3 ms·

As is so often the case with these sorts of posts, there are several issues being conflated here: 1. Growl authors want to ca$h in 2. Widely reported issues u

As is so often the case with these sorts of posts, there are several issues being conflated here: 1. Growl authors want to ca$h in 2. Widely reported issues under Lion 3. Legitimate conjecture over rights and ethics for pmetzger's fork and whether it can be called Growl I'd be more than happy to donate (more) to Growl, although I admit that the "suggested upgrade" made me pause. It felt like it crossed that slim line between a premium version and bait-and-switch that is hard to argue either way. It's certainly not strange that people are responding to the fact that this was just dropped on the existing userbase. That pmetzger is getting C+Ds (has this been confirmed) makes me really uncomfortable — it's not in the spirit of OSS as I understand it in my gut. Ultimately, I don't think people will have a problem with paying, and certainly not such a small amount. It's more the way that it's been thrust upon us that feels slightly off. Am I right? Of course, we haven't heard their side of the story yet. I urge you all to wait before you cast aspersions on them, because they've worked hard on something many of us have used for years.

starwed 15y ago
>Ultimately, I don't think people will have a problem with paying, and certainly not such a small amount. Growl use seems to be integrated in several open source projects. I probably would never have gone out of my way to get it -- but, a couple of apps I did want suggested installing growl, and it works quite nicely. (I think Adium is what finally prompted me to install it.) If for no other reason a fork will appear if growl is not freely available, because a lot of open source projects use it under the assumption that it is available.
celticjames 15y ago
3. It's like the Mozilla Firefox vs Debian Iceweasel controversy. Or Redhat vs Centos. The code is open, but the trademarks are copyrighted. If Growl is a trademark and the brand artwork is non-free, then forks can't use it without permission. I kind of respect the choice of Mozilla and Redhat to defend their trademarks because it's partly an issue of quality control and reputation. But I do prefer projects that put branding under a creative commons license. It's closer to the spirit of free software. I suggest the forked Growl choose a new name and put the branding under a free license.

starwed 15y ago

>Ultimately, I don't think people will have a problem with paying, and certainly not such a small amount. Growl use seems to be integrated in several open source projects. I probably would never have gone out of my way to get it -- but, a couple of apps I did want suggested installing growl, and it works quite nicely. (I think Adium is what finally prompted me to install it.) If for no other reason a fork will appear if growl is not freely available, because a lot of open source projects use it under the assumption that it is available.

celticjames 15y ago

3. It's like the Mozilla Firefox vs Debian Iceweasel controversy. Or Redhat vs Centos. The code is open, but the trademarks are copyrighted. If Growl is a trademark and the brand artwork is non-free, then forks can't use it without permission. I kind of respect the choice of Mozilla and Redhat to defend their trademarks because it's partly an issue of quality control and reputation. But I do prefer projects that put branding under a creative commons license. It's closer to the spirit of free software. I suggest the forked Growl choose a new name and put the branding under a free license.