5 ms·

> You make money in open source by selling related services (e.g. github, Android) or support (Red Hat). You can't do it by licensing the product. This is whe

> You make money in open source by selling related services (e.g. github, Android) or support (Red Hat). You can't do it by licensing the product. This is where the distinction between "free" (as in freedom) and "open source" is helpful. You can, hypothetically, release the source code of a project under a license that prohibits compilation of that source code (or, prohibits running anything other than the paid binary of the source code). This would allow people to view and theoretically vet the code; they just can run it (legally) without paying for it. Not that I would like to encourage such behavior, or think that it's valuable. But it's an important distinction to remember.

nwh 13y ago
There would be no assurance that the binary is compiled from the source though.
- sturadnidge 13y ago
  And even if it were, http://cm.bell-labs.com/who/ken/trust.html http://cm.bell-labs.com/who/ken/trust.html
  - natschil 13y ago
    Sure, I guess. But if you don't trust your own system, it doesn't really matter whether you use their code or not. That said, "Reflections on Trusting Trust" is mentioned far too often, without people fully understanding the fact that it would be incredibly difficult, if not impossible to pull something like that off.
  - jlgaddis 13y ago
    Do we really need to keep posting this link anytime someone says something that has anything to do with building something from source?
ajross 13y ago
> release the source code of a project under a license that prohibits compilation of that source code Such a license would qualify for neither "open source" nor "free software" under the relevant official definitions though. Yes, it would be reviewable for bugs and probably preferrable to a blob. But without the ability to verify the complication you'd have no assurance that the proprietary code was actually built with the reviewed source. Basically this would just be a stunt.
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
  - ajross 13y ago
    No, that's wrong. The term "open source" as commonly used has a formal definition (http://opensource.org/osd-annotated http://opensource.org/osd-annotated) and this violates the very first term. That is "source visible", I guess. But please don't confuse terminology: it's neither "open source" nor "free software".
- esrauch 13y ago
  If the license said that you were in violation if you executed the built code but there was instructions to build the exact version that is distributed it would still allow people to verify that the binary was built from the provided source. I recall Transgaming Wine had a model that was effectively this, it was difficult for a laymen to build the source and binaries couldn't be distributed freely but the source was still available.

nwh 13y ago

There would be no assurance that the binary is compiled from the source though.

sturadnidge 13y ago
And even if it were, http://cm.bell-labs.com/who/ken/trust.html http://cm.bell-labs.com/who/ken/trust.html
- natschil 13y ago
  Sure, I guess. But if you don't trust your own system, it doesn't really matter whether you use their code or not. That said, "Reflections on Trusting Trust" is mentioned far too often, without people fully understanding the fact that it would be incredibly difficult, if not impossible to pull something like that off.
- jlgaddis 13y ago
  Do we really need to keep posting this link anytime someone says something that has anything to do with building something from source?

ajross 13y ago

> release the source code of a project under a license that prohibits compilation of that source code Such a license would qualify for neither "open source" nor "free software" under the relevant official definitions though. Yes, it would be reviewable for bugs and probably preferrable to a blob. But without the ability to verify the complication you'd have no assurance that the proprietary code was actually built with the reviewed source. Basically this would just be a stunt.

deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
- ajross 13y ago
  No, that's wrong. The term "open source" as commonly used has a formal definition (http://opensource.org/osd-annotated http://opensource.org/osd-annotated) and this violates the very first term. That is "source visible", I guess. But please don't confuse terminology: it's neither "open source" nor "free software".
esrauch 13y ago
If the license said that you were in violation if you executed the built code but there was instructions to build the exact version that is distributed it would still allow people to verify that the binary was built from the provided source. I recall Transgaming Wine had a model that was effectively this, it was difficult for a laymen to build the source and binaries couldn't be distributed freely but the source was still available.