

Growl fork maintainer banned from Growl mailinglist after fixing bugs - anon1385
http://basementcoders.com/2011/10/episode-47-fork-you-growl-interview-with-perry-metzger/

======
rmc
_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 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.

~~~
eis

      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 you can't sell it, nor does it mean you can sell it at
will or whatever. It just means you can view the source. The term "Open
Source" does not make any claims about monetization, it does not even say
which kind of license is at play.

You can publish your code open source, charge for it and still forbid people
to sell it or even redistribute the source.

"Open Source" is not a license. GPL, BSD, MIT, Apache etc. are all open source
licenses with very different rules. Here's a list of licenses many people
consider "open source licenses":
<http://www.opensource.org/licenses/alphabetical>

Conversely, you can have closed source applications which allow you to
redistribute them or even sell at will. Closed source software is just more
likely to have a license which is very strict about redistribution, that's
all.

~~~
waitwhat
_"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 sell it or even redistribute the source._

Again, no. The Open Source Definition states that "The license shall not
restrict any party from selling or giving away the software" and "The program
must include source code, and must allow distribution in source code as well
as compiled form."

Note that the term "Open Source" isn't trademarked [3] (YMMV), so you can call
pretty much anything you want Open Source (IANAL), but that doesn't mean that
anyone else would be likely to agree with you. In much the same way, I can
point at the small wooden giraffe on my bookcase and call it a delicious slice
of blueberry cheesecake, but you probably wouldn't agree with me and it is
unlikely to taste good.

Microsoft once wanted to achieve something similar to what you wrote. But even
ten years ago they recognised that their goal wouldn't be recognised as "open
source", and so they called their program "shared source." [4]

 _"Open Source" is not a license. GPL, BSD, MIT, Apache etc. are all open
source licenses with very different rules._

This is true as far as it goes (although the use of "very" is certainly
arguable), and it is even worth remarking that open source licenses are often
mutually-incompatible. However open source licenses all have certain features
in common [1], and when talking about these commonalities, it is not
unreasonable to use the phrase "open source license" rather than writing "GPL,
BSD, MIT, Apache etc." each and every time.

[1] <http://www.opensource.org/osd.html>

[2] <http://www.opensource.org/>

[3] [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open-
source_software#Definition...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open-
source_software#Definitions)

[4] <http://www.microsoft.com/resources/sharedsource/default.mspx>

~~~
eis
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?

~~~
mapleoin
APL/MIT/BSD/GPL are open source. GPL is the only free software though.

~~~
archangel_one
This is not the case. GPL is the only strong copyleft license of those, but
they are all free software licenses according to the FSF
([http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_FSF_approved_software_l...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_FSF_approved_software_licenses)).

------
peteforde
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
between a premium version and bait-and-switch that is hard to argue either
way. It's certainly not strange that people are responding to the fact that
this was just dropped on the existing userbase. That pmetzger is getting C+Ds
(has this been confirmed) makes me really uncomfortable — it's not in the
spirit of OSS as I understand it in my gut.

Ultimately, I don't think people will have a problem with paying, and
certainly not such a small amount. It's more the way that it's been thrust
upon us that feels slightly off. Am I right?

Of course, we haven't heard their side of the story yet. I urge you all to
wait before you cast aspersions on them, because they've worked hard on
something many of us have used for years.

~~~
starwed
>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.

------
patrickod
Personally I don't see what people are complaining about here. He took an open
source project, with a licence that permitted it, and made it a commercial
project by adding chances and forming a derivative work. There is no foul play
here.

If someone else wants to fork the project and try and mimic the new commercial
features they're free to do so. Don't expect the original developers to help
you though. They're already set on their own path.

~~~
benatkin
It became popular because it was open source and the community built the brand
recognition. Now he went and took the brand recognition to do something that
the community didn't expect and doesn't approve of.

~~~
hmottestad
So the question is. Can you make a fork and call it "Growl" or would the "new"
growl try to sue the hell out of you?

~~~
patrickod
If you use the latest BSD released version then you're ok. The code is free
for public use. Were you to make it commercial though I think you would be
liable as you would need the explicit permission of the original owner to do
so.

EDIT: It seems after further research the license that was being used
prohibits the name "Growl" being used to promote any derivative works of the
same name without explicit permission from the original owners. [1] -
<http://growl.info/documentation/developer/bsd-license.txt>

~~~
masklinn
> If you use the latest BSD released version then you're ok.

No, I doubt the naming falls under source release. See Firefox.

------
cstuder
Google cache:
[http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:r-VuHzw...](http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:r-VuHzw76A4J:basementcoders.com/2011/10/episode-47-fork-
you-growl-interview-with-perry-
metzger/+http://basementcoders.com/2011/10/episode-47-fork-you-growl-
interview-with-perry-metzger/&hl=de&gl=ch&strip=1)

~~~
buro9
The fork: <https://bitbucket.org/pmetzger/growl/>

------
stephenr
From the article: "One of the biggest problems with this approach, other than
the fact they just pissed off a lot of people who beleive strongly in OSS, is
that Growl is still broken. So you pay your $1.99 and it no workie.
<samuel:jackson>TESTING MOTHER FUCKERS, DO YOU DO IT?</samuel:jackson>"

I happily paid for Growl from the App store, and sure enough it works fine on
both my Lion Macs.

[http://growl.info/documentation/developer/growl-source-
insta...](http://growl.info/documentation/developer/growl-source-install.php)
has instructions on how to Build 1.3 from source.

~~~
elgenie
There don't seem to be publicly visible commits after the 1.3 release, though.
Compare <http://growl.info/documentation/version_history.php> with
<http://code.google.com/p/growl/source/list> : the source of version 1.3.1,
which includes some important-sounding bugfixes, is nowhere to be found.

~~~
masklinn
[http://groups.google.com/group/growldiscuss/msg/0793d15920fa...](http://groups.google.com/group/growldiscuss/msg/0793d15920faf093)

The 1.3 SDK also added Mist[0], which means software does _not_ have to
install Growl itself (and the user does not need Growl) to get Growl
notifications.

The Growl application itself (from the AppStore) essentially becomes a "Growl
Pro", offering users more (and centralized) control over notifications
display.

[0] [http://growl.info/documentation/developer/implementing-
growl...](http://growl.info/documentation/developer/implementing-
growl.php#mist)

------
patio11
The OSS community has always had an uneasy tension between a) for-profit
enterprise which provides most of the man-power and b) anti-commercial poor
adolescents of all ages who simultaneously think that contributing to OSS is a
moral obligation and that the license and copyright assignment they fetishize
includes a "All contributors will be made happy despite their total lack of
business sense" clause, somewhere.

~~~
cousin_it
That sounds uncharitable and is that really true? Linux, Mozilla or Python
don't seem to mostly rely on manpower provided by for-profit companies...

~~~
jbellis
Linux is written almost entirely by employees of for-profit companies:
<http://lwn.net/Articles/451243/>

Many core Python contributors including Guido are employed by companies like
Google to work on it.

Mozilla is, technically, an exception: almost everyone is employed by the
Mozilla corporation, a non-profit by virtue of its lucrative search deal with
Google. Few projects have that luxury.

~~~
celticjames
Something like 40% of Mozilla code is written by community contributors, which
is quite remarkable. How many of those non-employees are paid by someone else
specifically to work on Mozilla I don't know. i.e. I don't know if IBM pays
people to work on Firefox they way they pay people to work on Linux.

------
pacifika
Drama. He only got a one month ban. The mailing list is not community owned so
when subscribers do things that the owners don't like they're free to do
whatever they want. Fork the mailing list.

------
flexterra
Here's an interview with Chris Forsythe, the creator or Growl explaining the
AppStore decision.

[http://thechangelog.com/post/11317828888/episode-0-6-8-growl...](http://thechangelog.com/post/11317828888/episode-0-6-8-growl-
and-open-source-in-the-app-store-wit)

------
bradleyland
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.

~~~
drivebyacct2
How? An open source project goes commercial and someone forks it to keep an
open source derivative going. The system works. I don't see how this is a
lose-lose. If the Growl dev loses users then it just goes to show that it's
not worth paying for. I won't offer my opinion on whether it's worth $2,
especially at this point in the project lifecycle, but you might be able to
guess it.

~~~
bradleyland
I'm speaking from the perspective of community response. If the developer
grows tired of maintaining the application and decides to abandon it, the
community reacts negatively. If the developer grows tired of maintaining the
application, but decides that being paid to do so is sufficient incentive, the
community reacts negatively.

That's negative-negative, or lose-lose from a community response perspective.

