5 ms·

Sadly, it is a precious snowflake license (MIT + Custom term) with a very ambiguous custom term: "The Software and/or source code cannot be copied in whole and

by brianm 16y ago

Sadly, it is a precious snowflake license (MIT + Custom term) with a very ambiguous custom term: "The Software and/or source code cannot be copied in whole and sold without meaningful modification for a profit." Great to see it semi-open source, and well within the rights of the author, though :-)

Zev 16y ago
The intent seems clear to me; "You can't build + sell the app on its own. But, if you want to use a part of the code in your own app, go for it."
- itsnotvalid 16y ago
  Build and use is enough for most people. But of course things would be very ambiguous in terms of how much means "meaningful modification".
  - gaustin 16y ago
    Right. What if I make a bunch of publicly released changes* that are then pulled back into the Kod codebase? * Changes that fulfill this "meaningful modification" provision.
    - Zev 16y ago
      My thought[1] is that your changes are your own, do as you please with them. Thats how I would treat it if I intended to do anything with Kod's source code, at least. 1. Please note: I'm very far from being anything that resembles a lawyer.
callahad 16y ago
As per Kod 0.0.2's changelog, the special snowflake license was inspired by this blog post: http://blog.robrhyne.com/post/1043407467/selling-open-source http://blog.robrhyne.com/post/1043407467/selling-open-source
- vog 16y ago
  From that blog post: > You might ask, what essential liberty am I excluding by adding the modification clause? Ironically, nothing. A few sentences later he contradicts that statement by defining what he means by "nothing": > If I charged $15, someone could ask $8 and undercut me with little effort on their part. So he denies to others the freedom to distribute the software, which is an essential part of the Open Source term (as well as the Free Software term, which has essentially the same meaning). Until now, this could have been a plain misunderstanding of the term Open Source. However, a few sentences later the author explains that he deliberately wants to misuse the term Open Source: > Then I’d have to make the choice to either sell [the app on App store] or open-source the app. I wanted to do both. So he wants to claim to do Open Source without actually doing Open Source. This is really unfair on all developers who are really doing Open Source. Note that there is nothing wrong with that business model, but claiming the name "Open Source" for that kind of business is a clear misuse of the term. Open Source has another, well-defined meaning. The author is perfectly right that with any Open Source license, even as restrictive as GPL or AGPL, you can't make a lot of money by selling copies. This is not an accident, but by design! That's why real Open Source developers sell services around their products, such as support, implementation of customer wishes, etc. If he doesn't want to do business that way, it's fine! But then he shouldn't claim to do Open Source.
riffraff 16y ago
woudlnd it be easier to just use CC BY-NC-SA ?
vog 16y ago
So by definition, this is not Open Source. Unfortunately, the author claims to have done so nevertheless: http://groups.google.com/group/kod-app/browse_thread/thread/8bc80d18932f5e99 http://groups.google.com/group/kod-app/browse_thread/thread/... It is a very questionable practice to claim to have produced Free Software / Open Source, when in fact this isn't the case. That's misleading marketing, if not unfair competition. Such practices are especially unfair on the huge number of authors and companies who really produce Open Source software. The terms "Open Source" as well as "Free Software" have a well-defined meaning that includes giving others the right to distribute the software and to make a buck with it. If you don't like that, it's okay. You may still claim to have switched to "more liberal license" or something like that. But you may never claim to have switched to Open Source. That's not okay, because it is a plain lie. I find it especially strange that the reason for this unfair behavior against competitors is to receive more fairness from competitors. That's a clear case of double standards.
- alextgordon 16y ago
  How is this not open source? This is basically an open source licence with an added restriction on commercial use. To my mind, commercial use is completely orthogonal to whether a licence is open source or not. Note that "open source" != "under a OSI or FSF approved licence" and that at no time that I've seen does the developer claim it's "Free Software" (which it certainly isn't, although it does dynamically link a GPL'd library...).
  - vog 16y ago
    > This is basically an open source licence with an added restriction on commercial use. Adding that kind of restriction will make any license a non-OpenSource license. This is not orthogonal but an important aspect. Maybe a failing analogy helps here. From a linguistic point of view, the above is like saying: "Belarus is a democracy, with an added restriction regarding elections." > Note that "open source" != "under a OSI or FSF approved licence" This statement is plain wrong. OSI defined the term Open Source very precisely, so using it to describe non-compliant licenses is a clear misuse of that term. Even Microsoft doesn't do that, despite their power! Instead, they coined an own term to describe their less-restrictive activities: "Shared Source". (And yes, a small minority of Microsoft's Shared Source projects are also Open Source.) So although there are different opinions about which term to prefer, "Open Source" has technically the same meaning as "Free Software". This has been clearly stated by the Open Source movement from the very beginning. In other words, the term Open Source has been designed to be a byword for Free Software. You can find that in the early articles of ESR: http://www.catb.org/~esr/open-source.html http://www.catb.org/~esr/open-source.html Finally, note that this license won't ever be approved by neither OSI nor FSF, because it violates an essential freedom. Of course you can always say: "I don't care about that certain kind of freedom". That's okay. But then you should neither claim to do "Open Source" nor to do "Free Software". That's unfair on all real Open Source developers who grant that freedom.
omouse 16y ago
It's for a non-open-source operating system anyway, who cares ;p

by brianm 16y ago

Zev 16y ago

The intent seems clear to me; "You can't build + sell the app on its own. But, if you want to use a part of the code in your own app, go for it."

itsnotvalid 16y ago
Build and use is enough for most people. But of course things would be very ambiguous in terms of how much means "meaningful modification".
- gaustin 16y ago
  Right. What if I make a bunch of publicly released changes* that are then pulled back into the Kod codebase? * Changes that fulfill this "meaningful modification" provision.
  - Zev 16y ago
    My thought[1] is that your changes are your own, do as you please with them. Thats how I would treat it if I intended to do anything with Kod's source code, at least. 1. Please note: I'm very far from being anything that resembles a lawyer.

callahad 16y ago

As per Kod 0.0.2's changelog, the special snowflake license was inspired by this blog post: http://blog.robrhyne.com/post/1043407467/selling-open-source http://blog.robrhyne.com/post/1043407467/selling-open-source

vog 16y ago
From that blog post: > You might ask, what essential liberty am I excluding by adding the modification clause? Ironically, nothing. A few sentences later he contradicts that statement by defining what he means by "nothing": > If I charged $15, someone could ask $8 and undercut me with little effort on their part. So he denies to others the freedom to distribute the software, which is an essential part of the Open Source term (as well as the Free Software term, which has essentially the same meaning). Until now, this could have been a plain misunderstanding of the term Open Source. However, a few sentences later the author explains that he deliberately wants to misuse the term Open Source: > Then I’d have to make the choice to either sell [the app on App store] or open-source the app. I wanted to do both. So he wants to claim to do Open Source without actually doing Open Source. This is really unfair on all developers who are really doing Open Source. Note that there is nothing wrong with that business model, but claiming the name "Open Source" for that kind of business is a clear misuse of the term. Open Source has another, well-defined meaning. The author is perfectly right that with any Open Source license, even as restrictive as GPL or AGPL, you can't make a lot of money by selling copies. This is not an accident, but by design! That's why real Open Source developers sell services around their products, such as support, implementation of customer wishes, etc. If he doesn't want to do business that way, it's fine! But then he shouldn't claim to do Open Source.

riffraff 16y ago

woudlnd it be easier to just use CC BY-NC-SA ?

vog 16y ago

So by definition, this is not Open Source. Unfortunately, the author claims to have done so nevertheless: http://groups.google.com/group/kod-app/browse_thread/thread/8bc80d18932f5e99 http://groups.google.com/group/kod-app/browse_thread/thread/... It is a very questionable practice to claim to have produced Free Software / Open Source, when in fact this isn't the case. That's misleading marketing, if not unfair competition. Such practices are especially unfair on the huge number of authors and companies who really produce Open Source software. The terms "Open Source" as well as "Free Software" have a well-defined meaning that includes giving others the right to distribute the software and to make a buck with it. If you don't like that, it's okay. You may still claim to have switched to "more liberal license" or something like that. But you may never claim to have switched to Open Source. That's not okay, because it is a plain lie. I find it especially strange that the reason for this unfair behavior against competitors is to receive more fairness from competitors. That's a clear case of double standards.

alextgordon 16y ago
How is this not open source? This is basically an open source licence with an added restriction on commercial use. To my mind, commercial use is completely orthogonal to whether a licence is open source or not. Note that "open source" != "under a OSI or FSF approved licence" and that at no time that I've seen does the developer claim it's "Free Software" (which it certainly isn't, although it does dynamically link a GPL'd library...).
- vog 16y ago
  > This is basically an open source licence with an added restriction on commercial use. Adding that kind of restriction will make any license a non-OpenSource license. This is not orthogonal but an important aspect. Maybe a failing analogy helps here. From a linguistic point of view, the above is like saying: "Belarus is a democracy, with an added restriction regarding elections." > Note that "open source" != "under a OSI or FSF approved licence" This statement is plain wrong. OSI defined the term Open Source very precisely, so using it to describe non-compliant licenses is a clear misuse of that term. Even Microsoft doesn't do that, despite their power! Instead, they coined an own term to describe their less-restrictive activities: "Shared Source". (And yes, a small minority of Microsoft's Shared Source projects are also Open Source.) So although there are different opinions about which term to prefer, "Open Source" has technically the same meaning as "Free Software". This has been clearly stated by the Open Source movement from the very beginning. In other words, the term Open Source has been designed to be a byword for Free Software. You can find that in the early articles of ESR: http://www.catb.org/~esr/open-source.html http://www.catb.org/~esr/open-source.html Finally, note that this license won't ever be approved by neither OSI nor FSF, because it violates an essential freedom. Of course you can always say: "I don't care about that certain kind of freedom". That's okay. But then you should neither claim to do "Open Source" nor to do "Free Software". That's unfair on all real Open Source developers who grant that freedom.

omouse 16y ago

It's for a non-open-source operating system anyway, who cares ;p