4 ms·

So the rule is never to reply to a throwaway account. But what a load of entitled crap is this?!! There is a way to do it, you just don't want to figure it out

So the rule is never to reply to a throwaway account. But what a load of entitled crap is this?!! There is a way to do it, you just don't want to figure it out. You want to FORCE them to figure it out for you. BooHoo. Again, this is a commercial product, that they open sourced. Their commitment was to release the source. They then additionally went thru the step of providing free services ( free binaries, open support system, etc ). This has not worked out for them, they also need to run as a business. They are still giving you ALL of the source. RedHat went thru a similar period, and in all honesty, was the only thing that saved them as a company. If a Centos projects comes out of this, awesome. if XCP ( Xen Cloud Platform ) comes back as a volunteer project, awesome too! "Opensource" is about many things. But to me, and many others, one of the early core tenements has been that the users of a product help out in some way. It doesn't mean you get to whine your way into others doing free work for you.

slededit 9y ago
The GPL anticipated this sort of thing which is why it required not just the source code to be released but all the build scripts and ancillary documentation required to actually use the source code. If they didn't incorporate anyone else's GPL code then they aren't in breach but its still a bait and switch.
- plam503711 9y ago
  It's using massively GPLv2 code from everywhere (plus XAPI and Xen are Linux foundation projects!). GPL compliance requires you to provide build scripts.
  - slededit 9y ago
    We just need one of the copyright holders to force the issue then.
    - plam503711 9y ago
      I wouldn't go this way, personally (David vs Goliath). At least, not after exploring almost all other options.
plam503711 9y ago
Hey listen, I'm living selling an Open Source product. So I know a bit how it works and what business means. There is a gap between not posting a doc and having no way to build it because it uses internal Citrix URL to the dependencies. I'll will try to figure it out by myself, but I suppose you have no idea regarding the huge task it is. This is not a normal situation: you can't brag you are open source but avoid people to build it themselves (that's what happening actually). You need to be clear about that. I have no problem if they remove the sources, at least the message is clear. But telling it's Open Source without providing something you can actually build IS the problem.

slededit 9y ago

The GPL anticipated this sort of thing which is why it required not just the source code to be released but all the build scripts and ancillary documentation required to actually use the source code. If they didn't incorporate anyone else's GPL code then they aren't in breach but its still a bait and switch.

plam503711 9y ago
It's using massively GPLv2 code from everywhere (plus XAPI and Xen are Linux foundation projects!). GPL compliance requires you to provide build scripts.
- slededit 9y ago
  We just need one of the copyright holders to force the issue then.
  - plam503711 9y ago
    I wouldn't go this way, personally (David vs Goliath). At least, not after exploring almost all other options.

plam503711 9y ago

Hey listen, I'm living selling an Open Source product. So I know a bit how it works and what business means. There is a gap between not posting a doc and having no way to build it because it uses internal Citrix URL to the dependencies. I'll will try to figure it out by myself, but I suppose you have no idea regarding the huge task it is. This is not a normal situation: you can't brag you are open source but avoid people to build it themselves (that's what happening actually). You need to be clear about that. I have no problem if they remove the sources, at least the message is clear. But telling it's Open Source without providing something you can actually build IS the problem.