3 ms·

I think this is the result of people not recognizing two very different types of open source code. There's the friendly dump of useful stuff. It's not an open

I think this is the result of people not recognizing two very different types of open source code. There's the friendly dump of useful stuff. It's not an open source project, but it's code people know would be useful and are nice enough to share. Obviously there is no responsibility to maintain it, everyone can just fork it and it can diverge freely and no one cares. Then there are actual projects. A person or group saying "Here is a problem we all share. Let's stop reinventing the wheel and work together on this. I will do some management work on this in return for your contributions and my name being prominent. Forking this for no reason is considered rude. Please contribute to this project instead of starting your own clone of it with your name on it." Those are both good things, but they are different. People should be clear about what kind of project it is.

rattray 12y ago
I agree. The problems the author describes happen all too often in the "actual projects" category; it certainly looks like the screenshots were from one such project.
dalke 12y ago
I think you're describing project governance rather than something about open source code. Me, I'm in a third group. I write commercial open source. Only people who pay for my software get access to it, under the MIT license. Is it sharing if it costs money? ;)
- sciurus 12y ago
  If you give people your software under the MIT License, they can give it to anyone they want to. "Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any person obtaining a copy of this software and associated documentation files (the "Software"), to deal in the Software without restriction, including without limitation the rights to use, copy, modify, merge, publish, distribute, sublicense, and/or sell copies of the Software, and to permit persons to whom the Software is furnished to do so" http://opensource.org/licenses/MIT http://opensource.org/licenses/MIT
  - dalke 12y ago
    I'm confused. Could you explain your point? Yes, that's the MIT license I use. My customers can share the code if they want. But I sold them a copy of the software, I didn't share it with them.
    - sciurus 12y ago
      You said "only people who pay for my software get access to it". I was pointing out that anyone your customers choose to share your software with get access to it.
      - dalke 12y ago
        Sorry, I let out the words "from me" because I thought it was implied. I don't share this open source software. I sell it. freshhawk listed two categories: 1) a "dump of useful stuff" with "no responsibility to maintain it" by people who are "nice enough to share." I don't fit in that because a) I include a year of support in the sale, and b) I don't share it, I sell it. 2) "Then there are actual projects. A person or group saying 'Here is a problem we all share. ... I will do some management work on this in return for your contributions and my name being prominent'". I don't expect trade in kind, I expect money. Just like proprietary software vendors (especially those who distribute sources). Thus I consider myself as a member of group #3.

rattray 12y ago

I agree. The problems the author describes happen all too often in the "actual projects" category; it certainly looks like the screenshots were from one such project.

dalke 12y ago

I think you're describing project governance rather than something about open source code. Me, I'm in a third group. I write commercial open source. Only people who pay for my software get access to it, under the MIT license. Is it sharing if it costs money? ;)

sciurus 12y ago
If you give people your software under the MIT License, they can give it to anyone they want to. "Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any person obtaining a copy of this software and associated documentation files (the "Software"), to deal in the Software without restriction, including without limitation the rights to use, copy, modify, merge, publish, distribute, sublicense, and/or sell copies of the Software, and to permit persons to whom the Software is furnished to do so" http://opensource.org/licenses/MIT http://opensource.org/licenses/MIT
- dalke 12y ago
  I'm confused. Could you explain your point? Yes, that's the MIT license I use. My customers can share the code if they want. But I sold them a copy of the software, I didn't share it with them.
  - sciurus 12y ago
    You said "only people who pay for my software get access to it". I was pointing out that anyone your customers choose to share your software with get access to it.
    - dalke 12y ago
      Sorry, I let out the words "from me" because I thought it was implied. I don't share this open source software. I sell it. freshhawk listed two categories: 1) a "dump of useful stuff" with "no responsibility to maintain it" by people who are "nice enough to share." I don't fit in that because a) I include a year of support in the sale, and b) I don't share it, I sell it. 2) "Then there are actual projects. A person or group saying 'Here is a problem we all share. ... I will do some management work on this in return for your contributions and my name being prominent'". I don't expect trade in kind, I expect money. Just like proprietary software vendors (especially those who distribute sources). Thus I consider myself as a member of group #3.