7tag Open Source Google Tag Manager Alternative Deleted from GitHub
11–20 of 25 posts
Re: 7tag Open Source Google Tag Manager Alternative Deleted from GitHub
#12From a legal standpoint, what is required to "un-open source" a codebase? Would all of the contributors need to agree?
It depends. If you give someone code which has a LICENSE file containing the BSD 3-clause license -- you've given them a license to use that code under the specified terms in the license, i.e. without charge etc. In order to revoke access to the code from that user, you would have to get them to legally agree (i.e. sign something) that says they agree to having their license of that code revoked / that they will not…
For reference, the code in discussion appears to have been released under the GNU Affero General Public License.
Re: 7tag Open Source Google Tag Manager Alternative Deleted from GitHub
#13From a legal standpoint, what is required to "un-open source" a codebase? Would all of the contributors need to agree?
My guess (for what it's worth) is that getting the code off github is not the same as "un-open source" it. Open source, as far as the GPL license is concerned means that anyone that has a copy of the original codebase is allowed to give away copies of this code. I think it's still the case for the part of the code that was on github under the GPL. What do you think? edit : slimsag was quicker
AFAIK, changes to this GPL codebase must be GPL.
Licenses are always complicated, but when I contribute to a project GPL licensed, I expect any changes to be GPL too.
I'm not a lawyer, but studied licenses to understand which projects I can use.
Re: 7tag Open Source Google Tag Manager Alternative Deleted from GitHub
#14Looks like they are calling it Piwik PRO Tag Manager, and the team doing this is the gang trying to provide professional services around the Piwik open source web analytics tool. I can't help but wonder if this is a shot across the bow to gauge reception of taking Piwik out of open source by moving all improvements they create to a commercial license. I presume this is easier or harder depending on the license chosen…
Just to clarify: Piwik is and will remain open source. Piwik PRO is a separate company and has no direct ties with Piwik anymore. Edit: FAQ Item: http://piwik.org/faq/new-to-piwik/#faq_21984
Don't the piwik team have a copyright on the name? Surely they can prevent them using the name if they have.
Re: 7tag Open Source Google Tag Manager Alternative Deleted from GitHub
#15Earlier quoted context omitted.
Just to clarify: Piwik is and will remain open source. Piwik PRO is a separate company and has no direct ties with Piwik anymore. Edit: FAQ Item: http://piwik.org/faq/new-to-piwik/#faq_21984
Don't the piwik team have a copyright on the name? Surely they can prevent them using the name if they have.
They have a trademark on "Piwik", not on "Piwik PRO".
Have a look at http://piwik.org/faq/new-to-piwik/#faq_21984 for a more detailed explanation.
Re: 7tag Open Source Google Tag Manager Alternative Deleted from GitHub
#16Earlier quoted context omitted.
Don't the piwik team have a copyright on the name? Surely they can prevent them using the name if they have.
They have a trademark on "Piwik", not on "Piwik PRO". Have a look at http://piwik.org/faq/new-to-piwik/#faq_21984 for a more detailed explanation.
They would usually have it (you cannot add a word to circumvent trademarks), but they sold a license to Piwik Pro. So there was no intention to avoid the naming issue, rather the opposite.
Re: 7tag Open Source Google Tag Manager Alternative Deleted from GitHub
#17It looks like Piwik has bought or in some other way acquired it and shut it down. Bit of an odd move for an open source company..
Edit: Had this thread open in a tab and forgot to refresh before commenting - Apparently Piwik and Piwik PRO are different companies, despite piwik.org linking to them a lot and them having the exact same logo with a "[pro]" stamp on it. I always figured PRO was the commercial arm of Piwik.
Re: 7tag Open Source Google Tag Manager Alternative Deleted from GitHub
#18Earlier quoted context omitted.
My guess (for what it's worth) is that getting the code off github is not the same as "un-open source" it. Open source, as far as the GPL license is concerned means that anyone that has a copy of the original codebase is allowed to give away copies of this code. I think it's still the case for the part of the code that was on github under the GPL. What do you think? edit : slimsag was quicker
AFAIK, changes to this GPL codebase must be GPL. Licenses are always complicated, but when I contribute to a project GPL licensed, I expect any changes to be GPL too. I'm not a lawyer, but studied licenses to understand which projects I can use.
This would normally be the case, but for small projects with a small number of contributors, they are always free to dual-license their own code, even "retro-actively". Anything that was already released would still be available under GPL, but new edits could in theory be licensed under whatever terms they want, independent of how "derivative" it is. For large open source projects without a copyright assignment clause, this is essentially impossible, but for small projects it's relatively easy, assuming you can track down all the contributors. IANAL.
Re: 7tag Open Source Google Tag Manager Alternative Deleted from GitHub
#19Earlier quoted context omitted.
Don't the piwik team have a copyright on the name? Surely they can prevent them using the name if they have.
They have a trademark on "Piwik", not on "Piwik PRO". Have a look at http://piwik.org/faq/new-to-piwik/#faq_21984 for a more detailed explanation.
Isn't the name Piwik PRO confusing for customers of Piwik? Can I call my company Microsoft PRO? Or can I call my product Windows Pro? I at least can't call it Lindows in the USA, that's for sure.
Re: 7tag Open Source Google Tag Manager Alternative Deleted from GitHub
#20From a legal standpoint, what is required to "un-open source" a codebase? Would all of the contributors need to agree?
I think it's generally not possible to un-open-source something. Once you release it with a properly open source license, that version is released with that license. Otherwise a single person could release something open source, wait for it to become popular and then revoke the open source licensure and cause all kinds of headaches. That said, if you take down the source code and no one has a mirror, barring any othe…
>Otherwise a single person could release something open source, wait for it to become popular and then revoke the open source licensure and cause all kinds of headaches.
Well, you can do that, assuming you're the original copyright holder for all of the original source. It doesn't change the license for the code you already released...but it would for any new features, bug fixes, etc. That appears to be exactly what's happening here.