approved features, but otherwise people are free to do with it what they want, I don't have a problem with it. But calling it open-source is misleading in my opinion.

The goal for having the non-paid parts open source, is to share knowledge.

I have to reverse engineer a lot of macOS internals and some hardware too to make some features possible. I don’t want to keep that for myself. This XDR thing makes an exception because it required a lot more RE work than I expected I’d like to get some publicity for it before open-sourcing and writing it up.

I don’t think I can take advantage of the open source community here. The OSS community has largely chosen MonitorControl since it is fully open source, free and accepts contributions.

I couldn’t have started Lunar without the open source ddcctl [0] project, and I want to give back as much as I can without jeopardizing sales and having to go back to a 9-to-5 job.

[0] https://github.com/kfix/ddcctl

That is all fair. Again, I don't have a problem with you, your project or the code you shared at all. I think it looks fantastic, and I applaud sharing the reverse engineering efforts. I only take issue with the choice of words, in calling Lunar open-source.

I admit I wasn’t aware open-source was such a strict term. I always used it where the source code was available.

I’ll fix this wording where I can, thanks for letting me know!

> I admit I wasn’t aware open-source was such a strict term. I always used it where the source code was available.

The term you want is “source-available”:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Source-available_software

It could be specified that only the free version is open source. You may also experiment with open sourcing some paid features too, possibly with some delay after the release if you're concerned about forks eating into your profit.

I think the fear of forks is often overblown in this context, especially with consumer facing software. You have a huge advantage in terms of expertise and an established user base, and people will tend to pick your project over a fork, even if you open source everything and publish a paid package from the open source code. Those who are usually willing to pay for software will buy it for the convenience of not having to fiddle with the source code after every update, and to support the development of the project.

Plenty of us think open source means the source is an open book to be read, not a right to take and republish.

There’s a libre or free software mindset that tends to insist “open” source should mean free things as well, but many of us, including supporters of free software, disagree, saying these are two separate concepts.

Free Software may require open source, but to keep terminology tidy, open source should not by definition drag in any requirements of free. For example, Free Software Foundation points out beneficiaries of free software have a right but not an obligation to give a copy of the software source.

Here the Free Software Foundation agrees that open source and free are not the same, and defines open source more the way you thought it meant:

> The FSF also notes that "Open Source" has exactly one specific meaning in common English, namely that "you can look at the source code."

> It states that while the term "Free Software" can lead to two different interpretations, at least one of them is consistent with the intended meaning unlike the term "Open Source". The loan adjective "libre" is often used to avoid the ambiguity of the word "free" in English language, and the ambiguity with the older usage of "free software" as public-domain software.

All that said, the term open source does come with the preconception of not just study as you mention, but generally some ability to adapt for self and often distribute further, which of course doesn’t work if it doesn’t compile.

These are benefits the community expects:

  - Security
  - Affordability
  - Transparency
  - Perpetuity
  - Interoperability
  - Flexibility
  - Localization

Your prior version offers these, the current does not. It’s not even “partial open” or “open core” as the present open parts don’t work as is.

Arguably, what you’re talking about, ability to see some source as learning reference, is a more specific term, “source available” or “shared source”.

Compare the following three terms:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_software

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open-source_software

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Source-available_software

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open-core_model

You may find one of the licenses referenced in the “source available” link helpful unless/until you have time and desire to move to open core.

> Plenty of us think open source means the source is an open book to be read, not a right to take and republish.

No. The term “Open Source” was defined to have its meaning at the time of its creation by the OSI. You have no right to redefine it to suit your wishes or preferences. The FSF does not agree with your definition, contrary to what you imply by selectively quoting them. Your quote comes from a text where FSF argues that the selection by the OSI of “Open Source” as a term was a bad choice, since it can be misinterpreted as simply “you can look at the source code”. This text should then obviously not be understood to be an official statement about what FSF believes “Open Source” to actually mean.

Also, neither “Open Source” nor “Free Software” imply any right to “take”, as you put it. Both terms are instead about what someone already in possession of the code is allowed to do with that code.

Your world view may be sensible and internally consistent, but it does not appear to entirely match what either the FSF or the OSI says.

Plenty of us disagree with your flat “No” meaning it’s neither flat nor even no. Not because we redefined OSS, but because it is colloquially defined.

As regards FSF, I feel their point and mine is the terminology turned out not clear, as the pure definition you cite failed to stick. Language evolves, usage evolves, definitions are owned by the living and refuse to be gatekept. Things now “mean” the concepts they generally elicit rather than what they may have elicited in the past. In this case, the purist concept is tracked by the newer terminology; the ‘misperception’ is now disambiguated into its casual non-practioner use. By claiming both terms still label one concept, you are not among the ‘plenty of us’ recognizing convention evolved, and we are aware you disagree. But props for still trying to hold the line!

Sorry, granted, there is a legal definition of ‘taking’. In this case, I didn’t intend to redefine ‘take’ as meaning not in possession. Instruction to “take a hammer and drive a nail” doesn’t mean one starts by robbing a store. Of course, the muddle over those rights is why the even further suggestion of ‘Libre’ over ‘Free’ over ‘Open’.

Put another way, I strictly agree with you, but it’s futile since in the end casuals define things. It’s not your Open Source, it’s Nacho Libre! ... (Sorry. :-)

> Just to clarify, I am okay with paid software existing.

"Open source" does not mean "you are not allowed to demand money". For example Fritzing ask the user to pay for the download (see https://fritzing.org/download/). It just means that you don't have a monopoly on distribution or asking for money.

Throwing my 2 cents my issue is with that

>> Lunar can't be built from this repo yet as the source code for the paid features is hidden

This is where I feel a bit insulted. As long as you have stubs (as you say you will write) for the non-free parts, I can accept the reasoning. But an unbuildable repo is not a repo, in my view. I am not going to argue semantics here but this is the problematic part, for me. I think that after you publish the stubs it can be called an "open source Lite version" - but before that, it's just "unbuildable code taken from your real code"

This is from the MIT license, feel free to swap from most of the others:

THE SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED "AS IS", WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY, FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE AND NONINFRINGEMENT. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE AUTHORS OR COPYRIGHT HOLDERS BE LIABLE FOR ANY CLAIM, DAMAGES OR OTHER LIABILITY, WHETHER IN AN ACTION OF CONTRACT, TORT OR OTHERWISE, ARISING FROM, OUT OF OR IN CONNECTION WITH THE SOFTWARE OR THE USE OR OTHER DEALINGS IN THE SOFTWARE.

That includes being able to build it.

It's in yelling case for a reason.

That's the law, you're right, I am not denying that.

But being able to build something is a courtesy that is important to me.

> Then it would fit the strictest definitions of open-source (you are free to modify and redistribute), but would miss the community aspect completely due to misaligned incentives. I could add a great feature, but my pull request would be denied if it overlaps a paid feature.

Not every open-source project accepts contributions. This is something that you just interpret into "open source", but was never part of it.

What open source rather means is that you are free to create your own version/forks that you maintain by yourself if you want some personal code included.

> Not every open-source project accepts contributions. This is something that you just interpret into "open source", but was never part of it.

I do interpret it into it, as do many others. But not everyone. Stallman and the people at GNU have fought against the term "open source" for a long time, precisely because people have different ideas of it: https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point....

> What open source rather means is that you are free to create your own version/forks that you maintain by yourself if you want some personal code included.

That is commonly referred to as free (as in freedom, not price) software, which is the strictest interpretation of open source I can come up with. Note that others have other interpretations of 'open source' that are even more strict (you may only view the source code, for example, or you may modify but not redistribute the code)! I personally don't include 'binary virality' a-la GPL in this strictest interpretation, but again, some do.

Ultimately open source doesn't have one clear definition. In my book it means free software that is developed 'in the open' - accepting contributions from anyone based on merit. A more precise modern term would be FOSS - that is what I understand when I see open-source.

I don't get into the OSS religious arguments.

I consider almost all my stuff to be "open source," even the couple of projects that are "source available."[0] I think that it's important to make it all available, if I will call it "open source," but there's no reason, in my mind, to make it so that people can just take my work and use it commercially.

That said, I generally like to use the MIT license, because I don't like coercive licenses. I just don't like it when people try to coerce me, so I won't do it to them.

I am currently working on a non-open-source/non-source-available project. Considerable parts of it are open-source (MIT license), but the core app code, as well as a modified variant of my BAOBAB server[1], are proprietary and locked away.

I don't think any of it is particularly awesome or worthy of secrets, but the folks I'm working with aren't as sanguine as am I, when it comes to opening the kimono, and I'll respect their wishes. I worked for years, for a corporation that had Fort Knox trade secret security. It's something that I'm used to doing.

[0] https://github.com/RiftValleySoftware/ambiamara

[1] https://riftvalleysoftware.com/work/open-source-projects/#ba...

> That is commonly referred to as free (as in libre) software, which is the strictest interpretation of open source I can come up with.

No, it's really not part of what makes libre/free stricter than Open-Source. E.g. it's clearly something required through the Open Source definition: https://opensource.org/osd

> Stallman and the people at GNU

Free Software projects following the requirements of the FSF also do not have to accept contributions. It's completely orthogonal.

> No, it's really not part of what makes libre/free stricter than Open-Source.

I edited out the libre portion and I clarified in my comment that I don't (by default) include the 'binary virality' a-la GPL in my strictest interpretation, but some certainly do.

Strictest interpretation meaning here as in 'the bare minimum to qualify', not the one maximizing 'restrictions'. Again here not everyone agrees on even the term 'restriction' here, some would consider the binary source requirement of GPL a restriction, and others would consider it a restriction if they can't see the source of the binary program they're running.

> Free Software projects following the requirements of the FSF also do not have to accept contributions. It's completely orthogonal.

I never intended to claim that. My claim is that I (and many others) would consider accepting contributions based on merit as part of open-source.

Maybe my above comment was unnecessarily encroaching on the topic of whether something like the MIT license is "free" or "libre". Ultimately I think it's orthogonal to what my main point was, and I apologize if I misused any definition myself.

>> Not every open-source project accepts contributions. This is something that you just interpret into "open source", but was never part of it.

>I do interpret it into it, as do many others. But not everyone. Stallman and the people at GNU have fought against the term "open source" for a long time, precisely because people have different ideas of it: https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point....

Literally nobody interprets open source to mean you have to accept every (or any) random patch from anyone on the internet.

> Note that others have other interpretations of 'open source' that are even more strict (you may only view the source code, for example, or you may modify but not redistribute the code)!

wtf no... some people (microsoft) tried to do something like that branded as "shared source",but nobody considers that open source.

> Ultimately open source doesn't have one clear definition.

Really because the osi definition seems pretty clear to me.

Regardless, even if something is ambigious it doesn't mean you can make it mean anything you want. If i said, in my books open source is a breed of dog, people would say i am being stupid, because i am.

> Note that others have other interpretations of 'open source' that are even more strict (you may only view the source code, for example, or you may modify but not redistribute the code)!

"Open source" means "open source as defined by the OSI" who actually invented this term. For the concept that you may view, but not, say, modify or distribute the source code, for some time Microsoft attempted to promote the term "shared source".

There's no version of OSS that comes with the contingent requiring its Authors to forever maintain or manage contributions for it. If they don't want to spend the time & effort to manage it, feel free to fork their OSS Software and maintain modifications yourself - that's what OSS Software enables you to do.

> Ultimately open source doesn't have one clear definition. In my book it means free software that is developed 'in the open' - accepting contributions from anyone based on merit. A more precise modern term would be FOSS

You're understanding of what Open Source Software is invalid, call what you want your OSS to be something else like "Collaborative Open Source" because your definition of what you think it is, is not in any OSI definition or certified license.

"Open Source" does have a clear definition [1], OSI certified licenses which meets its definition is available at [2]

[1] https://opensource.org/osd

[2] https://opensource.org/licenses/category

Very astute. Open-core cannot be a true citizen.

I also perceive a similar conflict of interest with the "open source but pay for support" model. A good deal of software I've come across with this model was perversely byzantine. If your users only pay you when they're confused, there's negative incentive to make it less confusing.

Citizen in what? A free labor pool for billion dollar companies and hustle culture bros who want to rebrand some FOSS and slap a control panel on it for a quick SaaS flip?

FOSS is supposed to be a gift culture. You give back by making your own, fixing bugs, doing volunteer tech support, or yes paying the creators or a company or foundation that pays them. You don't just take and then whine about "gimme my free stuff," but that's the attitude that many people seem to have adopted.

Another thing I really dislike is the ecosystem being dominated by surveillance capitalist companies. They have a vested interest in using FOSS to steer the ecosystem in ways that benefit them and their interests, and I don't like the direction they are likely to take things. Unfortunately they have plenty of money to "dump" high-quality open source on the market in order to exercise leverage over it. This isn't charity. It's a control technique.

I am personally starting to dislike the OSI for pretending these issues don't even exist. If you look at who funds OSI it's completely captured by mega-corporations, mostly in the surveillance capitalist space.

Open source needs a steward that cares about the freedom part more than the free part.

> FOSS is supposed to be […]

FOSS is “supposed” to be about individual liberty of the lone user to make any changes needed for themselves, and the right of that user to publish those changes as they see fit. Nothing more.

Otherwise, I agree with you. If you want to stave off corporations doing this, you should use the AGPLv3 license.

What would be some good options to get paid for open source?

In this case, is this an application that could be distributed via the app store?

The issue with making money off open source tools like this is that it's often aimed at tech savvy people / developers already, who can easily find the binaries to install themselves for free.

> What would be some good options to get paid for open source?

Many might read this as "good options to get paid money in exchange for open-source source code". Then the answer is simple: you can, but only once. The code is freely redistributable without restrictions by anyone, thus no scarcity that one could get paid for exists after the initial sale (if the sale ever existed).

So I think a better reading of the question is "good options to paid as an open-source developer".

One could have a money pot for certain features of the software (which may or may not be done yet), that interested users can contribute in or outright buy, which you would then develop (or publish). E.g. "I will develop UTF-16 support in FooApp for $5000". This is especially interesting for open-source software used by enterprise. The problem* here is someone else might offer to do it for less (including free). A bad incentive here is that if you also control the "canonical" repository or project, you can reject pull requests for features that you intend to sell.

An alternative is donation-ware, either through the project or directly to you as a person. The problem* here is that whoever controls the landing page of the most popular fork decides where the majority of the donations go to.

Why did I highlight problem with an asterisk in both cases? Because they have a common cause: we would like to think that if we're the original author of a piece of open-source software, we are in some way special. The original, authentic, canonical, "real" software. We deserve to get paid for it, and no one else should. And people tend to agree! But as per my opening paragraph - the exclusivity is inherently gone. So economically, we can't be. And I don't think a good 'solution' for this exists, although I admit I haven't thought about it enough.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Business_models_for_open-sourc...

You have to appreciate how much effort goes into creating this piece of software, everything from the app to the changelog looks like a work of art.

I think your definition of open source is a bit corrupted, and skewed towards expecting people to work for free in perpetuity. The Lunar repository contains open source code, and you should not expect it to compile without errors, nor should you expect maintainers to accept patches.

They don't owe you anything, and they already gave you more than most developers will do through their entire careers. I think it's perfectly understandable that the developer tries to find ways to make such a high quality project sustainable and profitable in the long term, and it won't help anyone to diss on them.

"open source" is a term with a very strict meaning. This app does not comply with that meaning for several reasons that he has outlined.

He is not asking for the developer to comply with the term, he is asking for the developer to stop lying.

Is it? “Free software” was the strict one, to my understanding, but I freely admit I’m likely wrong.

Those are two separate topics.

Good software is hard, I expect developers to make a living, and have zero expectations of them open sourcing it or distributing it for free. I am happy to pay for useful software and while I think open source is great, I don't veer into "information wants to be free!!1" idealism.

That being said, open source has both formal and colloquially accepted definitions. Not withstanding anything in my previous paragraph, I support holding accountable any entity, large company or individual developer alike, to conform to that notion once they choose to make a claim of being open source.

I. E. You don't Have to make it open source, but if you claim you do, then you actually should :)

"This product is so incredibly amazing that you should be grateful to us that we allow you to use it at all, and not ask any awkward questions about the restrictions we've placed on how you use it" is such a 'Apple' answer :)

AppleClang is also just not open source at all as far as I'm aware.

I fixed a bug in a compiler where apple deprecated object destructors with apparently very little reason or announcement.

This is why free software is what we should be aiming for, not just OSS.