4 ms·

Good for October CMS for trying to make money. Good for Winter CMS for continuing development of the OSS version. This is an example of the system working.

usbline 6y ago
What "system", besides a hostile takeover of a software project?
- SahAssar 6y ago
  Whatever the intentions of any party the result is a OSS codebase splitting in two because they don't agree on the future of the project. That is exactly what is supposed to happen when that problem arises.
  - usbline 6y ago
    This is completely user-hostile and bordering on malware now. Though by your insistence of saying "OSS" I have a feeling you and GP don't actually care about software users, only developers.
    - Sebb767 6y ago
      How? Users [0] are free to either go with October's new direction or switch to WinterCMS, which seems to be fully compatible and a minimal change as of now. Thanks to this, users can now actually choose which way they prefer, instead of being forced in either direction! [0] As in "developers using the CMS"; for actual users of projects based on the CMS, absolutely nothing changes.
      - usbline 6y ago
        Not every user monitors every single goings on with their software. There is also no mention of the software becoming proprietary on the October CMS website. Users shouldn't have to keep tabs on their free software for fear of it becoming proprietary due to a hostile takeover.
        hluska 6y ago
        It mentions their move to paid only on the homepage.
        usbline 6y ago
        Paid doesn't mean proprietary.
        hluska 6y ago
        No, but you could click one link and read a short blog article - the word proprietary is just a few hundred words in. Calling this a hostile takeover is being extremely overdramatic. There was a fork.
    - ludamad 6y ago
      As someone who doesn't own software I buy from major companies, but continues to collectively own old versions of October CMS, I don't feel much malware. There's still a good deal of actual software here.
    - suramya_tomar 6y ago
      Are you talking about the fork or the original project? I agree the original project's move is a bit user hostile as it now requires people to pay immediately if they want to continue receiving updates. However, I don't see how this can be 'bordering on malware' That being said, it is the right of the maintainers to fork the software as allowed by the Open Source license the original code was under. Users now have the choice of paying the original company or using the free version with a new name. I fail to see how this is user-hostile.
- latortuga 6y ago
  What is hostile? If they own the IP they can do whatever they want with it.
  - usbline 6y ago
    Anti-social rationale like that is the reason we're in the societal mess that we're in.
  - moomin 6y ago
    If someone points a gun at you, I doubt you would consider whether or not they owned it before evaluating if their actions were hostile.
- ineedasername 6y ago
  How is it a hostile takeover? One group has decided to continue development in a different direction. Others have decided they want to continue on the current path.
geocrasher 6y ago
I came here to say this. This is the strength of the OSS model! There are a lot of ways that I believe OSS to be flawed (mainly fragmentation) but I'm not a dev and I'm not fixing it so I don't complain. But when I see things like this it makes me realize that there are huge upsides to Open Source licenses that make this possible. Another case in point: CentOS and its new forks that are emerging.
llamataboot 6y ago
I'm not gonna say forking is always the answer, or that it doesn't sometimes suck for the project as a whole when some people go one direction and some people go another, but I'm inclined to agree with the spirit of your comment that the ability to do so is a feature of OSS, not a bug. This is a blog post written from one side (and a side I'm generally more sympathetic to) but no doubt when it is a major break between two factions, especially "founders" versus "maintainers" there are obviously two sides to the story, and the great thing is that one side doesn't always have to "win"
jrochkind1 6y ago
You are expecting that both projects will thrive? Maybe. I'm not familiar with the product, so I couldn't say what the chances are, but it doesn't seem obvious to me in this scenario.

usbline 6y ago

What "system", besides a hostile takeover of a software project?

SahAssar 6y ago
Whatever the intentions of any party the result is a OSS codebase splitting in two because they don't agree on the future of the project. That is exactly what is supposed to happen when that problem arises.
- usbline 6y ago
  This is completely user-hostile and bordering on malware now. Though by your insistence of saying "OSS" I have a feeling you and GP don't actually care about software users, only developers.
  - Sebb767 6y ago
    How? Users [0] are free to either go with October's new direction or switch to WinterCMS, which seems to be fully compatible and a minimal change as of now. Thanks to this, users can now actually choose which way they prefer, instead of being forced in either direction! [0] As in "developers using the CMS"; for actual users of projects based on the CMS, absolutely nothing changes.
    - usbline 6y ago
      Not every user monitors every single goings on with their software. There is also no mention of the software becoming proprietary on the October CMS website. Users shouldn't have to keep tabs on their free software for fear of it becoming proprietary due to a hostile takeover.
      - hluska 6y ago
        It mentions their move to paid only on the homepage.
        usbline 6y ago
        Paid doesn't mean proprietary.
        hluska 6y ago
        No, but you could click one link and read a short blog article - the word proprietary is just a few hundred words in. Calling this a hostile takeover is being extremely overdramatic. There was a fork.
  - ludamad 6y ago
    As someone who doesn't own software I buy from major companies, but continues to collectively own old versions of October CMS, I don't feel much malware. There's still a good deal of actual software here.
  - suramya_tomar 6y ago
    Are you talking about the fork or the original project? I agree the original project's move is a bit user hostile as it now requires people to pay immediately if they want to continue receiving updates. However, I don't see how this can be 'bordering on malware' That being said, it is the right of the maintainers to fork the software as allowed by the Open Source license the original code was under. Users now have the choice of paying the original company or using the free version with a new name. I fail to see how this is user-hostile.
latortuga 6y ago
What is hostile? If they own the IP they can do whatever they want with it.
- usbline 6y ago
  Anti-social rationale like that is the reason we're in the societal mess that we're in.
- moomin 6y ago
  If someone points a gun at you, I doubt you would consider whether or not they owned it before evaluating if their actions were hostile.
ineedasername 6y ago
How is it a hostile takeover? One group has decided to continue development in a different direction. Others have decided they want to continue on the current path.

geocrasher 6y ago

I came here to say this. This is the strength of the OSS model! There are a lot of ways that I believe OSS to be flawed (mainly fragmentation) but I'm not a dev and I'm not fixing it so I don't complain. But when I see things like this it makes me realize that there are huge upsides to Open Source licenses that make this possible. Another case in point: CentOS and its new forks that are emerging.

llamataboot 6y ago

I'm not gonna say forking is always the answer, or that it doesn't sometimes suck for the project as a whole when some people go one direction and some people go another, but I'm inclined to agree with the spirit of your comment that the ability to do so is a feature of OSS, not a bug. This is a blog post written from one side (and a side I'm generally more sympathetic to) but no doubt when it is a major break between two factions, especially "founders" versus "maintainers" there are obviously two sides to the story, and the great thing is that one side doesn't always have to "win"

jrochkind1 6y ago

You are expecting that both projects will thrive? Maybe. I'm not familiar with the product, so I couldn't say what the chances are, but it doesn't seem obvious to me in this scenario.