4 ms·

BinPress is misusing the term Open Source in their slogan. All four of their featured "Popular Products" are closed source. IMO http://opensource.org/ http://op

BinPress is misusing the term Open Source in their slogan. All four of their featured "Popular Products" are closed source. IMO http://opensource.org/ http://opensource.org/ should be suing them to protect their trademarks, because their use of the term is trying to piggyback on the popularity of the Open Source community that OSI represents. So I don't think they are in a good position to be talking about the meaning of Open Source, as they're doing in this article.

pytrin 13y ago
We are a marketplace. Our developers can pick which licenses they want to use - our only stipulation is the complete source-code would be included and meets the guidelines we publish (i.e, nothing is closed-source on Binpress). We have FOSS licensed projects, dual-licensed projects and projects licensed with our license generator, which for most purposes only differs from open-source licenses on one point - that the code cannot be redistributed as-is without any modification or extension. The reason we provide those licenses is that a lot of developers are worried that people will copy their code as is and sell it somewhere else. We think it's better if people share more code, if we can alleviate some of their concerns. I don't think it's that surprising that our most popular projects use our own licenses instead of FOSS licenses. Most people care about results and access to the code, and not whether the license was generated by the OSI or the FSF. You can go over our licenses and provide commentary if you feel the need to do so - but please don't accuse us of doing something we don't.
- Danieru 13y ago
  I think you might be confused about what Open Source means. It does not mean access to the source code. Even Microsoft didn't try to hi-jack the term with their "shared source" licenses. Open Source is a made-up word. It did not exist before the OSI used it to promote OSI approved licenses. With that out of the way I fount at least one non-open source product: http://www.binpress.com/app/pdftouch-sdk-for-ios/859 http://www.binpress.com/app/pdftouch-sdk-for-ios/859 The licenses is almost 100% non-open source: http://www.binpress.com/license/read/id/1565/app/859 http://www.binpress.com/license/read/id/1565/app/859 The only Open Source like-clause is the non-expiration! The OSI trademarked the term Open Source to avoid confusions just like this. Not allowing redistribution is BIG difference! Not only is BBpress selling proprietary software, its diluting the very meaning of Open Source!
  - pytrin 13y ago
    It's interesting how you choose to spin it to fit your narrative. That product has multiple licenses, the one that allows redistribution of the source is this - http://www.binpress.com/license/read/id/1567/app/859 http://www.binpress.com/license/read/id/1567/app/859 The one you linked to only allows binary distribution. This is how those projects support themselves, by offering tiers of pricing depending on the user needs. We just require that at least one of the licenses allows redistribution of the source. So I'm understanding that by your world-view, Open-Core projects are not open-source? or that open-source can only be used if sanctioned by the OSI? I'm afraid that no one has monopoly on that term. It means different things to different people. We call our products "Commercial open-source", which you can find the usage of which on the web and wikipedia as well. Most projects on GitHub do not have a license, which means they are copyrighted by default. We vet licensing for each project on our site, to make sure there are no copyright or licensing breaches, and provide a range of licensing options to fit the developer POV. Not sure where all the hate is coming from.
    - owenversteeg 13y ago
      Some hate is coming from the fact that you're running a code-selling website, and you mentioned it on Hacker News of all places. Code-selling websites rank just above insurance salesmen and expertsexchange on the list of things that programmers hate. Another good portion of the hate comes from the fact that you're selling projects that are not open-source as open-source. Maybe it's just me, but if you're running a slimy code-selling website you should at least know better than to call it open-source. Here's a link you should read before you get sued by the OSI, which I will be kind enough to not charge $750 for: http://opensource.org/docs/osd http://opensource.org/docs/osd I'm also curious why you think integrating a PDF reader into your app costs $36k. In my world we just use a UIWebView. Or, if you want to type maybe five more lines of code, you can use CoreGraphics. You can then spend the $36k you save to get Donald Trump to fire your horrible developers. Finally, you probably want to fix the grammatical issues in your laughable "commercial open-source" license if that's a core part of your business.
      - 13y ago
quadrangle 13y ago
Well, yes, Binpress totally abuses the term "Open Source", but the Open Source Initiative was denied their application for the trademark on the term, so there's nothing legally that can be done. All we can do is post a comment on Binpress links telling everyone that despite their claim, Binpress sells mainly just proprietary software.
- benatkin 13y ago
  Good to know. I tried to find it out by googling, and I had a hunch this might be the case but wasn't sure. Still, it might be worth a shot, because they could argue that it's a reference to the Open Source Initiative and its approved licenses, just like Chick-Fil-A is trying to argue that "Eat More Kale" is a reference to "Eat Mor Chikin".

pytrin 13y ago

We are a marketplace. Our developers can pick which licenses they want to use - our only stipulation is the complete source-code would be included and meets the guidelines we publish (i.e, nothing is closed-source on Binpress). We have FOSS licensed projects, dual-licensed projects and projects licensed with our license generator, which for most purposes only differs from open-source licenses on one point - that the code cannot be redistributed as-is without any modification or extension. The reason we provide those licenses is that a lot of developers are worried that people will copy their code as is and sell it somewhere else. We think it's better if people share more code, if we can alleviate some of their concerns. I don't think it's that surprising that our most popular projects use our own licenses instead of FOSS licenses. Most people care about results and access to the code, and not whether the license was generated by the OSI or the FSF. You can go over our licenses and provide commentary if you feel the need to do so - but please don't accuse us of doing something we don't.

Danieru 13y ago
I think you might be confused about what Open Source means. It does not mean access to the source code. Even Microsoft didn't try to hi-jack the term with their "shared source" licenses. Open Source is a made-up word. It did not exist before the OSI used it to promote OSI approved licenses. With that out of the way I fount at least one non-open source product: http://www.binpress.com/app/pdftouch-sdk-for-ios/859 http://www.binpress.com/app/pdftouch-sdk-for-ios/859 The licenses is almost 100% non-open source: http://www.binpress.com/license/read/id/1565/app/859 http://www.binpress.com/license/read/id/1565/app/859 The only Open Source like-clause is the non-expiration! The OSI trademarked the term Open Source to avoid confusions just like this. Not allowing redistribution is BIG difference! Not only is BBpress selling proprietary software, its diluting the very meaning of Open Source!
- pytrin 13y ago
  It's interesting how you choose to spin it to fit your narrative. That product has multiple licenses, the one that allows redistribution of the source is this - http://www.binpress.com/license/read/id/1567/app/859 http://www.binpress.com/license/read/id/1567/app/859 The one you linked to only allows binary distribution. This is how those projects support themselves, by offering tiers of pricing depending on the user needs. We just require that at least one of the licenses allows redistribution of the source. So I'm understanding that by your world-view, Open-Core projects are not open-source? or that open-source can only be used if sanctioned by the OSI? I'm afraid that no one has monopoly on that term. It means different things to different people. We call our products "Commercial open-source", which you can find the usage of which on the web and wikipedia as well. Most projects on GitHub do not have a license, which means they are copyrighted by default. We vet licensing for each project on our site, to make sure there are no copyright or licensing breaches, and provide a range of licensing options to fit the developer POV. Not sure where all the hate is coming from.
  - owenversteeg 13y ago
    Some hate is coming from the fact that you're running a code-selling website, and you mentioned it on Hacker News of all places. Code-selling websites rank just above insurance salesmen and expertsexchange on the list of things that programmers hate. Another good portion of the hate comes from the fact that you're selling projects that are not open-source as open-source. Maybe it's just me, but if you're running a slimy code-selling website you should at least know better than to call it open-source. Here's a link you should read before you get sued by the OSI, which I will be kind enough to not charge $750 for: http://opensource.org/docs/osd http://opensource.org/docs/osd I'm also curious why you think integrating a PDF reader into your app costs $36k. In my world we just use a UIWebView. Or, if you want to type maybe five more lines of code, you can use CoreGraphics. You can then spend the $36k you save to get Donald Trump to fire your horrible developers. Finally, you probably want to fix the grammatical issues in your laughable "commercial open-source" license if that's a core part of your business.
    - 13y ago

quadrangle 13y ago

Well, yes, Binpress totally abuses the term "Open Source", but the Open Source Initiative was denied their application for the trademark on the term, so there's nothing legally that can be done. All we can do is post a comment on Binpress links telling everyone that despite their claim, Binpress sells mainly just proprietary software.

benatkin 13y ago
Good to know. I tried to find it out by googling, and I had a hunch this might be the case but wasn't sure. Still, it might be worth a shot, because they could argue that it's a reference to the Open Source Initiative and its approved licenses, just like Chick-Fil-A is trying to argue that "Eat More Kale" is a reference to "Eat Mor Chikin".