8 ms·

Sublime, last time I used it, had a nag window every x saves(?) if unlicensed, which I'm sure encouraged a lot of people to pay. I doubt so many users would con

Sublime, last time I used it, had a nag window every x saves(?) if unlicensed, which I'm sure encouraged a lot of people to pay. I doubt so many users would convert if it was totally open source and they could easily install a nag-free build.

carussell 9y ago
Just because the code might be opened up doesn't mean the nagware would have to go away. One underlooked option is to keep it and release under GPL. It's not well known, but GPL more or less protects nag screens. No one would be able to patch and distribute modified versions for the express purpose of disabling the nag screen without violating the license. The author would be able to sell his or her own builds without the nag screen, just like today.
- nilliams 9y ago
  Nice in theory but in reality, top Google result for 'no nag sublime' would be a snippet of how to git clone and patch out the nag, widely distributed from day one. At least with current ST the 'tutorials' for this tend to involve hex editors or scripts that can be quietly subverted by the author.
  - carussell 9y ago
    Sure. And how much of a dent in revenue to the author would this lead to? Keep in mind the context of this conversation is a conjecture that Sublime's nag screen led to purchases out of convenience for the users making those payments (who could've easily patched the binaries but didn't). Disagree with that premise if you want, but if so, clarify that you're doing that.
    - nilliams 9y ago
      Huh, I started that premise and I'm continuing to argue it. You might be thrown off by HN's busted comment nesting. If my last comment wasn't clear, I think the dent in revenue would be considerable for fully open-sourcing Sublime as it would make it too easy for people to patch out the nag.
      - carussell 9y ago
        Distributing those patches would be against the license. I'm looking for any indication that the set of people willing to a) download a patch; and b) use tools to apply it on their own; and c) build it; and d) be unmoved about the ethical implications of the whole thing; is at all significantly larger than the set of people willing to open a hex editor to poke at some bytes for the same purpose. > Huh, I started that premise and I'm continuing to argue it. You might be thrown off by HN's busted comment nesting. I'm asking that your argument is internally consistent—that you're not trying to advance some thought, and the backtrack to a position where you advance another one that's at odds with the original. I don't see how this suggests that there's confusion about how to read threaded comments.
        deleted 9y ago
        [deleted]
        deleted 9y ago
        [deleted]
- dragonwriter 9y ago
  > It's not well known, but GPL more or less protects nag screens What provision of the GPL, specifically, provides this supposed protection?
  - carussell 9y ago
    Sections 1 and 2 of GPLv2.
    - dragonwriter 9y ago
      Section 1 is the verbatim copies permission, section 2 merely requires your derived version to have an appropriate copyright notice (and the creator of a derivative work is the copyright owner of the derivative), not to preserve the pre-existing copyrigut notice of the original one, much less to include any other information besides a notice of copyright that might appear in a pre-existing a "nag screen". So, no, it doesn't protect nag screens at all.
      - carussell 9y ago
        I'm not sure why you think your slanted summary is a better argument than what the license actually says. If it supports your position, just point to the text of the license itself where that support comes from. Your words are not an adequate substitute. > Section 1 is the verbatim copies permission, section 2 merely requires [...] To clarify an important point of fact: Section 2 is additive. It builds upon the terms enumerated in Section 1. You only get to exercise the right to make modifications if you satisfy the extended provisions from Section 2 on top of your obligations from Section 1. To wit, Section 2 allows you to "distribute such modifications or work under the terms of Section 1 above, provided that you also meet all of these conditions". That is, you cannot perform actions under Section 2 without also fulfilling your obligations from Section 1. > not to preserve the pre-existing copyrigut notice of the original one This is not true. It would be true if the GPLv2 required that you merely maintain some form of fair attribution. But that's not what it says. You are obligated under Section 1 to "keep intact all the notices that refer to this License". (And you are not allowed under Section 2 to shirk your obligations from Section 1. See above.) If the original author includes a notice as simple as, "This copy of Sublime Text Community Edition is based upon Sublime Text Pro and made available to you under the GNU General Public License, version 2", then no provision of the license permits you to distribute modifications where you've replaced the notice with one of your own, even if you think it's fair. Anyone getting away with this today is only able to do so in cases where the original author is looking the other way because the downstream modifications are more or less in the spirit of the license, even if they aren't technically following it to the letter. That GPLv2 allows for this should not even be surprising—it's similar to the philosophy behind including provisions for Invariant Texts in the GFDL. It's only if you view things through the hazy lens of history where licenses like Creative Commons have shown up and maybe distorted one's general understanding that this comes off as unexpected. Finally: I constantly find that I want to kick myself when I get involved in licensing discussions here that deal in anything other than the most blunted, obvious aspects of FOSS licensing. So this will be my last comment in this thread.
- sangnoir 9y ago
  > No one would be able to patch and distribute modified versions for the express purpose of disabling the nag screen without violating the license This is wrong - the GPL only requires that the source code of the modified versions be made available. The nag text could be put in the license notice text itself (the original license should be preserved in modified versions), but that might change the license from GPL to GPL-based/GPL-compat. IANAL.
- sangnoir 9y ago
  > No one would be able to patch and distribute modified versions for the express purpose of disabling the nag screen without violating the license This is wrong - the GPL only requires that the source code of the modified versions be made available.
rodorgas 9y ago
A custom license may forbid nagware removal. It would make forks impractical while granting SublimeHQ benefit from contributions.

carussell 9y ago

Just because the code might be opened up doesn't mean the nagware would have to go away. One underlooked option is to keep it and release under GPL. It's not well known, but GPL more or less protects nag screens. No one would be able to patch and distribute modified versions for the express purpose of disabling the nag screen without violating the license. The author would be able to sell his or her own builds without the nag screen, just like today.

nilliams 9y ago
Nice in theory but in reality, top Google result for 'no nag sublime' would be a snippet of how to git clone and patch out the nag, widely distributed from day one. At least with current ST the 'tutorials' for this tend to involve hex editors or scripts that can be quietly subverted by the author.
- carussell 9y ago
  Sure. And how much of a dent in revenue to the author would this lead to? Keep in mind the context of this conversation is a conjecture that Sublime's nag screen led to purchases out of convenience for the users making those payments (who could've easily patched the binaries but didn't). Disagree with that premise if you want, but if so, clarify that you're doing that.
  - nilliams 9y ago
    Huh, I started that premise and I'm continuing to argue it. You might be thrown off by HN's busted comment nesting. If my last comment wasn't clear, I think the dent in revenue would be considerable for fully open-sourcing Sublime as it would make it too easy for people to patch out the nag.
    - carussell 9y ago
      Distributing those patches would be against the license. I'm looking for any indication that the set of people willing to a) download a patch; and b) use tools to apply it on their own; and c) build it; and d) be unmoved about the ethical implications of the whole thing; is at all significantly larger than the set of people willing to open a hex editor to poke at some bytes for the same purpose. > Huh, I started that premise and I'm continuing to argue it. You might be thrown off by HN's busted comment nesting. I'm asking that your argument is internally consistent—that you're not trying to advance some thought, and the backtrack to a position where you advance another one that's at odds with the original. I don't see how this suggests that there's confusion about how to read threaded comments.
      - deleted 9y ago
        [deleted]
      - deleted 9y ago
        [deleted]
dragonwriter 9y ago
> It's not well known, but GPL more or less protects nag screens What provision of the GPL, specifically, provides this supposed protection?
- carussell 9y ago
  Sections 1 and 2 of GPLv2.
  - dragonwriter 9y ago
    Section 1 is the verbatim copies permission, section 2 merely requires your derived version to have an appropriate copyright notice (and the creator of a derivative work is the copyright owner of the derivative), not to preserve the pre-existing copyrigut notice of the original one, much less to include any other information besides a notice of copyright that might appear in a pre-existing a "nag screen". So, no, it doesn't protect nag screens at all.
    - carussell 9y ago
      I'm not sure why you think your slanted summary is a better argument than what the license actually says. If it supports your position, just point to the text of the license itself where that support comes from. Your words are not an adequate substitute. > Section 1 is the verbatim copies permission, section 2 merely requires [...] To clarify an important point of fact: Section 2 is additive. It builds upon the terms enumerated in Section 1. You only get to exercise the right to make modifications if you satisfy the extended provisions from Section 2 on top of your obligations from Section 1. To wit, Section 2 allows you to "distribute such modifications or work under the terms of Section 1 above, provided that you also meet all of these conditions". That is, you cannot perform actions under Section 2 without also fulfilling your obligations from Section 1. > not to preserve the pre-existing copyrigut notice of the original one This is not true. It would be true if the GPLv2 required that you merely maintain some form of fair attribution. But that's not what it says. You are obligated under Section 1 to "keep intact all the notices that refer to this License". (And you are not allowed under Section 2 to shirk your obligations from Section 1. See above.) If the original author includes a notice as simple as, "This copy of Sublime Text Community Edition is based upon Sublime Text Pro and made available to you under the GNU General Public License, version 2", then no provision of the license permits you to distribute modifications where you've replaced the notice with one of your own, even if you think it's fair. Anyone getting away with this today is only able to do so in cases where the original author is looking the other way because the downstream modifications are more or less in the spirit of the license, even if they aren't technically following it to the letter. That GPLv2 allows for this should not even be surprising—it's similar to the philosophy behind including provisions for Invariant Texts in the GFDL. It's only if you view things through the hazy lens of history where licenses like Creative Commons have shown up and maybe distorted one's general understanding that this comes off as unexpected. Finally: I constantly find that I want to kick myself when I get involved in licensing discussions here that deal in anything other than the most blunted, obvious aspects of FOSS licensing. So this will be my last comment in this thread.
sangnoir 9y ago
> No one would be able to patch and distribute modified versions for the express purpose of disabling the nag screen without violating the license This is wrong - the GPL only requires that the source code of the modified versions be made available. The nag text could be put in the license notice text itself (the original license should be preserved in modified versions), but that might change the license from GPL to GPL-based/GPL-compat. IANAL.
sangnoir 9y ago
> No one would be able to patch and distribute modified versions for the express purpose of disabling the nag screen without violating the license This is wrong - the GPL only requires that the source code of the modified versions be made available.

rodorgas 9y ago

A custom license may forbid nagware removal. It would make forks impractical while granting SublimeHQ benefit from contributions.