Growl fork maintainer banned from Growl mailinglist after fixing bugs • Hacker News Board

Re: Growl fork maintainer banned from Growl mailinglist after fixing bugs

#51

Post by stonemetal » Mon, Nov 07, 2011, 2:21 PM UTC

eis wrote: post #30

waitwhat wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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 s…

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 I guess my definition is outdated but I still feel "Open Source" should just mean, well...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?

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.

Re: Growl fork maintainer banned from Growl mailinglist after fixing bugs

#52

Post by cromulent » Mon, Nov 07, 2011, 2:22 PM UTC

eis wrote: post #30

waitwhat wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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 s…

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 I guess my definition is outdated but I still feel "Open Source" should just mean, well...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?

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:

"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”."

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.

Re: Growl fork maintainer banned from Growl mailinglist after fixing bugs

#53

Post by dlikhten » Mon, Nov 07, 2011, 2:24 PM UTC

eis wrote: post #22

rmc wrote: post #7

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 i…

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 yo…

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."

Re: Growl fork maintainer banned from Growl mailinglist after fixing bugs

#54

Post by starwed » Mon, Nov 07, 2011, 2:29 PM UTC

peteforde wrote: post #18

As is so often the case with these sorts of posts, there are several issues being conflated here: 1. Growl authors want to ca$h in 2. Widely reported issues under Lion 3. Legitimate conjecture over rights and ethics for pmetzger's fork and whether it can be called Growl I'd be more than happy to donate (more) to Growl, although I admit that the "suggested upgrade" made me pause. It felt like it crossed that slim line…

>Ultimately, I don't think people will have a problem with paying, and certainly not such a small amount.

Growl use seems to be integrated in several open source projects. I probably would never have gone out of my way to get it -- but, a couple of apps I did want suggested installing growl, and it works quite nicely. (I think Adium is what finally prompted me to install it.)

If for no other reason a fork will appear if growl is not freely available, because a lot of open source projects use it under the assumption that it is available.

Re: Growl fork maintainer banned from Growl mailinglist after fixing bugs

#55

Post by sp332 » Mon, Nov 07, 2011, 2:30 PM UTC

dlikhten wrote: post #53

eis wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 yo…

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…

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...

Re: Growl fork maintainer banned from Growl mailinglist after fixing bugs

#56

Post by mansoor-s » Mon, Nov 07, 2011, 2:31 PM UTC

castewart wrote: post #43

mansoor-s wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"other than the fact they just pissed off a lot of people who beleive strongly in OSS" If they believe so strongly in OSS, they wouldn't use macintosh would they? Nope they don't want to pony up and take out their wallets.

If you want to develop for iOS you have to use a Mac.

no, you don't. You can use a VM

Re: Growl fork maintainer banned from Growl mailinglist after fixing bugs

#57

Post by salvadors » Mon, Nov 07, 2011, 2:35 PM UTC

eis wrote: post #30

waitwhat wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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 s…

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?

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

Re: Growl fork maintainer banned from Growl mailinglist after fixing bugs

#58

Post by bradleyland » Mon, Nov 07, 2011, 3:27 PM UTC

It strikes me that if Growl were to disappear, there would be a chorus of users chiming in that they'd "happily pay for the software" as we usually see with popular free utilities that disappear. Here we have someone who finally decided they wanted to profit from their effort, and we see the flip side. A definitive lose-lose situation.

Re: Growl fork maintainer banned from Growl mailinglist after fixing bugs

#59

Post by Aloisius » Mon, Nov 07, 2011, 4:07 PM UTC

sunnydaynow wrote: post #48

icebraining wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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.

Re: Growl fork maintainer banned from Growl mailinglist after fixing bugs

#60

Post by icebraining » Mon, Nov 07, 2011, 4:46 PM UTC

sunnydaynow wrote: post #48

icebraining wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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.

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.