5 ms·

Interesting that you say this because that is what I was thinking. Giving away the source, but not dependencies, makefile, etc. Another possible model: - Sour

Interesting that you say this because that is what I was thinking. Giving away the source, but not dependencies, makefile, etc. Another possible model: - Source (stripped) = free - Source + dependencies and build instructions = small donation/contribution. - Binaries = larger donation/contribution to save the hassle.

deleted 14y ago
[deleted]
justincormack 14y ago
This is not allowed under the GPL, which he is using.
- jason_slack 14y ago
  good point. I wasn't trying to imply this was allowed, just another possible model depending upon circumstance.
- A1kmm 14y ago
  If the author owns copyright on every line of code used to make the binary, they can do what they like with it without need for a license. However, if there is other GPLd software in there, and they are relying on the GPL to be able to distribute it, then you are right, they need to comply with the GPL requirement to distribute everything needed to build it (Makefiles etc...). Disclaimer: IANAL, this is not legal advice.
- simonbrown 14y ago
  Is it? From my understanding, he only needs to give the full source (with a GPL license) to people he's distributing the binaries to.
  - jasonlotito 14y ago
    Only if the binaries are released under the GPL.
- jules 14y ago
  Sure it is. Under the GPL you are not allowed to distribute a binary without also distributing the source and dependencies. But it is fine to distribute the source code without bundled dependencies.
  - koenigdavidmj 14y ago
    The problem is that you also need to supply the dependencies that you used to build it (makefiles and such).
    - jules 14y ago
      Certainly. I'm not saying it's a viable business model. As I mentioned elsewhere in this thread, one person could even buy the pre-built binaries and freely redistribute them. The GPL allows this. However the parent is still factually wrong.
    - zem 14y ago
      not to people to whom he's not distributing a binary
      - georgemcbay 14y ago
        But once he distributes them to one person who gets the binary that person can distribute them freely to everyone else.
        zem 14y ago
        and he's perfectly fine with that
- nothacker 14y ago
  Even though this is incorrect, I agree that this seems to totally violate the spirit of GPL which is meant to be used with free software. It's one thing to open source your code and have people donate to get support and fund development. It's quite another to charge for binaries. Others can just redistribute your binaries instead of you, so what is the point? Also, you are open sourcing and GPL'ing it, and yet you won't follow through and actually provide the built code- that's just shooting yourself in both feet. But, you have to appreciate the fact that he did open source it and that he is trying to make money off of it.
Animus7 14y ago
The reason this has no chance of working with open source software is the same reason DRM doesn't work. If you cripple your version of the software, the next guy to figure out how to uncripple it will release his version, and everyone moves over to that. And your deliberately broken version dies the death it deserves. That's on top of the fact that breaking your software deliberately until someone pays is pretty much the opposite of FOSS philosophy anyway.
- jason_slack 14y ago
  Good point. There are surely ways around all the ways to distribute the IP under this model.
- redthrowaway 14y ago
  Or you could make it compile fine and ask for a nominal donation for the binaries. For those who are willing to give up a couple bucks for the convenience and to show their support, it might be an attractive option. I can't say it'll work but it's nice to see people experimenting with new monetization schemes.
scott_s 14y ago
I was under the impression that he is only not giving away the binaries. To me, that implies that the makefiles are included with the source code. But you have to compile it yourself.
eli 14y ago
http://www.webyog.com/en/sqlyog_feature_matrix.php http://www.webyog.com/en/sqlyog_feature_matrix.php does a variation on this. The core product is technically open source (see http://code.google.com/p/sqlyog/downloads/list http://code.google.com/p/sqlyog/downloads/list) but is difficult to compile. They even offer a free binary version -- but it's a trial with nag screens.
cbsmith 14y ago
If you strip out dependencies, makefile's, etc., that is technically a violation of the GPL. Now, as the copyright holder, he can distribute however he wants, but no one who receives the software would be able to, and it would not be considered open source software by any stretch of the imagination.

deleted 14y ago

[deleted]

justincormack 14y ago

This is not allowed under the GPL, which he is using.

jason_slack 14y ago
good point. I wasn't trying to imply this was allowed, just another possible model depending upon circumstance.
A1kmm 14y ago
If the author owns copyright on every line of code used to make the binary, they can do what they like with it without need for a license. However, if there is other GPLd software in there, and they are relying on the GPL to be able to distribute it, then you are right, they need to comply with the GPL requirement to distribute everything needed to build it (Makefiles etc...). Disclaimer: IANAL, this is not legal advice.
simonbrown 14y ago
Is it? From my understanding, he only needs to give the full source (with a GPL license) to people he's distributing the binaries to.
- jasonlotito 14y ago
  Only if the binaries are released under the GPL.
jules 14y ago
Sure it is. Under the GPL you are not allowed to distribute a binary without also distributing the source and dependencies. But it is fine to distribute the source code without bundled dependencies.
- koenigdavidmj 14y ago
  The problem is that you also need to supply the dependencies that you used to build it (makefiles and such).
  - jules 14y ago
    Certainly. I'm not saying it's a viable business model. As I mentioned elsewhere in this thread, one person could even buy the pre-built binaries and freely redistribute them. The GPL allows this. However the parent is still factually wrong.
  - zem 14y ago
    not to people to whom he's not distributing a binary
    - georgemcbay 14y ago
      But once he distributes them to one person who gets the binary that person can distribute them freely to everyone else.
      - zem 14y ago
        and he's perfectly fine with that
nothacker 14y ago
Even though this is incorrect, I agree that this seems to totally violate the spirit of GPL which is meant to be used with free software. It's one thing to open source your code and have people donate to get support and fund development. It's quite another to charge for binaries. Others can just redistribute your binaries instead of you, so what is the point? Also, you are open sourcing and GPL'ing it, and yet you won't follow through and actually provide the built code- that's just shooting yourself in both feet. But, you have to appreciate the fact that he did open source it and that he is trying to make money off of it.

Animus7 14y ago

The reason this has no chance of working with open source software is the same reason DRM doesn't work. If you cripple your version of the software, the next guy to figure out how to uncripple it will release his version, and everyone moves over to that. And your deliberately broken version dies the death it deserves. That's on top of the fact that breaking your software deliberately until someone pays is pretty much the opposite of FOSS philosophy anyway.

jason_slack 14y ago
Good point. There are surely ways around all the ways to distribute the IP under this model.
redthrowaway 14y ago
Or you could make it compile fine and ask for a nominal donation for the binaries. For those who are willing to give up a couple bucks for the convenience and to show their support, it might be an attractive option. I can't say it'll work but it's nice to see people experimenting with new monetization schemes.

scott_s 14y ago

I was under the impression that he is only not giving away the binaries. To me, that implies that the makefiles are included with the source code. But you have to compile it yourself.

eli 14y ago

http://www.webyog.com/en/sqlyog_feature_matrix.php http://www.webyog.com/en/sqlyog_feature_matrix.php does a variation on this. The core product is technically open source (see http://code.google.com/p/sqlyog/downloads/list http://code.google.com/p/sqlyog/downloads/list) but is difficult to compile. They even offer a free binary version -- but it's a trial with nag screens.

cbsmith 14y ago

If you strip out dependencies, makefile's, etc., that is technically a violation of the GPL. Now, as the copyright holder, he can distribute however he wants, but no one who receives the software would be able to, and it would not be considered open source software by any stretch of the imagination.