TextMate 2 is not Open Source | Hacker News Reader

TextMate 2 is not Open Source

github.com

3 pointswkherjwehr16 comments

Open source != Free (as in beer) Software. When will people shove that in their head ??

I do not understand: why should I contribute to a project, fix bugs, implement new features and then pay for my own work? It's senseless... P.S.: I don't know how pull request are managed in TM2 project. If the author uses github only as issue tracker, it's another story.

That's what's awesome about free software, last time I checked noone is hitting you with a stick until you do.

It comes off pretty arrogant suggesting that sniping a few bugs or features is comparable to the initial investment to write the suite. I daresay if you contributed a ton to the core it would be provided gratis to you.

Use it. Don't. Whatever.

I'm not arguing about use the product or not, but about the developing/marketing model... I didn't contribute to TM2 and I'm not going to, I'm wondering if anybody else is going to contribute at this point...

Why wouldn't they? If you've paid for something isn't that _more_ incentive to make it badass?

I pay for products/services/whatever when I have no time/competences/will to make them myself.

You could easily have checked this yourself: https://github.com/textmate/textmate

One click. Fork. Done.

As has been adequately demonstrated: TextMate 2, as it stands today, is and shall remain open source. Anyone can compile it or fork it at any time. Furthermore, as it's licensed under GPL3, MacroMates is legally bound to leave the current code open source, and allow anyone to compile and distribute it freely.

Now, if MacroMates decides to create value-added services on top of the GPL3 distribution, and charge for it, it does not in any way make it less an open source project.

http://www.zdnet.com/blog/burnette/gplv3-myth2-you-cant-mix-...

Kudos on not understanding what open source means.

Right. Then Red Hat Enterprise Linux isn't open source either. Neither is Firefox or Thunderbird.

Official binaries available here free to download and install: https://github.com/textmate/textmate/downloads

> That the source is open should be considered a feature analogous to DRM-free music: It allows you to do more with the product!

It is OpenSource. As long as you can compile the code and distribute your own version GPLd

It doesn't _have_ to be GPLed to be open source. There are plenty of other licenses around (BSD, MIT, ISC, ...).

Yes, it is.

Indeed. This headline is entirely misleading. TM2 is being developed under the GPLv3, that means it is not only Open Source, but it is fully Free Software.

The author (or indeed anyone else) may choose to sell binaries, but they cannot include any of the code supplied by other developers under the GPL, unless they also distribute the source.

As the original copyright holders they are entitled to do whatever they like with their code, including releasing derived versions that are not licensed under the GPL v3.

You could make an argument that whatever the final TextMate2 product is, it won't truly be Free Software because there will be differences (however slight) from the code that is available under GPL v3, but as with the Internet, Free Software routes around damage - they can't ever take away the code we have, if they decide to do things we don't like, we can just carry on without them :)

not unless they accepted code from somebody else w/o a copyright assignment.

they accepted code from many persons. i don't think everyone works for them.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com