
7tag Open Source Google Tag Manager Alternative Deleted from GitHub - n3ddy
Yep - all the original code&#x27;s gone and been replaced with a &quot;buy the new product&quot; page...<p>Anyone know where I can get a copy and&#x2F;or is this even allowed? I thought this defeated the purpose of the open source spirit!<p>Original Github URL: https:&#x2F;&#x2F;github.com&#x2F;seventag&#x2F;seventag
======
mveety
Mirror: [https://github.com/tsteur/open-source-tag-
manager](https://github.com/tsteur/open-source-tag-manager) and
[https://github.com/lindsaymacvean/seventag](https://github.com/lindsaymacvean/seventag)

~~~
akerro
Cheers, made it more decentralized.

------
BuuQu9hu
[https://www.softwareheritage.org/](https://www.softwareheritage.org/)
[https://www.githubarchive.org/](https://www.githubarchive.org/)

------
thecolorblue
From a legal standpoint, what is required to "un-open source" a codebase?
Would all of the contributors need to agree?

~~~
slimsag
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 use the code.

That is just for that one user -- at that one revision of code. If you wanted
it such that _nobody_ could use your old codebase -- you'd have to get anyone
who is using that code under said license to legally agree not to use it.

For new revisions of code, assuming a non-copyleft license like BSD, MIT,
etc., you could simply state "we were the original owners of the code,
therefore we no longer license the code under the open source license" and
there is no need for you to distribute that code ever again.

In fact, this is why people can legally sell open-source software made by
someone else -- even if that is ethically wrong to do.

IANAL, and some of the above is light on the details, so take it with a grain
of salt / try not to be too nit-picky at me =)

~~~
Hydraulix989
> "In fact, this is why people can legally sell open-source software made by
> someone else -- even if that is ethically wrong to do."

Why/how is it ethically wrong?

If the license permits commercial sale (GPL, for example), then as long as the
seller abides by the license (by making available a free download to the
source code in the case of GPL, for example), then it is ethically valid
because they aren't violating the license.

If you develop open source software with a license that allows commercial use,
you can't possibly get angry at users who fully abide by the license and
commercialize the software, let alone call them "unethical."

Either you don't distribute your software with a license that explicitly
allows commercial use, or you can't possibly call a commercial user
"unethical."

That's the whole point of a license -- to definitively spell out in an
unambiguous way the legal terms of usage. With GPL, it's not even close to
being a "loophole," that license explicitly allows commercial use.

------
mwexler
Looks 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, but IANAL.

~~~
halfdan
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](http://piwik.org/faq/new-to-piwik/#faq_21984)

~~~
estefan
Don't the piwik team have a copyright on the name? Surely they can prevent
them using the name if they have.

~~~
halfdan
They have a trademark on "Piwik", not on "Piwik PRO".

Have a look at [http://piwik.org/faq/new-to-
piwik/#faq_21984](http://piwik.org/faq/new-to-piwik/#faq_21984) for a more
detailed explanation.

~~~
dx034
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.

------
corobo
It 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.

~~~
mattab
Piwik (open source project & community) and Piwik PRO (one polish company)
used to be related somehow to each other (part of the Piwik core team was
working at Piwik PRO) but this changed drastically in 2016 after some internal
disagreements. As of 2016 there is no Piwik PRO employee working on Piwik or
having commit access, no website access, etc. Piwik the open source project &
team members became fully independant from Piwik PRO. The company is still
buying ads on the homepage and other pages, which can be confusing, but it
helps the Piwik project to sustain operations. More details in
[http://piwik.org/faq/new-to-piwik/faq_21984/](http://piwik.org/faq/new-to-
piwik/faq_21984/)

------
colonelpopcorn
Fork it, fork it all.

