Hacker News Reader

Comment by rmc | Hacker News Reader

decided they should be paid for their work. There is one slight problem however. Growl is Open Source Software.

So? You can sell open source software. Just because software is GPL/BSD licenced doesn't mean you can't sell it. Open Source ≠ Non-commerical. Closed Source ≠ Commmerical. You can change for open source software. If something is open source you can't complain if someone sells it.

Obviously if the software is open source, everyone who buys a copy is allowed to sell the software themselves and they don't have to give the original author any money. They also cannot stop someone taking an older version of the code and distributing it.

View on HN

  If something is open source you can't complain if someone sells it. Obviously if the software is open source, everyone who buys a copy is allowed to sell the software themselves and they don't have to give the original author any money. They also cannot stop someone taking an older version of the code and distributing it.

What? I really don't get why so many people don't understand that "Open Source" does not mean you can't sell it, nor does it mean you can sell it at will or whatever. It just means you can view the source. The term "Open Source" does not make any claims about monetization, it does not even say which kind of license is at play.

You can publish your code open source, charge for it and still forbid people to sell it or even redistribute the source.

"Open Source" is not a license. GPL, BSD, MIT, Apache etc. are all open source licenses with very different rules. Here's a list of licenses many people consider "open source licenses": http://www.opensource.org/licenses/alphabetical

Conversely, you can have closed source applications which allow you to redistribute them or even sell at will. Closed source software is just more likely to have a license which is very strict about redistribution, that's all.

You can publish your code open source, charge for it and still forbid people to sell it or even redistribute the source.

Not really. It depends on the exact licence but just about every 'open source' licence, and the Open Source Definition from the OSI and the Free Software Defintion from the FSF will requite that the licence lets the people who get the software to be allowed to redistribute it.

Just look at the link you provided for 'open source definition': "Open source doesn't just mean access to the source code. The distribution terms of open-source software must comply with the following criteria:", and №1 being: "The license shall not restrict any party from selling or giving away the software as a component of an aggregate software distribution containing programs from several different sources. The license shall not require a royalty or other fee for such sale."

The OSI was founded in 1998, but companies such as SAP provided their ERP systems with full readable source code much earlier than that, and it was called "open source" (as opposed to "closed source" which was more common with COTS).

However, it is explicitly forbidden in the licence to re-sell it or re-distribute it.

The term pre-dates the organisation's re-definition of it for their own purposes.

Yes, and "gay" used to mean a different thing. Nowadays the only widespread definition of Open Source is the one defined by the OSI. Using it to mean something else is deceptive.

You may consider it deceptive, but it was and remains a common business practice for at least one very large software company. I just thought I'd point that it is possible to publish your code open source (not Open Source) and write your own licence conditions, and it happens every day, not just in the past.

I disagree. Is SAP deceptive just because one popular organization prefers another definition of open source? The OSI did not invent the term "open source". The term "open source" itself should not imply a specific license.

Actually, Eric S Raymond, one of the founders of OSI, was also one of the people credited with coining the term "open source" at a meeting discussing Netscape releasing source code.

Is SAP deceptive just because one popular organization prefers another definition of open source?

It's not because the OSI prefers, it's because it's the mainstream, generally accepted current definition of the word. I mean, if I sold you a "broascasting system", would you accept something that casts seeds out?

The term "open source" itself should not imply a specific license

It doesn't. It implies a set of conditions they have to meet. BSD, MIT, GPL, Apache, WTFPL, are all different Open Source licenses.

Languages evolve, and words change their meaning over time.

Sure, but they also have different meanings in different contexts, and you need to be aware of them. I can still hold a tea party for my young daughter, right? Or has that phrase been taken for ever?

There's a difference between a word gaining a second meaning, and one meaning effectively replacing the other completely.

icebraining mentioned "gay". Today, who in their right mind would call a joyful person gay? That's what the term originally meant, but has since has been completely replaced with meaning "homosexual".

The term "Open Source" is the same. It may have meant something different some one and a half decades back. That meaning, however, has completely fallen out of use. Just as "gay" meaning "joyful" has. It's deceptive to use it that way.

"That meaning, however, has completely fallen out of use."

I'm not convinced of that - in fact, I think that is a little naive.

I don't believe that the OSI definition is completely accepted by the uneducated population at large, and don't believe that the term "open source" is not used by various software companies in ways that mislead and obfuscate the OSI meaning.

I'll quote Mr Stallman:

"However, the obvious meaning for the expression “open source software”—and the one most people seem to think it means—is “You can look at the source code.” That criterion is much weaker than the free software definition, much weaker also than the official definition of open source. It includes many programs that are neither free nor open source."

"The term “open source” has been further stretched by its application to other activities, such as government, education, and science, where there is no such thing as source code, and where criteria for software licensing are simply not pertinent. The only thing these activities have in common is that they somehow invite people to participate. They stretch the term so far that it only means “participatory”."

I don't accept that the other meanings have completely fallen out of use.

Edit: http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.h...

"Open Source" [...] just means you can view the source.

No. See, for example, the Open Source Definition [1] by the Open Source Initiative [2] which opens with the statement "Open source doesn't just mean access to the source code." Wikipedia states that their "definition is widely recognized as the standard or de facto definition." [3]

You can publish your code open source, charge for it and still forbid people to sell it or even redistribute the source.

Again, no. The Open Source Definition states that "The license shall not restrict any party from selling or giving away the software" and "The program must include source code, and must allow distribution in source code as well as compiled form."

Note that the term "Open Source" isn't trademarked [3] (YMMV), so you can call pretty much anything you want Open Source (IANAL), but that doesn't mean that anyone else would be likely to agree with you. In much the same way, I can point at the small wooden giraffe on my bookcase and call it a delicious slice of blueberry cheesecake, but you probably wouldn't agree with me and it is unlikely to taste good.

Microsoft once wanted to achieve something similar to what you wrote. But even ten years ago they recognised that their goal wouldn't be recognised as "open source", and so they called their program "shared source." [4]

"Open Source" is not a license. GPL, BSD, MIT, Apache etc. are all open source licenses with very different rules.

This is true as far as it goes (although the use of "very" is certainly arguable), and it is even worth remarking that open source licenses are often mutually-incompatible. However open source licenses all have certain features in common [1], and when talking about these commonalities, it is not unreasonable to use the phrase "open source license" rather than writing "GPL, BSD, MIT, Apache etc." each and every time.

[1] http://www.opensource.org/osd.html

[2] http://www.opensource.org/

[3] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open-source_software#Definition...

[4] http://www.microsoft.com/resources/sharedsource/default.mspx

You are right, very good points.

So maybe I was wrong but I dealt with open source earlier than the OSI came up with the definition. What they call "Open Source" is more "Free (as in freedom, libre) Software" to me.

I guess my definition is outdated but I still feel "Open Source" should just mean, well... open source :) What's the difference between "Free Software" and "Open Source" as coined by OSI?

APL/MIT/BSD/GPL are open source. GPL is the only free software though.

This is not the case. GPL is the only strong copyleft license of those, but they are all free software licenses according to the FSF (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_FSF_approved_software_l...).

Actually, free software as defined by the FSF is any software licensed such that you can use it, modify the source, redistribute it, and redistribute changed copies of it.

See http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html and the (long) list of free software licenses http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html

http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.h...

Microsoft came up with the term "shared source" to describe "you can look at the source but you have no rights to modify or redistribute it."

There isn't one. The only difference is who's ego you stroke ESR(Open Source), or RMS(Free Software).

From the history of the OSI:

The conferees decided it was time to dump the moralizing and confrontational attitude that had been associated with "free software" in the past and sell the idea strictly on the same pragmatic, business-case grounds that had motivated Netscape.

The only difference is marketing not substance.

He's right for values of "open source" defined by the OSI.

However, you need to do more than they have done if you want to clearly and unambiguously define a phrase, especially one that has legal and commercial implications. You need to make everyone in the world agree on the definition and refrain from using it in any other way. That hasn't happened yet, except perhaps for those within the industry.

As Richard Stallman says:

http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.h...

If he doesn't agree with the OSI definition, I think that we can agree that it is not universally accepted.

The FSF are even stronger than the OSI on the point that people must also have the freedom to charge for the software if they want:

  Many people believe that the spirit of the GNU Project 
  is that you should not charge money for distributing 
  copies of software, or that you should charge as little 
  as possible — just enough to cover the cost. This is a
  misunderstanding. Actually, we encourage people who
  redistribute free software to charge as much as they 
  wish or can.

-- http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/selling.html

"You can publish your code open source, charge for it and still forbid people to sell it or even redistribute the source." - Microsoft tried to call such a strategy open source; this was widely rejected and the approach was called "source under glass".

Open source philosophy:

- If you are given the binaries, you are also given the source.

- You may modify the source to your liking.

- You may distribute the source or a compiled version of it at will.

Note it says nothing about licensing of mods and even the distribution. Each license is actually tackling how modifications and dependencies are treated.

Nothing in the philosophy says you cannot sell it. At all. Nor in any os license.

Remember the first analogy Stalman says: Free software: "Think Free as in Free Speech, not Free as in Free Beer."

That's the free software philosophy, not the open source philosophy. Stallman makes a big deal about separating them so that people won't confuse the two, as apparently you have. https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-software-for-freedom.htm...

"not the open source philosophy"

It doesn't matter what the philosophy is, it matters what the laws says and what it allows you to do. Many companies don't want you to resell their products on ebay (their philosophy). However, the first sale doctrine says something different (the law).

So while you may not like someone re-packaging and re-selling open source software, as long as they are following the license, there isn't much you can do about it.

Your main point is true, but I'd like to point out that copyright circumvents the first-sale doctrine. You're not allowed to copy and distribute works that you own, if you don't have a copyright license for the material.

Disregarding all the banter about what "open source" means -there are separate issues at hand.

One is the actual license terms the older versions were distributed under. Those matter.

Another is how the project itself was run, specifically how copyright assignment worked. If contributors were required to assign copyright to the project maintainer (or whatever) in order to commit to his main branch, as is the case with many projects, then he can likely do whatever he wants in terms of re-licensing. If that wasn't addressed clearly, there might be wiggle room for closing it off - contributors may have some kind of copyright claim if their work was taken and used under terms they didn't agree to.

Another is PR - that one is obvious.

As for the "Open source means you give back" - let's get over it - that's not what it was originally about - you have no "duty" to contribute - it's just a fantastic, common side effect that lots of people like to take advantage of.

End of story - if you are contributing code to someone elses project, be sure you understand where you sit in terms of copyright.

To my knowledge, the source to the 1.3.x release isn't public. I wonder whether it's a complete rewrite from scratch or whether 1.3.x still contains patches from external contributors and whether they agreed that their work be sold for money.

Your knowledge is incorrect. The 1.3.0 source is available[0], and 1.3.1 should be soon[1], they have not dumped them in the public repository is all.

> I wonder whether it's a complete rewrite from scratch or whether 1.3.x still contains patches from external contributors and whether they agreed that their work be sold for money.

I'm not sure that has any relevance. It would if Growl had changed its license (they have to agree to license changes to their contributions, unless they ceded their copyright to the project or project owner), but selling the product is independent of that. It can be seen as a dick move, but it's still independent.

[0] http://code.google.com/p/growl/source/detail?r=9831a92b05b20...

[1] http://groups.google.com/group/growldiscuss/msg/0793d15920fa...

And the 1.3.1 source has now been added to the public repository.

They agreed that their work would be sold for money when they contributed to a BSD licensed project. If they cared, they could release their patches.

BSD is irrelevant here. If it was a GPLv3 licenced work it could still be sold. The agreeded to their work begin sellable when they contributed to an open source project.

That is correct. The only difference a GPL license would make is that Growl would be forced to release the source code for any version that they sell. And that they wouldn't be able to sell it through the App Store.

It's not public yet but as per their BSD licence terms they will be releasing it. This, according to http://www.macworld.com/article/162208/2011/10/growl_shows_t...

You are confusing open source and free. You don't have the right to redistribute open source software. Free software guarantees this right.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com