5 ms·

I think the downloads are v9 which is still a commercial product. The very stable 9.x release of the software will remain as a supported commercial version.

mindcrime 10y ago
I hate to pick nits too much, but I kinda dislike when people use this kind of phrasing. "Open source" and "commercial" are not antonyms. Something can be both open source and commercial at the same time. RHEL is a good example. I mean, I get the point they're trying to make (I think) but I wish people would be a little more precise when talking about this topic.
- nickpsecurity 10y ago
  I agree. I posted an essay on Schneier's blog countering the false dilemma between open source and proprietary. I'm modifying next version to say "shared source" as "open source" has specific meanings. Yet, many needs can be met with shared-source, proprietary software that are thought to be OSS-only. https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2014/05/friday_squid_bl_424.html#c6051639 https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2014/05/friday_squid_...
  - cyphar 10y ago
    Proprietary and free software are a dichotomy. It's commercial and free software that's a false dichotomy. It doesn't matter if you can "see the source" if you don't have the four freedoms when using the software.
    - nickpsecurity 10y ago
      You can have all of the key freedoms with the restriction that they're paid for. This continues development, maintenance, and support. I'm not speculating as there's software with source available developed through commercial licensing. So, "free as in Stallman" software might be a dichotomy with proprietary but not "free as in free enough for many people." That exists and can flourish further with right mix of organizations, charters, licenses and so on. Just little work in it.
      - cyphar 10y ago
        > You can have all of the key freedoms with the restriction that they're paid for. None of the four essential freedoms mention price. I work for a free software company which sells that software. I don't know what you're referring to. I clearly said that "free and commercial software are a FALSE dichotomy" -- meaning that you can have commercial free software. > So, "free as in Stallman" software might be a dichotomy with proprietary but not "free as in free enough for many people." Again "free as in Stallman" doesn't have anything to do with whether you pay for the software (in fact, he used to sell copies of GNU Emacs for $100). Proprietary software is software that takes away your freedom to use, modify and distribute the software. You can pay for free software and you can pay for proprietary software. But you can't get proprietary software that respects your freedom. That is a dichotomy. Free doesn't refer to price it refers to freedom. Please stop spreading misinformation.
        deleted 10y ago
        [deleted]
        nickpsecurity 10y ago
        "I clearly said that "free and commercial software are a FALSE dichotomy" -- meaning that you can have commercial free software." Oh, I apologize. I clearly misread that exact statement. I bet it's because free, commercial, and false in same sentence almost always are arguing against what you said. That the two can't be combined. Whereas, we're arguing in different ways that they can. I must have skimmed it with my brain jumping right past the actual words to its intuitive guess of what they meant. At least I see how I failed. :) "Proprietary software is software that takes away your freedom to use, modify and distribute the software. You can pay for free software and you can pay for proprietary software" What firms are bringing in billions licensing or selling free software? I need a list of successful companies longer than Red Hat that can compete in both investment and lawsuits with big, proprietary firms. You can sell truly free software but almost nobody will buy it w/ you being super-niche in revenue. Whereas, useful and proprietary software can bring in significant money from customers esp in enterprise or government scenes. The proprietary ones just tend to scheme on customers, disappear, and other stuff. The free ones often aren't developed much, maintained, and so on. My concept is to give you all the freedoms except for free distribution for a given project. You can use, modify, whatever the software as long as you pay the non-profit that develops, maintains, and supports it. You can also re-distribute that to other paying customers of the project. If non-profit stop supporting or distributing it, it goes BSD or Apache immediately per terms of the license or charter. What are you missing other than widespread, free distribution in this model? As in, the availability of freeloaders that rarely contribute crap back. Do note that the project can give free copies in exchange for testing/feedback to get many eyeballs effect. Can also give discounts or free copies to academics to get their improvements. What's left? Seriously, as I'm trying to see how close proprietary, shared source can get to FOSS without loosing the "sustainable, cash flow" part.
B1FF_PSUVM 10y ago
> the downloads are v9 Good catch, thanks. I did read that bit, and promptly overlooked it.

mindcrime 10y ago

I hate to pick nits too much, but I kinda dislike when people use this kind of phrasing. "Open source" and "commercial" are not antonyms. Something can be both open source and commercial at the same time. RHEL is a good example. I mean, I get the point they're trying to make (I think) but I wish people would be a little more precise when talking about this topic.

nickpsecurity 10y ago
I agree. I posted an essay on Schneier's blog countering the false dilemma between open source and proprietary. I'm modifying next version to say "shared source" as "open source" has specific meanings. Yet, many needs can be met with shared-source, proprietary software that are thought to be OSS-only. https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2014/05/friday_squid_bl_424.html#c6051639 https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2014/05/friday_squid_...
- cyphar 10y ago
  Proprietary and free software are a dichotomy. It's commercial and free software that's a false dichotomy. It doesn't matter if you can "see the source" if you don't have the four freedoms when using the software.
  - nickpsecurity 10y ago
    You can have all of the key freedoms with the restriction that they're paid for. This continues development, maintenance, and support. I'm not speculating as there's software with source available developed through commercial licensing. So, "free as in Stallman" software might be a dichotomy with proprietary but not "free as in free enough for many people." That exists and can flourish further with right mix of organizations, charters, licenses and so on. Just little work in it.
    - cyphar 10y ago
      > You can have all of the key freedoms with the restriction that they're paid for. None of the four essential freedoms mention price. I work for a free software company which sells that software. I don't know what you're referring to. I clearly said that "free and commercial software are a FALSE dichotomy" -- meaning that you can have commercial free software. > So, "free as in Stallman" software might be a dichotomy with proprietary but not "free as in free enough for many people." Again "free as in Stallman" doesn't have anything to do with whether you pay for the software (in fact, he used to sell copies of GNU Emacs for $100). Proprietary software is software that takes away your freedom to use, modify and distribute the software. You can pay for free software and you can pay for proprietary software. But you can't get proprietary software that respects your freedom. That is a dichotomy. Free doesn't refer to price it refers to freedom. Please stop spreading misinformation.
      - deleted 10y ago
        [deleted]
      - nickpsecurity 10y ago
        "I clearly said that "free and commercial software are a FALSE dichotomy" -- meaning that you can have commercial free software." Oh, I apologize. I clearly misread that exact statement. I bet it's because free, commercial, and false in same sentence almost always are arguing against what you said. That the two can't be combined. Whereas, we're arguing in different ways that they can. I must have skimmed it with my brain jumping right past the actual words to its intuitive guess of what they meant. At least I see how I failed. :) "Proprietary software is software that takes away your freedom to use, modify and distribute the software. You can pay for free software and you can pay for proprietary software" What firms are bringing in billions licensing or selling free software? I need a list of successful companies longer than Red Hat that can compete in both investment and lawsuits with big, proprietary firms. You can sell truly free software but almost nobody will buy it w/ you being super-niche in revenue. Whereas, useful and proprietary software can bring in significant money from customers esp in enterprise or government scenes. The proprietary ones just tend to scheme on customers, disappear, and other stuff. The free ones often aren't developed much, maintained, and so on. My concept is to give you all the freedoms except for free distribution for a given project. You can use, modify, whatever the software as long as you pay the non-profit that develops, maintains, and supports it. You can also re-distribute that to other paying customers of the project. If non-profit stop supporting or distributing it, it goes BSD or Apache immediately per terms of the license or charter. What are you missing other than widespread, free distribution in this model? As in, the availability of freeloaders that rarely contribute crap back. Do note that the project can give free copies in exchange for testing/feedback to get many eyeballs effect. Can also give discounts or free copies to academics to get their improvements. What's left? Seriously, as I'm trying to see how close proprietary, shared source can get to FOSS without loosing the "sustainable, cash flow" part.

B1FF_PSUVM 10y ago

> the downloads are v9 Good catch, thanks. I did read that bit, and promptly overlooked it.