Hacker News Reader

Comment by gabemart | Hacker News Reader

> I suppose being open source doesn't stop you from giving user licenses for money, though. True, people can just use your program by violating your license.

I don't follow your argument here. To qualify as "Open Source" rather than "source available", people have to be free to modify and redistribute the source code. So even if you charge for a license, there's nothing to stop the first licensee redistributing for free. In other words, if it's open source, people can use the program for free without violating your license.

View on HN

But most people are not interested in the source code, they'd like to get a binary.

Seems to work for XChat: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XChat#Shareware_controversy

Except that, also for XChat, there will be people providing these binaries for free because the software is open source and they are not violating the license by redistribution for free.

I can give you my source code and allow you to change it, but if you want to execute a compiled result of that source code I can still ask you to pay me for it. And while there is no physical thing stopping you from executing the binary without my permission, I think you would still be unlikely to do so, if you know how much work I've put into it and you know that I would like you to give me a few bucks. I'd trust you that far even without knowing you. That's what I want to say.

You can do that, but it wouldn't be considered "open source" by most people, or by the OSI.

http://opensource.org/osd-annotated

> The program must include source code, and must allow distribution in source code as well as compiled form.

...

> The license must allow modifications and derived works, and must allow them to be distributed under the same terms as the license of the original software.

...

> The license must explicitly permit distribution of software built from modified source code.

And "physical things stopping you" from running/distributing software are pretty much irrelevant/nonexistent always, this is all about legal restrictions and licensing, not physical things.

Your quotes say "distribution", not "except execution"

distribution in source code as well as compiled form. distribution of software _built from_.

Or you're saying it could be considered an open source license if it allowed people to distribute, but not run, executable binaries? Yeah, I don't think most people would consider that open source.

    "...but if you want to execute a compiled result of that source code I can still ask you to pay me for it."

morally: yes. Legally? I don't think that there is a law (German law is the one that I know a bit) that allows you restrict the usage of a piece of software.

When you buy a game on Steam, what kind of license do you buy? I think it's a license that allows you to play the game, i.e., use the binary. But I'm certainly not a lawyer.

Licenses are to my knowledge always part of copying, not of executing. That is: you may download a game to your computer, if you've got the permission. But Steam cannot tell you that you are only allowed to run the game on wednesdays.

If you buy a cookbook, you don't need a separate license to execute the recipes.

I have not looked in over a year, but the Steam licenses used to be very careful about avoiding the word, "buy", altogether and instead used the word, "rent".

Yes this always got me about the, "free as in free speech, not as in free beer" argument. Ok, so technically it's only, "free as in free speech" but in practicality it's also, "free as in free beer".

There has been a few pieces of software distributed in this way over the years. I've always thought there might be something to it, as I myself would find it easier to pay for free software than for non-free.

It's quite popular in the Android space, where many publish source code on github but distribute free software binaries on Play Store for pay. Somehow it doesn't seem to have catched on for desktop software, although I suspect some of the pay-for-support free software is in fact organizations who aren't really interested in the support agreements per se.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com