7 ms·

Note: This licensing is really unclear and problematic. https://twitter.com/charlesforman/status/909863346127671296 https://twitter.com/charlesforman/status/90

Note: This licensing is really unclear and problematic. https://twitter.com/charlesforman/status/909863346127671296 https://twitter.com/charlesforman/status/909863346127671296 https://wonderunit.com/thoughts-on-free-and-open-source/ https://wonderunit.com/thoughts-on-free-and-open-source/

setpixel 9y ago
Why is it problematic? I think I lay my thoughts out pretty clearly.
- opensourcenews 9y ago
  Because open source has a very specific definition which the licensing on this application does not conform to. The ability to produce derived works is a key attribute of open source. And I understand that these are your thoughts, but what I'm looking for is a clear and legally enforceable license, which seems to still be missing.
  - setpixel 9y ago
    Why would you downvote my comment?
  - aviflombaum 9y ago
    I would love to know the very specific definition of open source you are referring too. I believe there are multiple very specific definitions that are drastically different, from Stallman's "Free Software" to "Open Source" to "Creative Commons" and the flavors in-between. The proliferation of Open Source Licenses seems to suggest that it's not as clear as your myopic viewpoint suggests. "The ability to produce derived works is a key attribute of open source." Where did you get that gem from? "but what I'm looking for is a clear and legally enforceable license, which seems to still be missing." As far as I know the only OS License that has been deemed enforceable is GNU General Public License. It's free software and the code is viewable, what's so hard to understand?
    - opensourcenews 9y ago
      > Where did you get that gem from? From the open source definition: https://opensource.org/osd https://opensource.org/osd > As far as I know the only OS License that has been deemed enforceable is GNU General Public License. The OSI recognizes a number of different licenses, as do the attorneys of the numerous individuals and companies making use of them. > It's free software It's not, unless I have a legal right to redistribute a modified copy. "Open source" and "free software" both have requirements to meet their respective definitions. And additonally, "source is viewable" is not the same thing as a license.
      - aviflombaum 9y ago
        OpenSource.org doesn't own the definition of "Open Source." It's a concept and idea interpreted and implemented by lots of people in different ways meaning different things. No one gets to "own" what open source means. But, in their definition: "The license must allow modifications and derived works, and must allow them to be distributed under the same terms as the license of the original software." All that says is that derived works are allowed under the same terms as the original software, which technically could enforce a royalty payment to the original for any derivative, how would that sit with you? You're conflating community and cultural definitions with legal precedents and enforceability. GNU GPL is the only enforceable one in a US (and I think UK) court of law. In the end of the day, what's the argument - you want the software creator to use a LICENSE you approve of or else not call their software release "free" or "open" because you feel that misleading?
        opensourcenews 9y ago
        Literally the purpose of the Open Source Initiative is to provide definition to what open source is and is not, and to prevent openwashing by companies and individuals presenting their non-open software as open source. I'm not going to argue with someone who thinks open source is a feeling subject to their own personal interpretations in lieu of license.
        pessimizer 9y ago
  - Phait 9y ago
    >The ability to produce derived works is a key attribute of open source [Citation oh so needed]
    - newfoundglory 9y ago
      They gave a citation 5 hours ago, perhaps you could read the whole comment thread.
- isaachier 9y ago
  People generally don't want a new license or a modified license. In my experience, software licenses at big organizations are a bereaucratic nightmare. Often, you just want something on the pre-approved list.
- gpm 9y ago
  Well I can't actually find the license, if one even exists. You link to your "Thoughts on Free and Open Source." from the github repo, which gives a reasonable explanation of what you are looking for in a license and why. It concludes > So what I’m thinking based on my experience: > MIT License + The following exceptions: > [...] But I can't find anything saying you've actually released the software under such a license instead of just thinking about it. Ideally the license would reside in a license file in the git repo like is fairly standard these days.
  - fny 9y ago
    Until a license is declared, this is (c) Wonder Unit, All Rights Reserved, which, unless I'm mistaken, is the authors intent for now. From Github on licenses: > You're under no obligation to choose a license. However, without a license, the default copyright laws apply, meaning that you retain all rights to your source code and no one may reproduce, distribute, or create derivative works from your work. If you're creating an open source project, we strongly encourage you to include an open source license.
- yellowapple 9y ago
  To a human, you do. To a lawyer, you do not. That aside, you seem to be conflating "free as in speech" (FOSS) with "free as in beer" (freeware, or how most people treat WinRAR) in some parts of that writeup. Ardour is the usual example of software that's the former without being the latter (you can download the source code for free if you have the know-how to compile it yourself, but a donation is required to download the pre-built direclty-installable binary). It's also problematic for educational institutions even if they happen to be tolerant of a little bit of colorful language here and there. By charging $30 a seat for the "educational" version and wanting to forbid educational institutions from distributing the "free" version, you're punishing the Goonies-tolerant organizations for Goonies-intolerance. Not to mention the need to define what "educational institution" means. Being concerned about preventing others from making money off this ("If we struggle to make it free, you can’t be paid") seems to also run counter to the stated reason for making it free in the first place ("We will make money from creating great stories, not selling overpriced niche software."). There's also the problem of longevity. If Wonder Unit, Inc. goes belly-up, then its non-FOSS storyboard editor does, too. An actually-FOSS license means there's at least some chance of the broader FOSS community keeping it alive, if only so that they can say "well hang on, Linux has awesome creative/multimedia tools, too - and we don't even have to pretend GIMP is one of them anymore". All that said, the MIT license is probably not the right fit for Storyboarder itself (but is certainly a good fit for the underlying libraries; same with the ISC license) based on your criteria. A strict copyleft license - like the GNU GPL - might actually be more up your alley, since it would force anyone hoping to make a buck off your hard work to release their source code and allow others (you included) to do the same and make a buck off their hard work. If they don't comply, sue 'em. Of course, even that one educator's little stunt of cloning your repo and removing all references to Wonder Unit would run afoul of both the MIT and ISC licenses, so you'd still be covered if you took the legal approach to going medieval on his Goonies-intolerant ass. All in all, it doesn't really matter to me (as a Linux-using end user) what license you opt to use for Storyboarder (I use plenty of non-free software day-to-day), as long as there actually is a license so that I know whether or not I'm legally allowed to even use the software (let alone redistribute it, modify it, package it up for a Linux distro's package manager/repositories, etc.). Even with all that aside, though, Storyboarder looks like an amazing tool, and the fact that it works on something that's not running Windows or macOS is a pretty damn big deal. Kudos, and thanks for your hard work. Whatever the license ends up being, it'll be a valuable contribution in that particular niche of "storyboarders who want to use Linux".
- Angostura 9y ago
  You lay out your thoughts, but you don't actually produce a license. I get the feeling that what you want is a 'Free as in beer, not free as in speech' license with user having the ability to suggest changes to source.
- IAmEveryone 9y ago
  https://web.archive.org/web/20180130105751/https://wonderunit.com/thoughts-on-free-and-open-source/ https://web.archive.org/web/20180130105751/https://wonderuni... reads like the output of a text generator trained on two newsgroups: One focussing on conspiracy theories, the other on Open Source licensing. You are obviously trying to underhandedly gain adoption to then turn commercial. It's perfectly fine to give out free versions with restrictions on redistribution and commercial use. Publishing the source code in such an arrangement is even laudable. But it is not Open Source. Those words have meaning, and I have no doubts that you know as much. E ven if not: I assure you that 90%+ of your contributors are under the impression that they are contributing to a FOSS project as it is commonly understood. If you are using the free Github plan, you're also breaking their terms. This is not ok.
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
TAForObvReasons 9y ago
Repo link: https://github.com/wonderunit/storyboarder https://github.com/wonderunit/storyboarder notably no LICENSE field or package.json field
- fny 9y ago
  Which implies all rights are reserved and no one may reproduce, distribute, or create derivative works from the work, which is clearly what the developer wants. He even took the time to let developers know they assign all rights to Wonder Unit when the contribute with a CLA: https://cla-assistant.io/wonderunit/storyboarder https://cla-assistant.io/wonderunit/storyboarder
- albedoa 9y ago
  There was a license field in package.json, but the author claims it was generated automatically and thus does not stand as an explicit license: https://github.com/wonderunit/storyboarder/blob/25a82cc20b014b12f66875a212c7321135b31606/package.json#L25 https://github.com/wonderunit/storyboarder/blob/25a82cc20b01...
fny 9y ago
I think the author is being clear enough: right now it's proprietary freeware, and the degree to which it'll be open source will be decided later.
- opensourcenews 9y ago
  Under what license may I utilize this piece of software?
  - fny 9y ago
    ©Wonder Unit, Inc. All rights reserved. Wonder Unit even has developers sign a CLA agreement assigning all contributions to Wonder Unit (https://cla-assistant.io/wonderunit/storyboarder https://cla-assistant.io/wonderunit/storyboarder) Maybe the author should consider a more explicit proprietary for liability purposes and clarity about revocability, exclusivity, transferability, et al, but for now any user should assume he can choose to do whatever tomorrow and proceed with caution.
  - mbreese 9y ago
    Technically -- without a license, you can't.
ggg9990 9y ago
Yikes, just based on the tone of that Twitter thread I wouldn’t come within 10 feet of this code for fear of interacting with OP.
danso 9y ago
Lack of license has been brought up twice in the Github issues, and closed twice without resolution: https://github.com/wonderunit/storyboarder/issues/567 https://github.com/wonderunit/storyboarder/issues/567 https://github.com/wonderunit/storyboarder/issues/588 https://github.com/wonderunit/storyboarder/issues/588
foxtrottbravo 9y ago
> Well, there is a right-wing religious group called the FOSS. The author must be kidding, right? > But these people think that paid software is the work of the devil. No they don't. To reuse the authors tone: Whuut? Listen Buddy, you're talking nonsense - big time. Even the GNU GPL which repeatedly gets flak for being to "religious" does allow making money of the software projects licensed under the GPL. I'm definitely not a fan of Stallman and there are valid complaints about his religious view on software and valid complaints about the design of certain licenses to be made. But what the author is writing there may very well be his view on FOSS and still be complete and utter BS.

setpixel 9y ago

Why is it problematic? I think I lay my thoughts out pretty clearly.

opensourcenews 9y ago
Because open source has a very specific definition which the licensing on this application does not conform to. The ability to produce derived works is a key attribute of open source. And I understand that these are your thoughts, but what I'm looking for is a clear and legally enforceable license, which seems to still be missing.
- setpixel 9y ago
  Why would you downvote my comment?
- aviflombaum 9y ago
  I would love to know the very specific definition of open source you are referring too. I believe there are multiple very specific definitions that are drastically different, from Stallman's "Free Software" to "Open Source" to "Creative Commons" and the flavors in-between. The proliferation of Open Source Licenses seems to suggest that it's not as clear as your myopic viewpoint suggests. "The ability to produce derived works is a key attribute of open source." Where did you get that gem from? "but what I'm looking for is a clear and legally enforceable license, which seems to still be missing." As far as I know the only OS License that has been deemed enforceable is GNU General Public License. It's free software and the code is viewable, what's so hard to understand?
  - opensourcenews 9y ago
    > Where did you get that gem from? From the open source definition: https://opensource.org/osd https://opensource.org/osd > As far as I know the only OS License that has been deemed enforceable is GNU General Public License. The OSI recognizes a number of different licenses, as do the attorneys of the numerous individuals and companies making use of them. > It's free software It's not, unless I have a legal right to redistribute a modified copy. "Open source" and "free software" both have requirements to meet their respective definitions. And additonally, "source is viewable" is not the same thing as a license.
    - aviflombaum 9y ago
      OpenSource.org doesn't own the definition of "Open Source." It's a concept and idea interpreted and implemented by lots of people in different ways meaning different things. No one gets to "own" what open source means. But, in their definition: "The license must allow modifications and derived works, and must allow them to be distributed under the same terms as the license of the original software." All that says is that derived works are allowed under the same terms as the original software, which technically could enforce a royalty payment to the original for any derivative, how would that sit with you? You're conflating community and cultural definitions with legal precedents and enforceability. GNU GPL is the only enforceable one in a US (and I think UK) court of law. In the end of the day, what's the argument - you want the software creator to use a LICENSE you approve of or else not call their software release "free" or "open" because you feel that misleading?
      - opensourcenews 9y ago
        Literally the purpose of the Open Source Initiative is to provide definition to what open source is and is not, and to prevent openwashing by companies and individuals presenting their non-open software as open source. I'm not going to argue with someone who thinks open source is a feeling subject to their own personal interpretations in lieu of license.
      - pessimizer 9y ago
- Phait 9y ago
  >The ability to produce derived works is a key attribute of open source [Citation oh so needed]
  - newfoundglory 9y ago
    They gave a citation 5 hours ago, perhaps you could read the whole comment thread.
isaachier 9y ago
People generally don't want a new license or a modified license. In my experience, software licenses at big organizations are a bereaucratic nightmare. Often, you just want something on the pre-approved list.
gpm 9y ago
Well I can't actually find the license, if one even exists. You link to your "Thoughts on Free and Open Source." from the github repo, which gives a reasonable explanation of what you are looking for in a license and why. It concludes > So what I’m thinking based on my experience: > MIT License + The following exceptions: > [...] But I can't find anything saying you've actually released the software under such a license instead of just thinking about it. Ideally the license would reside in a license file in the git repo like is fairly standard these days.
- fny 9y ago
  Until a license is declared, this is (c) Wonder Unit, All Rights Reserved, which, unless I'm mistaken, is the authors intent for now. From Github on licenses: > You're under no obligation to choose a license. However, without a license, the default copyright laws apply, meaning that you retain all rights to your source code and no one may reproduce, distribute, or create derivative works from your work. If you're creating an open source project, we strongly encourage you to include an open source license.
yellowapple 9y ago
To a human, you do. To a lawyer, you do not. That aside, you seem to be conflating "free as in speech" (FOSS) with "free as in beer" (freeware, or how most people treat WinRAR) in some parts of that writeup. Ardour is the usual example of software that's the former without being the latter (you can download the source code for free if you have the know-how to compile it yourself, but a donation is required to download the pre-built direclty-installable binary). It's also problematic for educational institutions even if they happen to be tolerant of a little bit of colorful language here and there. By charging $30 a seat for the "educational" version and wanting to forbid educational institutions from distributing the "free" version, you're punishing the Goonies-tolerant organizations for Goonies-intolerance. Not to mention the need to define what "educational institution" means. Being concerned about preventing others from making money off this ("If we struggle to make it free, you can’t be paid") seems to also run counter to the stated reason for making it free in the first place ("We will make money from creating great stories, not selling overpriced niche software."). There's also the problem of longevity. If Wonder Unit, Inc. goes belly-up, then its non-FOSS storyboard editor does, too. An actually-FOSS license means there's at least some chance of the broader FOSS community keeping it alive, if only so that they can say "well hang on, Linux has awesome creative/multimedia tools, too - and we don't even have to pretend GIMP is one of them anymore". All that said, the MIT license is probably not the right fit for Storyboarder itself (but is certainly a good fit for the underlying libraries; same with the ISC license) based on your criteria. A strict copyleft license - like the GNU GPL - might actually be more up your alley, since it would force anyone hoping to make a buck off your hard work to release their source code and allow others (you included) to do the same and make a buck off their hard work. If they don't comply, sue 'em. Of course, even that one educator's little stunt of cloning your repo and removing all references to Wonder Unit would run afoul of both the MIT and ISC licenses, so you'd still be covered if you took the legal approach to going medieval on his Goonies-intolerant ass. All in all, it doesn't really matter to me (as a Linux-using end user) what license you opt to use for Storyboarder (I use plenty of non-free software day-to-day), as long as there actually is a license so that I know whether or not I'm legally allowed to even use the software (let alone redistribute it, modify it, package it up for a Linux distro's package manager/repositories, etc.). Even with all that aside, though, Storyboarder looks like an amazing tool, and the fact that it works on something that's not running Windows or macOS is a pretty damn big deal. Kudos, and thanks for your hard work. Whatever the license ends up being, it'll be a valuable contribution in that particular niche of "storyboarders who want to use Linux".
Angostura 9y ago
You lay out your thoughts, but you don't actually produce a license. I get the feeling that what you want is a 'Free as in beer, not free as in speech' license with user having the ability to suggest changes to source.
IAmEveryone 9y ago
https://web.archive.org/web/20180130105751/https://wonderunit.com/thoughts-on-free-and-open-source/ https://web.archive.org/web/20180130105751/https://wonderuni... reads like the output of a text generator trained on two newsgroups: One focussing on conspiracy theories, the other on Open Source licensing. You are obviously trying to underhandedly gain adoption to then turn commercial. It's perfectly fine to give out free versions with restrictions on redistribution and commercial use. Publishing the source code in such an arrangement is even laudable. But it is not Open Source. Those words have meaning, and I have no doubts that you know as much. E ven if not: I assure you that 90%+ of your contributors are under the impression that they are contributing to a FOSS project as it is commonly understood. If you are using the free Github plan, you're also breaking their terms. This is not ok.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]

TAForObvReasons 9y ago

Repo link: https://github.com/wonderunit/storyboarder https://github.com/wonderunit/storyboarder notably no LICENSE field or package.json field

fny 9y ago
Which implies all rights are reserved and no one may reproduce, distribute, or create derivative works from the work, which is clearly what the developer wants. He even took the time to let developers know they assign all rights to Wonder Unit when the contribute with a CLA: https://cla-assistant.io/wonderunit/storyboarder https://cla-assistant.io/wonderunit/storyboarder
albedoa 9y ago
There was a license field in package.json, but the author claims it was generated automatically and thus does not stand as an explicit license: https://github.com/wonderunit/storyboarder/blob/25a82cc20b014b12f66875a212c7321135b31606/package.json#L25 https://github.com/wonderunit/storyboarder/blob/25a82cc20b01...

fny 9y ago

I think the author is being clear enough: right now it's proprietary freeware, and the degree to which it'll be open source will be decided later.

opensourcenews 9y ago
Under what license may I utilize this piece of software?
- fny 9y ago
  ©Wonder Unit, Inc. All rights reserved. Wonder Unit even has developers sign a CLA agreement assigning all contributions to Wonder Unit (https://cla-assistant.io/wonderunit/storyboarder https://cla-assistant.io/wonderunit/storyboarder) Maybe the author should consider a more explicit proprietary for liability purposes and clarity about revocability, exclusivity, transferability, et al, but for now any user should assume he can choose to do whatever tomorrow and proceed with caution.
- mbreese 9y ago
  Technically -- without a license, you can't.

ggg9990 9y ago

Yikes, just based on the tone of that Twitter thread I wouldn’t come within 10 feet of this code for fear of interacting with OP.

danso 9y ago

Lack of license has been brought up twice in the Github issues, and closed twice without resolution: https://github.com/wonderunit/storyboarder/issues/567 https://github.com/wonderunit/storyboarder/issues/567 https://github.com/wonderunit/storyboarder/issues/588 https://github.com/wonderunit/storyboarder/issues/588

foxtrottbravo 9y ago

> Well, there is a right-wing religious group called the FOSS. The author must be kidding, right? > But these people think that paid software is the work of the devil. No they don't. To reuse the authors tone: Whuut? Listen Buddy, you're talking nonsense - big time. Even the GNU GPL which repeatedly gets flak for being to "religious" does allow making money of the software projects licensed under the GPL. I'm definitely not a fan of Stallman and there are valid complaints about his religious view on software and valid complaints about the design of certain licenses to be made. But what the author is writing there may very well be his view on FOSS and still be complete and utter BS.