OS X Notifier App Growl Goes Closed Source

First time accepted submitter para_droid writes "Version 1.3 of the popular open source notification system for Mac OS X, Growl has surprised its users by going closed-source and only available for purchase on the Mac App Store. Any users who provide links to bugfixes and source for the previous version 1.2 are being banned from the discussion group, and their messages deleted. Could it be time for the community to create an OpenGrowl fork?" The linked post above about bugfixes and source ends "Hopefully the Growl 1.3 branch from the official Growl maintainers will eventually become open source again and get straightened out so that it works for most users, but if it doesn't, a fork of the project will be able to provide a working Growl to Mac users."

Comments

YES

[Anonymous Coward]

Fork that bitch!!!

Re:YES

[T-Mckenney]

Fork that bitch!!!

Amen!

Re:YES

[theolein]

And not a fuck was given that day.

going open to closed

[v1]

Isn't there some form of restriction here in the license, are they allowed to make a closed source derivative work, seeing as they're the original authors? What open source license (if any) was Growl formerly using?

I know some licenses require all derivative works to be open source, but I'm definitely not expert on open source licensing.

Re:going open to closed

[Anonymous Coward]

Nope, it's BSD licensed. They can do whatever the hell they want.

Re:going open to closed

[Hatta]

Except include code with licenses that guarantee the users fundamental software freedoms.

Re:going open to closed

[DangerOnTheRanger]

Only the GPL and QTPL (formerly used for Qt) licenses have a strong copyleft (and thus require derivative works to be licensed under the same license) - most FOSS licenses (2/3-clause BSD, Apache, MIT/X) do not have such a requirement. And they, as the original developers and copyright holders, are well within their rights to change the license. However, silencing users who are trying to alert others of Growl's FOSS forks is tyrannical and completely uncalled for.

Re:going open to closed

[Millennium]

They can't pull the license from older versions: there's no revocation clause in the old license to allow for that. But as long as they hold the copyright to all of the code, they can close versions going forward. Even if they only hold the copyright on some of the code, they could close it if they got permission from the copyright holders for the rest of the code.

If someone forks it, they'll have to start based on one of the versions that is under the old license.

Re:going open to closed

[Dr_Barnowl]

The more modern 3 or 2 clause BSD licenses are entirely compatible with the GPL.

Re:going open to closed

[Hatta]

You can do anything with the GPL as long as you include sources. If you disagree with this, you don't have to contribute to it.

They both include one restriction. Which restriction is least restrictive?

One guarantees that all users will be able to fix and modify their software if there are problems. The other offeres no guarantees. In terms of enabling people to do things, which is what freedom is all about, the GPL is clearly more free. BSD only enables you to remove the freedom of others.

Re:going open to closed

[Desler]

They can't pull the license from older versions:

This is often claimed but no with case law to back it up. And in fact there is US case law that contradicts this claim.

Re:going open to closed

[Anonymous Coward]

This is an oversimplification of the issue. BSD protects the freedoms of only the next entity using the source code; GPL protects freedoms of all entities that might use the code. This involves putting restrictions on the all of them as well (i.e., right to swing my fist vs. right to not be punched). Saying either is "more free" is just nonsense. Ironically:

I know it's easier to cry "freedom" than understand complex issues

Re:going open to closed

[rtfa-troll]

Just like a white American male from the South in the early 19th century, the individual developer with a piece of BSD licensed software is more free than the current white American male. He can even choose to release his code as free / have no slaves. However, just as in the south, most people with BSD software are not developers and so they lose certainty of their future freedom for nothing. The BSD society as a whole, which includes a whole bunch of Junos and OS X users, for example, is less free than the GPL society. This even feeds back to the slaver who is unable to live in a society without slavery and is much the worse for it. BSD developers are slightly luckier because there are enclaves, like OpenBSD where real freedom exists but these are always small exceptions.

Re:going open to closed

[mfwitten]

BSD is more free than GPL

The BSD license is more permissive for only the upstream.

In fact, the downstream ('end-users') may ultimately get a license that is more restrictive on further developments—possibly even restrictions that might hinder the development of your own upstream work should you find yourself in some sort of downstream position relative to a fork.

Because everyone is ultimately an end-user eventually, the BSD license is quite dangerous.

Everything that you like about open source BSD-licensed projects is simply encoded for legal enforcement in the GPL. When you espouse the merits of open source, you are actually espousing the merits of the GPL.

Re:going open to closed

[nzac]

Unless they have accepted community contributions that are difficult to replace they as the copyright owners can do 'whatever the hell they want' anyway.

The BSD licence allow us to 'whatever the hell we want'.

Re:going open to closed

[Anonymous Coward]

Dear BSD vs. GPL arguing asshats,

Please fuck off!

Signed,

The Rest Of Humanity

Re:going open to closed

[Desler]

Mattel and cphack. Mattel obtained an injunction barring anyone from distributing cphack which revoked the license.

Re:going open to closed

[willy_me]

Except include code with licenses that guarantee the users fundamental software freedoms.

Freedom is such an abstract term and should not be applied to software. Using the term "fundamental software freedoms" is even worse and likely means something different to each person who hears/reads it.

The real issue is limitations and this is where the two licenses (BSD+GNU) differ greatly. The BSD license has almost no limitations while the GNU license has severe limitations that extends to code that is simply linked with GNU code. The two licenses serve different purposes and as such, one is not better then the other. To compare the licenses using abstract concepts like "freedom" is ridiculous.

Re:going open to closed

[SlashV]

I am surprised how many people still get this wrong. Since they are the copyright holders of the work they can do whatever they want with it, period. As a copyright holder you don't license the software to yourself. That would be stupid.

Re:going open to closed

[fotbr]

I can fix and modify all the BSD software I want. No restriction there. Same for GPL. Since, in your words, BSD allows you to remove freedom of others while GPL does not, clearly BSD is more free than GPL.

I know, you're trying to refer to code that was released under the BSD and is now part of a closed-source piece of software. Which, is irrelevant since nothing prevents me from using and doing anything* I want with the original BSD release though.

*as long as I maintain copyright notices

Re:going open to closed

[BitZtream]

This is an oversimplification of the issue. BSD protects the freedoms of only the next entity using the source code; GPL protects freedoms of all entities that might use the code.

Wrong.

BSD protects the freedoms of the source code it covers for ANYONE using it. It does not drag all the other code someone else creates down with it. That is what GPL does, it covers itself, and forces itself on anything else thats anywhere remotely close to it.

If I take a copy of BSD source and make changes and do not redistribute those changes in source form you have lost exactly nothing, nodda, zilch, zero.

You have not also been given rights to the NEW work I did, but you have lost nothing, all of the old stuff is still there for you to do whatever you want with.

One is CLEARLY more free, unless you're a zealot ... which you are.

BSD allows you to do the exact same thing as GPL, GPL does not allow you to do the same thing as BSD licensed software. Its really not difficult to understand.

Re:going open to closed

[BitZtream]

In fact, the downstream ('end-users') may ultimately get a license that is more restrictive on further development

So you're saying that its dangerous because at some point in the future the upstream developer may make the changes closed source and then you won't have access to them? Thats all you can be saying since the license won't/can't be retroactive and take away source that you already have.

So your bitching that you MAY LOSE FUTURE WORK ...

So what is the upstream author dies? Does that make you all scared and freighted as well? Thats a fact, its going to happen, the upstream author WILL die at some point, but he may never close the source.

You're argument is retarded, it rests around the idea that you are losing something just because you aren't continuing to get something for free. You can not 'lose' anything with a BSD license, the worst that can happen is that you no longer get new stuff. No one can make BSD code 'closed', only their own modifications on top of it.

GPL is the most restrictive license thats considered 'open source' by the majority of people, I do not espouse the merits of using GPL, I do not push my political agenda on others like you do. You also utterly fail to understand the license you're fanboying for and the licenses you're arguing against.

In short, you don't have the slightest idea what you're talking about

Re:going open to closed

[BitZtream]

Uhm, lookup promissory estoppel and stop being an ignorant moron.

And Mattel versus CPhack wasn't a case where the license was revoked later, it was NEVER GRANTED IN THE FIRST PLACE. The cphack authors used code they didn't write ... i.e. code that was part of cyberpatrol itself.

Again, you have no idea what you're talking about.

Re:going open to closed

[mfwitten]

Embrace. Extend. Extinguish.

Heard of it?

Re:going open to closed

[Hatta]

Using the term "fundamental software freedoms" is even worse and likely means something different to each person who hears/reads it.

Software freedoms are defined here.

The two licenses serve different purposes and as such, one is not better then the other

Yes, one serves to protect your freedom while the other does not.

Re:going open to closed

[c 0xFF]

You're so, so close to getting it, but not quite there.

GPL lets you remove the freedom of developers. GPL enables the freedom of users.
BSD lets you remove the freedom of users. BSD enables the freedom of developers.

Pro-GPL people try to argue that it's the freedom of the end user that needs to be protected. After all, making sure the users have the source enables them to fix any problems that software may have. Unfortunately, this means that the freedoms of whoever wants to write software that uses GPL'd code is limited, as they don't have the choice to keep their software proprietary.

Pro-BSD people try to argue that it's the freedom of the developers that needs to be protected. After all, making sure the developers can maintain their own copyright enables them to use your software freely. Unfortunately, this means that the freedoms of whoever wants to use a derivative work are limited, as they are not guaranteed to have the source code of the changes available.

So, now which restriction is least restrictive?

Freedom is a balancing act -- there are very few cases where enforcing the freedom of one group of people won't harm the freedom of another group. Just be careful that you don't assume the freedoms you value are more important than the freedoms that other people value.

Re:going open to closed

[growse]

Gnu.org don't get to own the definition of 'software freedom' any more than I get to own the definition of 'cornflake cake'. GP's point is these things are inherently subjective. Referencing someone's opinion as a definition betrays a rather closed mind.

Re:going open to closed

[Jonner]

Isn't there some form of restriction here in the license, are they allowed to make a closed source derivative work, seeing as they're the original authors? What open source license (if any) was Growl formerly using?

I know some licenses require all derivative works to be open source, but I'm definitely not expert on open source licensing.

Strangely, though the previous Growl Source page had a link to a tarball, the current download page only has non-link text "Growl source code." under "Developer Downloads." The Growl Developer Documentation page says:

Growl is distributed under the conditions of the BSD license. The Extras are BSD licensed as well. Example applications are in the public domain.

The Growl license does seem to be a permissive BSD-style license. This means that nobody using the source has any obligation to provide source to anyone and can use it for any reason as long as they include that license with binaries. This is why OSX contains significant amounts of BSD code and Windows a smaller amount but neither Apple nor Microsoft is obligated to release the source for any of their changes.

Licenses that require source to be made available to those who get binaries are called Copyleft licenses. This is why Google must release the source for changes they make to Linux as part of Android, but they are not required to release changes to other parts of Android which are under permissive licenses.

Both permissive and Copyleft licenses can be used for software that is both Free and Open Source. Since Growl seems to have been under a permissive license all along, there's nothing stopping those who control the web site from making it proprietary and never releasing source again. OTOH, there's nothing preventing anyone else from forking the last released source just as Perry Metzger has done. A fork would probably be required to use a different name. Since those who control the Grow website seem to have removed all download links to source (even older versions) and banned Metzger from the mailing list, it may indicate they plan to keep future versions proprietary, though that's not entirely clear at this point.

Re:going open to closed

[OdinOdin_]

But a developer is a user and a user is a developer. There is no legal barrier to changing your role.

Ah you are still thinking along the lines of BSD, where the it is possible to have a situation that a user can never become a developer because the source code is witheld.

Freedom is also marked by the ability to change hats and wear multiple hats at once through my own choice and will. If you are denying me of any of my choices then that option must have less freedom by definition, since you are maintaining a class separation between you and me.

Re:going open to closed

[c 0xFF]

From the perspective of a software developer, you're 100% correct.

But, let's look at this from the perspective of a user. I think that if you change most all references to "you" in your comment to refer to and end user, things change slightly.

The core concept of the GPL is that the user must have the right to modify the software, which means they must have the right to the source code. If a developer releases their software under a BSD license, a user has the ability to modify the source for their own purposes. So far, so good.

Where it gets sticky is when a third party is introduced. They decide that the software fits their needs, so they modify it and redistribute their version without providing the source code of their changes. This means that the user no longer has the ability to modify the new version of the software. To a developer who releases code under the GPL, this means that the rights of the user have been restricted. "How dare this third party restrict the software rights of a user with my software," they think to themselves.

Note that I don't necessarily agree with this, but I do see where they're coming from.

The GPL tries to protect the freedom of end users, at the cost of the freedom of third party developers. Unfortunately, I don't think it's a fair tradeoff -- what rights did the end user have to the third party's changes to begin with?

Now, where the GPL really gets viral is with linking. Forcing an application to be GPL'd just because it links against a GPL library is ludicrous. The only way around it is to write a bunch of ugly wrappers. Thank goodness for the LGPL and other licenses.

Re:going open to closed

[Kalriath]

Bullshit. It's the GPL that prohibits BSD code being included with GPL code. BSD has nothing that prohibits GPL code from being included with BSD code.

Re:going open to closed

[rtfa-troll]

LOL. Comparing BSD license to slavery?

No; comparing proprietary software to slavery and the GPL to laws against slavery. The BSD license is compared to a lack of laws against slavery.

This has got to be the stupidest pro-GPL argument I've ever seen.

That's apparently becuase you can't read; you're entertaining anyway, so let's go on.

[...]

First, I know you folks always like anthropomorphizing code, but please stop that

Now you are tilting at straw men.. Cool. But anyway, no I wasn't. I quite specifically wrote for example

The BSD society as a whole, which includes a whole bunch of Junos and OS X users

And several other things which made it very clear that I was talking about the freedom of people, not the freedom of code. Sometimes people take shortcuts and talk about the software being free, but even when they do that, and I don't, it doesn't take much intelligence to be able to translate the freedom of code they talk about into freedom of people. I didn't want to assume that all the readers would have such a level of intelligence. However, I see I still failed to aim low enough to reach everybody. I apologise and will try harder next time.

In most of the rest of the post you repeatedly stick your lance through the straw man, expecting him to scream out in pain; I think we will leave out humiliating you over that.

So, do you think you could now make your argument a bit stupider for all of us by turning it into a Nazi or holocaust reference?

Your writing is funny and angry enough that I really think you should get an account. How can I be sure you will even read this??

Imagine that a whole load of really stupid people started running around, building political parties and beginning to get involved in society. Now imagine that they did this whilst being able to completely tune out everybody's argument except their own. Imagine that they saw only the things that they wanted to see in the writings of others. Eventually, if this went on and kept increasing, they might start developing prejudices against others. They might start throwing stones through their windows; they might start attacking them in the street; eventually the situation could get more and more serious. Imagine if we completely gave up on challenging lazy stupidity.

Re:going open to closed

[nedlohs]

That would be what the GPL says.

You only have to provide source to people you provide binaries to. You are under no obligation to provide future updates of said source (other than to those to whom you distribute binaries build from the updated source).

Of course you can't prevent those you do provide the source to from distributing it to others.

Re:going open to closed

[Bert64]

GPL is more restrictive clearly, however it's a tradeoff...

The law doesn't let you murder or enslave people, but it also provides you a relative protection against having this happen to you. Basically it tries to ensure that everyone has the same level of freedom.

In an anarchic state you might start off with more freedoms, but before long warlords will seize control and you will most likely be subjugated to their will. So a small number of people will abuse the extra freedom given to them to harm the majority.

Re:going open to closed

[Sancho]

Except that with BSD, the original, unaltered source is still available. If a company, say, takes the BSD networking stack and incorporates it into their proprietary, closed-source product, any user can still go out and get the original BSD networking stack. Most analogies in these arguments imply that overall freedom is somehow reduced by BSD, but that's not true.

Re:going open to closed

[CrashandDie]

And apparently apparently, you're understanding of it English langage is approximately at breast.

Re:going open to closed

[Sancho]

The GPL tries to protect the freedom of end users, at the cost of the freedom of third party developers. Unfortunately, I don't think it's a fair tradeoff -- what rights did the end user have to the third party's changes to begin with?

I like the BSD license over the GPL. I think it's mostly the simplicity, frankly.

But the question isn't about what rights a user has to third party changes. The question is what rights the third party had to use the original code. And the answer is "none, unless they agree to make their distributed changes available." Once that agreement is made, it follows quite obviously that the end user has a right to the code.

Re:going open to closed

[Sancho]

See, this comment thread is kinda like the BSD license. You're welcome to ignore it.

If it was the GPL, you'd be forced to take part, and to get others to take part.

It's all simple, really.

Re:going open to closed

[Hatta]

GPL lets you remove the freedom of developers.

Nonsense. GPL empowers developers. Who else uses source code but developers?

Re:going open to closed

[Sancho]

In fact, that's not true. They obtained an injunction preventing the original authors from distributing it, and preventing 3 mirror sites form redistributing it. The ruling was that they had to explicitly list anyone they wanted to enjoin, and mail them a copy of the injunction via certified mail. The case was never determined by a judge, as it was settled before a decision could be reached. Furthermore, the injunctions were based upon the principle that the software itself was illegal and had no right to exist. No person distributing it was legally allowed to for this reason. It had nothing to do with revocation of a license.

Re:going open to closed

[Meeni]

Even if they have had difficult to replace contributions, these contributions have been BSD licensed in the past, so basically they can do "whatever the hell they want". Actually, BSD licensing means that not even the original authors can do whatever, but also any fork can. If you don't want your code to go into a closed source project (that you might have no control over and make no dime out of), do not release it BSD.

Re:going open to closed

[BasilBrush]

And when you point out all that's bad about open source, you're talking about the GPL.

Re:going open to closed

[binford2k]

You are not as smart as you think you are.

Re:going open to closed

[mfwitten]

One man's freedom is always another man's tyranny.

It's rational to support explicitly the freedom of the little guy, because chances are great that your loved ones (if not you) are going to be the little guy.

Re:going open to closed

[BasilBrush]

I know lots of independent developers, artists, writers and musicians. Most of them are earning much less than the average wage from their creativity.

I suspect that few of the people that post on here about the freedoms of open source, and that copyright shouldn't exist have ever created anything of their own. They just want to be assured they can consume stuff for no cost.

Re:going open to closed

[nedlohs]

If you buy it then yes you are free to redistribute both the source and binaries.

If you find it on a torrent site then yes you are allowed to redistribute both the source and binaries. However, if you torrented just the binaries the person who initially seeded (and I guess everyone including you) would be violating the GPL if it didn't include source or a written offer to provide the source.

Re:going open to closed

[bill_mcgonigle]

In an anarchic state you might start off with more freedoms, but before long warlords will seize control and you will most likely be subjugated to their will. So a small number of people will abuse the extra freedom given to them to harm the majority.

Cite?

Counter example: medieval Iceland, stable for about 400 years before Catholicism took hold.

Re:going open to closed

[Serious Callers Only]

You can do anything with the GPL as long as you include sources. If you disagree with this, you don't have to contribute to it.

You can do anything with BSD even if you don't include sources, as long as you include attribution. Obviously both have different uses, and BSD is less restrictive. GPL may be clearly preferable to you, but let's not get into sophistry about GPL being 'clearly more free'.

You don't have to try to convert the rest of the world to using the one true license, in fact arguments like this slagging off other licenses are exactly what puts people off going near GPL code.

Re:going open to closed

[Serious Callers Only]

Everything that you like about open source BSD-licensed projects is simply encoded for legal enforcement in the GPL

People are not idiots, and for some reason lots of them choose BSD/MIT/CCA over GPL. Apparently you believe that everyone thinks like you (or will when they see the light), and everyone wants to restrict users of their code in perpetuity to releasing the code under the exact same license.

Strangely enough, lots of developers don't think like you and really do want to release the source without restriction so they choose an attribution only license instead of GPL. They don't choose BSD because they have made a mistake, or they forgot to cover the restrictions in GPL, they choose it because it is less restrictive.

Re:going open to closed

[smash]

BSD enables a company to take BSD licensed code that is well tested, and include it in commercial software. This is an intended FEATURE, so that people coding boring as fuck apps that hold no interest to open source developers can have a reliable product that people who are willing to shell out money can pay to use.

If say, the original TCP/IP implementation was GPLed, we would not have the internet today.

Re:going open to closed

[smash]

It still doesn't make the open variant of the BSD code unavailable.

Re:going open to closed

[smash]

Exactly. Lots of developers WANT their software to be extended and used in commercial apps, because that means that the commercial developer doesn't have to waste time reinventing the wheel, and can spend more time on their actual app, thus we all end up with more reliable/complete software as a result. The GPL is against a programmer being able to guarantee getting an income for work he spends on developing an app that is not interesting to open source hobbyist programmers.

This is IMHO a large part of why there is so much work on the linux desktop making stuff "pretty" or "cool" (and reinventing the UI every 18 months to copy what microsoft or apple are doing) and not enough making the core functionality actually work.

With BSD, society as a whole need to spend less time reinventing the wheel, if they write software for a living.

Re:going open to closed

[nzac]

I thought it was implied in my post that in the hypothetical situation they went with an alternative, that is GPL.

Re:going open to closed

[dabadab]

"Gnu.org don't get to own the definition of 'software freedom'"

Yes, they do, since it was RMS who has coined this term.

Re:going open to closed

[Richard_at_work]

Congratulations to him, he strung two words together.

Still doesn't get to own them.

Re:going open to closed

[marcello_dl]

A guy takes a BSD app, adds two lines of code in two minutes and patents the possibly trivial stuff that it makes.

Now nobody can add similar functionality to that BSD app.

If the app had been GPLed I'd have to write it from scratch and having it compete with the GPL version in the market.

Now who's getting severe limitations again? the guy who deserve them.

The GPL is free, it's just a bit selective about whom it gives freedom to.

In this post the "abstract concept of freedom" is defined as:

freeÂdom
n.
1. The condition of being free of restraints.

Re:going open to closed

[rtfa-troll]

Welcome to the human race.

Re:going open to closed

[growse]

"Gnu.org don't get to own the definition of 'software freedom'"

Yes, they do, since it was RMS who has coined this term.

Richard Stallman invented neither freedom nor software. Both are widely used generic Engliah words. You might like to think he owns the concept of 'freedoms as they pertain to software', but wishing it doesn't maker it so.

And now, in the spirit of this, I'm going to redefine 'conflake cake' to mean 'Richard Stallman'.

Well, that does it...

[Anonymous Coward]

Growl's jumped the shark and notified everyone about it.

That's the nice thing about FOSS:

[DangerOnTheRanger]

If a formerly FOSS product goes proprietary, people are well within their rights to fork it the last FOSS version of it. The Growl developers are going to come to regret their decision.

Re:That's the nice thing about FOSS:

[Stereotypical Nerd]

They already regret their decision. It is impossible to contradict basic objective free software morality and not feel a sharp pain in the gut.

Re:That's the nice thing about FOSS:

[BitZtream]

The Growl developers are going to come to regret their decision.

Unlikely.

99.999% of the code is written by the primary developers, very little of it has been 'contributed' in any sense of the word, most of the 'contributed' has been related to bug fixes and such, thats not going to stop.

No one has in the past 5 or 6 years has replaced it or even really tried to make an alternative, you think its going to happen now just because its no longer open? Thats funny. Have you ever even written any software?

The reality of it is this is more likely done to combat a problem that Open Source has to deal with. People using OSS software in bad ways.

For instances, Adobe Creative Suite 5 installs Growl without asking the user or without an option to turn it off. The Growl authors are upset about this and 'are working on ways to mitigate the problem' ...

And do you know what making it closed source and only available on the app store does? Stops Adobe and people like them cold.

About 10 people ACTUALLY give a shit that growl is going closed source because they happen to use it and are OSS zealots, the other hundreds of thousands of people who use it will neither give a flying fuck or likely even be aware that something has changed.

The world doesn't revolve around FOSS, once you get out of high school things change there little guy.

Re:That's the nice thing about FOSS:

[toriver]

Making Growl 1.3 closed and paid-for does not stop Adobe "cold" regarding the BSD-licensed Growl 1.2. Does 1.3 add any significant features that makes it superior in every way to 1.2, or is the version bump just to change the license?

Re:That's the nice thing about FOSS:

[Goaway]

You know who it will also stop cold? The many open-source programs that use Growl. They are not going to want to have anything to do with a closed-source commercial Growl, and will either dump it or fork it.

Re:That's the nice thing about FOSS:

[BasilBrush]

Their decision to open source it in the first place, presumably. Open sources are a bunch of ungrateful bastards that don't one free lunch to extend to a lifetime of free lunches.

( Heck, the open source pariahs even check their facts before whining about people that used to give them free lunches. Growl isn't going closed source any more than Android Ice Cream Sandwich is. In both cases, impatient open source freeloaders can't wait, and create malicious rumours about those providing the free lunches.

  http://growl.info/documentation/faq-new.php#1.3source )

Re:That's the nice thing about FOSS:

[DangerOnTheRanger]

You know, that only states that they will supposedly go back to FOSS sometime in the future. As far as we're concerned right now, Growl (>1.2) is a proprietary program.

Re:That's the nice thing about FOSS:

[smash]

Given that it is available fairly cheaply from the app store, i'm quite sure that they'll be rolling around in agony over it. Oh, wait, i mean rolling around dollars. That's it.

Re:That's the nice thing about FOSS:

[BasilBrush]

And that kind of attitude is what marks open sourcers out as ungrateful.

Suppose I'd been working on some useful software, and I feel quite happy to let other people have it, and do what they like with. Why the heck would I put an open source license on it, and then for ever more have you hyenas circling round ready to whine if I didn't in the future do things according to your expected timetable?

This isn't hypothetical. A few years ago I created two retro games for an obscure platform for which there is pretty much just one place on line where people hang out. Always a very polite and pleasant hangout. Every release of the games I posted up the source, but I didn't want to put any license on them. I just said do what you like with the source, but if you do, some acknowledgement that the code was from my projects would be nice. And for that, the one and only bit of unpleasantless I ever remember on that forum. Some open sourcer attacking me because I wanted acknowledgement if code was reused, and telling me I ought to GPL it.

You know, when other people put out stuff that they've created for free, the right reaction is to be grateful, proportional to it's usefulness. Attacking because the freelunch isn't in the form you prefer, or there might not be another free lunch in the future, or because the free lunch doesn't arrive according to your schedule is ungrateful. And implying that the benefactor is a liar unless and until he proves he's not by putting out the source for the next version is worse.

Bunch of leeches.

Stop Spreading FUD

[qpqp]

http://growl.info/documentation/faq-new.php#1.3source

We will post source code. However, our bigger concern right now is fixing issues and providing support to folks on our discussions group, and on our support email address, and on Twitter. As soon as the flood of inbound requests slows down, we fully intend to push the 1.3 source over the wall.

On the other hand, I sure hope that won't be when they release 1.4 to the store.

Re:Stop Spreading FUD

[Hatta]

A promise to release source is not source. The developer of the fork has been banned from the groups. So the article seems pretty accurate.

What do we call the opposite of FUD? Complacency and Certitude? CaC? Quit trying to shove all this CaC down our throats!

Re:Stop Spreading FUD

[matunos]

Why is releasing the source code considered an afterthought, something that falls into the category of API documentation (that is, we'll do it later, got bigger things to worry about)? If they want to fix the issues, wouldn't providing the source code early and letting others hack at them and provide suggested fixes help with that?

They have the source, all they have to do is make it publicly available. How is that so distracting from providing support? Some folks on their discussions groups want the source so they can help fix issues, why don't they provide support for them?

Re:Stop Spreading FUD

[beelsebob]

Interesting how this argument didn't apply in the android discussion isn't it. Google promise to release the ICS source when devices ship... people believe them. Open mac software maker does the same "oh, i's only a promise".

Re:Stop Spreading FUD

[Fnord666]

What do we call the opposite of FUD? Complacency and Certitude? CaC? Quit trying to shove all this CaC down our throats!

I believe they would be called facts.

Re:Stop Spreading FUD

[Darinbob]

I don't believe Google either. Source code availability does not make something open source, being open makes it open source. High moderation of dissenting views and trying to maintain absolute centralized control makes it closed even if people do have source code.

Re:Stop Spreading FUD

[sessamoid]

This is /. 2011. Google good. Apple bad.

Re:Stop Spreading FUD

[mfwitten]

All closed-source applications I've ever used have problems I'd like to fix; I can't fix them.
All open-source applications I've ever used have problems I'd like to fix; sometimes I do fix them.

Re:Stop Spreading FUD

[aardvarkjoe]

Although lots of people are linking to that promise, it doesn't address what is (to my mind) rather more troubling -- the claim that they are deleting information about using prior open-source versions of the software. Checking out the linked post, it looks like it was indeed removed from their own forum archives. So why are they hiding it?

Re:Stop Spreading FUD

[newcastlejon]

I sense a true Scotsman approaching, but I think it's safe to say that many people couldn't fix a bug even if they wanted to. For them the distinction between open- and closed-source as you've laid it out is moot.

Sad, but true.

Re:Stop Spreading FUD

[tomhudson]

Maybe it's because they want to fix the issues without having someone complain that their code was used to "fix" the issues at a later date, and be able to single-handedly keep a version out of the App Store, same as what happened with VLC (VideoLan Player)?

Re:Stop Spreading FUD

[bonch]

A promise to release source is not source. The developer of the fork has been banned from the groups. So the article seems pretty accurate.

"Google has promised to release the source code to ICS, so stop complaining about it!"

A FEW STORIES LATER...

"Promising to release source code is not source code!"

Re:Stop Spreading FUD

[bonch]

Interesting how this argument didn't apply in the android discussion isn't it.

The reason is pretty obvious, and there's no point in not outright stating it. A large portion of the Slashdot readership is biased in favor of Google and Android, mostly because of the use of Linux.

Re:Stop Spreading FUD

[BasilBrush]

Interestingly though you posted to the "Android Ice Cream Sandwich SDK Released" story several times, not one of them was to condemn Google for not releasing the source yet. Yet here, you're posting about it over and over again.

You really are an incredibly two-faced arsehole.

Re:Stop Spreading FUD

[mfwitten]

How is it relevant that most people cannot fix a bug? The distinction is inherent; open-source and closed-source ANYTHING are indistinguishable except for the fact that improvements to the open-source variant are much more readily available.

One man's freedom is always another man's tyranny.

It's rational to support the freedom of the little guy, because chances are great that your loved ones (if not you) are going to be the little guy.

Re:Stop Spreading FUD

[Hatta]

Two faced? Not really, I just have less to do today. I've been unfairly critical of Google too.

Asshole? It's a fair cop.

Re:Stop Spreading FUD

[matunos]

They can always choose not to accept changes, or require copyright transfer, or unlimited license.

Re:Stop Spreading FUD

[tomhudson]

Well, refusing to accept the changes doesn't stop whoever submits them from claiming that you saw them and are infringing, even if you never looked at them. There are only so many ways to implement certain algorithms, and we've seen how this plays out too often.

Copyright assignment is a non-starter nowadays to any half-savvy developer.

That leaves an unlimited license, but again, if you're the "owner" of the product and you have a specific way you want to implement it inside your own processes, why bother with the hassles of accepting outside contributions when too often it's just quicker to do it inside?

Re:Stop Spreading FUD

[smash]

How is it relevant that most people cannot fix a bug? The distinction is inherent; open-source and closed-source ANYTHING are indistinguishable except for the fact that improvements to the open-source variant are much more readily available.

Theory and reality are not the same thing. Otherwise, surely we would have had an easy to use reliable linux desktop by 1997. As it is, its 2011, and the unix desktopo is still a shambles. Yes, you CAN use it to get things done. However on every single open souce unix distribution i have used since 1995, there have been bugs, shit that just plain doesn't work as it should, etc.

I'm looking at you, 3d composting, audio mixing, etc.

Yes, there are things abuot OS X and Windows i do not like. But they are ahead of the curve compared to linux, when your assertion that anyone can fix open source software should enable Linux to catch up and overtake. Well, its been 15 years now (started with slackware 3.1), I'm still waiting.

Re:Stop Spreading FUD

[matunos]

Someone can claim you stole their code whether or not you accepted a patch of theirs, reviewed a patch, or opened an email from them.

As far as I know, GNU still requires copyright assignment, so a system like that is not necessarily DOA.

Finally, whether or not a maintainer accepts patches is not really the issue here, it's whether you can patch the software they offer, for yourself and possibly others. You don't need the maintainer to accept the patch in order to patch your own copy of the source code. I'm just pointing out if they're going to eventually release the source anyway, why not just release it now, warts and all, and possibly get some side benefit of donated fixes?

Re:Stop Spreading FUD

[jeremyp]

How is it relevant that most people cannot fix a bug?

Because most of the people who buy Growl cannot program but they mostly still want the bugs fixed. Since these people have given the developers money, I expect the developers feel an obligation towards them.

The distinction is inherent; open-source and closed-source ANYTHING are indistinguishable except for the fact that improvements to the open-source variant are much more readily available.

Not to non programmers, they aren't. A non programmer would not count "download the source, download the patch, compile the... oh, wait... download Xcode, compile the source, install the binary" as readily available.

Of course Growl is going to prioritise its paying customers over the open source freeloaders.

Re:Stop Spreading FUD

[petard]

And now the source is there:
http://growl.info/documentation/developer/growl-source-install.php

Re:Stop Spreading FUD

[tomhudson]

As far as I know, GNU still requires copyright assignment, so a system like that is not necessarily DOA.

... and this is why people are working on alternatives to GNU. BSD has a mostly GNU-free userland already, and once LLVM (which doesn't require copyright assignment) replaces GCC, that will be that. After all, who needs emacs?

Re:Stop Spreading FUD

[tsa]

Microsoft nonexistent.

Haha

[GameboyRMH]

So how's that walled garden thing working for you?

Re:Haha

[Anonymous Coward]

Hows that crowd-think working for you. Read the comments in this thread and understand the situation before you get your Apple-bash on.

http://growl.info/documentation/faq-new.php#1.3source

Re:Haha

[GameboyRMH]

Plays my games pretty good but that's all I use it for at home...I can compile and run anything I want on it though and I can buy software for it from anywhere, so I'd still take it over iOS any day.

So far only picked up 2 viruses, one on purpose (I was bored...) and the other due to a misunderstanding about how Autorun works (learned the hard way that it executes if you double-click the drive in Explorer - glad that's done away with these days).

Re:Haha

[Anonymous Coward]

Windows != iOS, by the by. Steam runs pretty well on my Mac.

Re:Haha

[GameboyRMH]

That gives you access to a grand total of 118 games, a slightly bigger game selection than the Atari Jaguar. OSX for gaming would make as little sense as Linux for gaming, if OSX were free, but it's not so it makes even less sense.

Re:Haha

[Sleepy]

So pretty much you're saying you aren't very productive with a computer, and also: it's the user's fault if the OS is exploited. Gotcha. ... and I laugh at any Windows user who calls any other OS a "walled garden". Sour grapes from someone stuck inside a prison, I think.

Re:Haha

[toriver]

It runs World of Warcraft and Minecraft. What other games could you possibly need?

Re:Haha

[GameboyRMH]

I could be productive with a Windows computer if I wanted. My work PC runs Windows. It's just that when the choice is up to me I use Linux for everything but gaming. I'm in no prison. You see bars in front of you, but that doesn't mean you're on the outside...

Re:Haha

[tibman]

Still looking great while running the latest games.

Re:Haha

[bonch]

Um, pretty well. What is your point? What does a first-party walled garden have to do with the decisions of a third-party developer anyway?

Re:Haha

[smash]

NAT is not protection.

Re:Haha

[jeremyp]

Portal.

But it runs that too.

Not true. At all.

[CaptainJeff]

Oh good lord, does anyone actually check stories anymore before posting? This is twice is one day!

Read the New FAQ on the site. Here's a link. Look at the last question. They are not going closed source, they just haven't packaged it up yet and released it. They will.

Re:Not true. At all.

[Hatta]

That's a piss poor excuse. Just run an open git repository and you'll never be bothered with packaging and releasing code again. Also, if people have the source they can help fix the issues that seem to be slowing them down.

They can slap whatever license they want on it, and make whatever promises they want. The fact remains that if a binary is available, and corresponding sources are not, it is closed source. It might be open source again, maybe even soon, but it's not open source today.

Re:Not true. At all.

[Sipper]

Concerning not posting the source code yet, Apple is within their rights because the license for Growl is BSD.

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Growl_(software)

This means that Apple also has the right not to stop posting the source for Growl anytime in the future. BSD advocates would argue that being able to ship binary-only is a freedom for developers, and GPL advocates would argue that the GPL is more free because it mandates that users have the freedom to always see the source code. Which license is "more free" depends on your point of view.

Re:Not true. At all.

[Bill_the_Engineer]

Remember the old saying: Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity.

Re:Not true. At all.

[lerxstz]

yeah, but I think it ends with "...but never discount malice"!

Re:Not true. At all.

[Hatta]

How does stupidity adequately explain the banning of the developer who ported 1.2 to Lion?

Re:Not true. At all.

[Bill_the_Engineer]

It doesn't.

Re:Not true. At all.

[dririan]

Apple didn't develop Growl. The only thing they do is (now) distribute it over the Mac App Store. And that wasn't their choice per se, the Growl developers posted it there.

Re:Not true. At all.

[psydeshow]

In the time it took to write the FAQ entry, they could have posted the source code.

Perhaps they were hoping for a little free publicity for the App Store version in the tech press?

Re:Not true. At all.

[toriver]

Apple is a company that exists to bilk non computer saavy users out of their money.

Haters gonna hate, I see. Ignoring that a large number of software developers choose Macs over plastic Wintendo or "I'll start coding as soon as I have finished tweaking this Linux config" PCs is probably easy - if you cover you eyes..

Re:Not true. At all.

[bonch]

Boy, it sure is interesting how the exact opposite position was taken by so many people in the Google ICS article. When Google releases a version of Android and promises to release the source at some unspecified point in the future, it's accepted at face value.

Re:Key word is "in the app store".

[SiMac]

Why? You need to have the copyright to begin with to be able to make it closed source. And if you have the copyright, you can do pretty much anything with your software, including distribute it through the App Store while simultaneously licensing the source under any open source license you want.

This is just stupidity on the part of the Growl developers. Developers added support for Growl to their products because it was FOSS. The net effect of selling Growl and making it closed source is going to be that developers either won't support Growl, or they will support the older version of Growl that's still FOSS.

Fork it

[milbournosphere]

I hope Growl is forked, it's an amazing tool. I can tolerate paying for it in the app store, but taking such a popular open source tool to closed source is just wrong. I'd gladly give my $2.00 and my support to an open source fork.

Re:Fork it

[Desler]

They aren't taking it closed source. This is just FUD.

Re:Fork it

[hxnwix]

Where's the source? All I can download is a binary and a promise to become open source. So, it's not open source.

Re:Key word is "in the app store".

[Kenja]

It would also apear to not be true, so what ever. I just dont care that much despite using the software. Its not like the copy I have will stop working.

Re:They want to be bought by Apple

[the_B0fh]

That's such a stupid comment. Apple bought CUPS and it was fully open source, GPL'ed.

Apple had no problems buying it.

Re:They want to be bought by Apple

[UnknowingFool]

If it is BSD, Apple doesn't have to buy it to use it.

WT

[cyfer2000]

Fork, please.

Re:Key word is "in the app store".

[Jane Q. Public]

I use Growl but it doesn't do that much for me anymore anyway. In fact it is usually more annoying than anything else.

If they do actually go closed source, and my existing copy stops working, I'll just stop using it. Growl loses, not me.

Whoever posted this "news" should be shot

[Theovon]

Growl is not going closed source. They just don't have releasing the source EARLY as a priority. That's their choice. As long as the source is eventually released, that's all most of us care about.

The way I judge this, this slashdot story is grossly slanderous and was posted by an asshole whose sole intent was to spread FUD and stir up trouble. There's no way they couldn't have been ignorant of the FAQ. Probably what happened is that they felt entitled, were refused, and got mad, so they decided to make up this bullshit. And the slashdot editors are not competent to filter out this kind of crap.

The main summary needs to updated.

Re:Whoever posted this "news" should be shot

[curious.corn]

you don't "release the source code"... what you normally do is to maintain a certain kind of website, one that most often has an URL such as http://svn.growl.info then you don't spend a single extra-minute to "release the source", you just use something called a tag. Here's the linky in case you can't google for it: http://svnbook.red-bean.com/en/1.5/svn.branchmerge.tags.html

That's when you're talking about projects that are truly open source and don't call themselves that, just for marketing...

Re:Whoever posted this "news" should be shot

[Theovon]

You're playing with semantics. There is a philosophy, not a rule, that releasing often and early is good, and this is how it's normally done. But it doesn't have to be that way. With the GPL, if you want to follow the rules, you have to release source code when you release a binary. I'm guessing that growl isn't under GPL; either that, or all of the original contributors have agreed to delay release of the source. In that case, there's no violation of the GPL, just the spirit of Free Software, if they decide to release the source late.

Why might they want to release source late? Let's think of some reasons:

- Their revision control infrastructure makes it inconvenient to just plop on a web interface.
- They don't want to be pestered with bug reports for stuff they know is broken.
- They don't want outside contributions right now, because those aren't necessarily in line with their goals.
- The are embarrassed about the state of some of their code, even if it works well.

On the side, I'm right now working on a project that I plan to release under GPL. It's complete enough that some people could use it productively. But _I_ don't feel it's polished enough, so I haven't released it in any form to anyone but myself. This is because it doesn't meet my standards of completeness and usability. That is my choice. The likelihood of me getting outside contributions is low anyhow. That's how it usually is anyhow. So I have chosen to just work on it until I'm good and ready.

It appears that the growl people have made a similar choice about 1.3. It may have been accepted to the App Store, but we know how flaky Apple can be about their acceptance policies. If you look at the App Store reviews, huge numbers of them are complaints. Clearly, Growl 1.3 is not ready for prime time. Since they are unlikely to receive any outside help anyhow, they have chosen to focus their attention on fixing the problems, rather than pandering to the uber-entitled whiners who want the source code for no practical purpose other than to complain if they don't get it.

Releasing source code can be more trouble than it's worth. As soon as you become "open source", you open yourself up to criticism that you wouldn't have gotten otherwise. And why do we bother with this in the first place? Mostly altruism. We release source code, not because it's easy but because it's the right thing to do. But most of what we get in return is complaints without any help. Or we get ignored. It's the rare open source project that gets a lot of attention and assistance from outside contributors. Mind you, most open source projects are crap, so I don't blame most people for not contributing. Contributing is an investment too. But don't delude yourself into thinking the world of Free Software is a bed of roses.

It's amazing how many people, who haven't paid a penny or contributed a single line of code, will make really demanding, nasty-sounding bug reports. I understand what it's like to rely on some software just to have it fail and cost you time. But the fact is, it's FREE. You did nothing that entitles you to any control over it.

In any case, none of this addresses the main point, that the original poster was an asshole for lying about what the growl people are actually going to do.

Re:Whoever posted this "news" should be shot

[curious.corn]

Yeah that's right, true... you stand correct!

Not even the GPL requires to maintain a VCS, it's just what you _normally_ do if and when you want to participate or run an Open Source community - besides, there's so many free infrastructure for this out there, there's no real excuse.

If you close the doors, maybe dump a tarball in an obscure FTP subfolder you're surely abiding to the word, but not the spirit. You can't give the finger to the community while calling yourself Open Source for marketing purposes. Although it's kind of fashionable these days...

Re:Whoever posted this "news" should be shot

[hxnwix]

This is perfectly kosher with both the spirit and letter of free and open-source software.

Can I download the source? NO. I can download a promise to become open source. Fuck. That.

Re:Whoever posted this "news" should be shot

[Theovon]

That does seem like an inconsistency. However, it turns out that most of the complaints regarding growl aren't true. The original post was made by some nutcase that was being very hostile to the growl contributors, and he was banned for that. So he made up a story to make the growl people look bad.

The lead developer of Growl posted a response to this. You should read that an ignore part of what I said.

Re:Whoever posted this "news" should be shot

[Jonner]

Growl is not going closed source. They just don't have releasing the source EARLY as a priority. That's their choice. As long as the source is eventually released, that's all most of us care about.

Perhaps you can point to a link on the Growl site to download source of any version, even older ones. It certainly is the developers' choice to release the source or not. As of now, they have not released the source for Growl 1.3, so it's not accurate to call Growl 1.3 Open Source. Though earlier versions were released under an Open Source license, the fact that the site doesn't provide them and those in control are trying to keep people from talking about a fork isn't a good sign.

Re:Whoever posted this "news" should be shot

[curious.corn]

What does having a public CVS got to do with "release early, release often"? Non sequitur, example: I can't recollect the last time this - admittedly visionary and at the time massively cool project - released: http://www.enlightenment.org/p.php?p=contribute&l=en

You see, the whole point is whether you're wearing the OS badge for marketing reasons - to draw developer or user attention - or whether you really want to grow and thrive within a busy and healthy community. That's the only point really... you post your code online whatever the state (it was deemed good for binary release anyway wasn't it) because if there's a better way you'd better let it be seen by those that would know.

If you're afraid you can't confront turf wars and big egos with pure leadership and vision, you might as well keep it closed to begin with: the community is not a free ride on the Amazon Turk

Re:Whoever posted this "news" should be shot

[toriver]

So it became as closed as Android "Honeycomb" then...

Re:Whoever posted this "news" should be shot

[smash]

The GPL doesn't even require that. It requires that you make the source available on request. This could be by COD freight of floppies or CDs.

Re:Whoever posted this "news" should be shot

[Yer Mom]

Growl source

Disclaimer: I don't have hg installed here at work so I can't verify that it really is version 1.3.

Re:Whoever posted this "news" should be shot

[Jonner]

Growl source

Disclaimer: I don't have hg installed here at work so I can't verify that it really is version 1.3.

Its odd how difficult it is to find . There used to be links to source on the download page, but now there are not. All of this controversy could have been avoided if the Mercurial repository had been easier to find. The actual hg repository appears to be at https://code.google.com/p/growl/ . I do have hg installed, and it appears that 1.3 is in that repository. I'm not sure how long it's been there, but if it's been there all along, the developers could have simply pointed to it to allay any fears about Growl going proprietary.

Re:Key word is "in the app store".

[93 Escort Wagon]

This is just stupidity on the part of the Growl developers. Developers added support for Growl to their products because it was FOSS. The net effect of selling Growl and making it closed source is going to be that developers either won't support Growl, or they will support the older version of Growl that's still FOSS.

I doubt whether Growl is or isn't FOSS matters to the vast majority of Mac developers - or Mac end users, for that matter.

If it adds useful functionality, they'll use it. If it doesn't, they won't - regardless of the license.

Re:I hate open source names

[itchythebear]

It's notification software. OS X versions are all names of big cat's (tiger, leopard). Big cats growl.

I'm not saying it's the best name ever, but that's prob where the name comes form.

Re:Open Source *nix Notification Specification

[Weezul]

I doubt it, just start distributing an OpenGrowl program based upon Growl 1.2.2, but switch the license to GPL.

A better questions is : Is there any benefit for NotifyOSD and Growl in homogenizing their backend interfaces?

Holy pointless.

[Dogtanian]

Nope, it's BSD licensed. They can do whatever the hell they want.

Except include code with licenses that guarantee the users fundamental software freedoms.

I know it's easier to cry "freedom" than understand complex issues like licensing but BSD is more free than GPL. You can do most anything as long as you maintain copyright notices. It you disagree with this, you don't have to contribute to it.

Oh great. The scene appears to be being set for yet *another* identikit thread hijack on behalf of the GPL vs. BSD holy war.

Never mind that we've had this discussion countless times before and every possible debating point and issue has been raised and discussed exhaustively a million times. Never mind that the chances of any new insight coming out of the billionth tedious discussion of this long-established subject is next to nothing. Never mind that those involved on both sides feel the need to repeat the same entrenched positions- which mostly come down to personal philosophy and not an incomplete understanding of the issues (which everyone knows full well by now) and will therefore be unlikely to change in the face of the discussion... not that this was the point anyway.

No, the point is that those involved in every one of these pointless rehashes of the exact same to-ing and fro-ing and restatements of the same old facts and arguments on both sides know this damn well, but can't reign in their desire to indulge in the argument yet again.

Extract money from the lazy?

[qvatch]

Growl prompts you to upgrade and sends you to the site when you are told you need to pay. Perhaps some do. Some time later, it becomes open source again, and perhaps freely downloadable from the website. Didn't neooffice do this (first part at least? They were also quite hush-hush about the transition to no free binaries(for the current, and only 10.7 version)).

Re:Extract money from the lazy?

[wordtech]

I see no problem with requiring payment from users even if the product is open-source. How do you fund development? I happily paid the $10 to the NeoOffice developers to download the latest binary of NeoOffice. And I paid the two bucks for Growl. In the case of NeoOffice, the $10 is worth it to save myself the 24 hours or so it takes to build the entire behemoth. As for Growl, it would have been better had the source been available from the get-go, but it's a small developer team that's overwhelmed with support requests because 1.3 is actually a huge update. I think they're prioritized correctly. If paying for an OSS product offends you, consider it a service charge for the convenience of a pre-compiled binary. "Support services" are one of the few Slashdot-approved ways of actually getting paid for your OSS work, aren't they?

Re:Extract money from the lazy?

[hexadecimate]

Growl's a good product. I have used it for years. Somehow paying $1.99 for a piece of well-written software that helps me get stuff done seems...reasonable.

Re:Extract money from the lazy?

[qvatch]

The problem isn't the cost, nor the quality. It's the un-announced, and under-informed/explained changes. Growl at least seems to have said they are abandoning free software and going pay-only (took a lot of digging to find a neoffice post claiming the same). Except elsewhere in this topic, it is said they are still releasing the source, etc, so maybe that wasn't their intent. I can't consider it paying for support, especially with neooffice. I don't think they want to offer support to non-corporate, see the price of admission to the forum.

Affirmation?

[Fnord666]

Growl has surprised its users by going closed-source and only available for purchase on the Mac App Store

If you are going to make a statement like this in a headline, shouldn't at least one link point to something that confirms this? I saw nothing that claimed Growl was going closed source.

Re:Affirmation?

[Jonner]

Growl has surprised its users by going closed-source and only available for purchase on the Mac App Store

If you are going to make a statement like this in a headline, shouldn't at least one link point to something that confirms this? I saw nothing that claimed Growl was going closed source.

Regardless of future plans, there is currently no download link for full source on the Grow Downloads page.

Re:Key word is "in the app store".

[BitZtream]

No it doesn't, not even a little. There is nothing that prevents any form of OSS from existing on the AppStore except perhaps some retarded interpretation of GPL.

Going on top of that, the actual copyright owners ... the ONLY ones who can make it closed source ... can also make an exception or special license to deal with the AppStore, like 'its GPL for everyone outside of our organization, and we'll do whatever the fuck with it internally because well, we can'.

Again, licensing isn't even a little bit confusing or difficult to understand unless you're trying to make it into something its not.

Fork that sucker

[roc97007]

The decision to fork on the last open version should be a natural result of an open source product going closed source. At very least, it gives users a competitive choice. And if the open source version doesn't work out, then it was not to be. But it should still be tried.

Re:Key word is "in the app store".

[sarhjinian]

[blockquote]There is nothing that prevents any form of OSS from existing on the AppStore except perhaps some retarded interpretation of GPL.[/blockquote]

That "retarded interpretation of the GPL" got VLC for iOS strategically yanked from the App Store by a contributing developer (and not by VideoLAN, nor Applidium) who worked for Nokia.

Apple was okay with the app. Most (all save one?) of the developers were okay. The porter was okay. One guy wrecked it for everyone.

Re:They want to be bought by Apple

[BitZtream]

Considering Apple already has an alternative and has had for years (since probably the OSX release after Growl became popular IIRC) ... 0?

Re:Fuck me

[BitZtream]

And exactly how does this ACTUALLY change ANYTHING for you? Other than a political viewpoint about the software, how has it changed to effect you in any way what so ever?

Re:Key word is "in the app store".

[Roger W Moore]

I doubt whether Growl is or isn't FOSS matters to the vast majority of Mac developers - or Mac end users, for that matter.

True, but I think that suddenly having to pay $1.99 will matter - at least to enough people that growl will no longer be used by other apps.

New name...

[SanityInAnarchy]

Roar?

But yes, this is the appropriate response. There apparently is a community who is willing to continue distributing patches. Growl is also useless without applications which use it -- I can't exactly see anyone paying for a notification service without apps, nor can I see an app developer deliberately requiring a proprietary notification service if an open one is available.

Re:New name...

[SanityInAnarchy]

Think of it like LibreOffice. Maybe the version of OpenOffice I had worked "perfectly", but better to switch to LibreOffice than to either deliberately disable autoupdate, or to get updates Oracle has poisoned.

I'm the Project Lead for Growl

[1155]

Hi, I'm the Project Lead for Growl. I'll be happy to respond to any questions replied to this thread, as long as they are kept nice, courteous, professional, etc.

So a few items I already know are going to be brought up.

1) We've had a large amount of inbound support requests in the last 2 weeks, more than we get in a 6 month period of time usually. http://groups.google.com/group/growldiscuss/about?hl=en_US shows the statistics about just this month alone. Bear in mind this month is not done yet, this is not our only list/group/whatever google wants to call those things. We're also fielding support requests on twitter, and a direct email address (due to popular demand).

2) Source code was planned to be pushed over the wall this weekend. Since this post is up, we're changing our plans and going to work on getting the source up today. We've tried off and on over the last two weeks, but have ran into issues with multiple unclosed heads for instance in the repo, things like that. More technical issues, less issues with regards to actually posting source because we don't want to (we do, just i.e. there are just problems). We have a deadline to meet in order to get the source posted, but we also have people who need 1.3.1 since there are problems in 1.3 (just like in every other software product ever, in every version ever)

3) This guy was banned for only a month because he was responding in a very hostile way. He was told he would be unbanned at that point. However, he seems just like an angry individual in general, and I hope he gets counseling or something in order to help with anger management issues. He was not banned because he forked Growl, I think that's kind of neat actually and the point of being open source. He was being a poisonous person, and was removed as such. I will not discuss this any further, but wanted to address this here.

4) We will be providing source in the form of our chosen vcs. If you do not know how to use a vcs but you work with oss, or want to work with oss, not learning a vcs is doing yourself a disservice. Future employers, or current oss projects, will find your knowing a vcs up front an asset, and we want to promote that. Tarball distributions will be ended as of 1.3.

Chris Forsythe
Growl Project Lead

Re:I'm the Project Lead for Growl

[phorm]

I don't use growl (not much of a mac user myself), but I do appreciate seeing a candid and professional response.
There are many geeks/devs that end up getting tied in knots or in pissing matches, so it's refreshing to see a response that's well-thought-out, and addresses the issue in #3 without going off as "person X is a poopoohead and we don't like him"

Thanks!

Re:I'm the Project Lead for Growl

[cbhacking]

I'm confused - you talk about VCS as though it's something new, unusual, or unexpected. It's the oppoite of those things. For any decent-sized project, and many tiny ones (see Sourceforge/Codeplex/etc.), enlisting in a version control repository is the best way to get the source code, and often the only one (who wants to spend time packaging it up?).

You've obviously already got a branch that builds version 1.3. Instead of tarballing it, why not just allow unauthoried read access to the repo and publish the link? That's what the open-source community generally expects, and it requires no additional work on your part. It also means that people can't truthfully complain, for even a very short period, that the source isn't available. The community is happy, the users are happy (or don't know/care), the developers are happy (less time wasted), you don't wind up with a negative story on the front page of Slashdot...

OK, the last one *might* be beneficial to you guys in the long run. Or it might not. Contrary to silly sayings that people parrot out of context, there is such a thing as bad publicity.

Oh, and was it really only one user who got banned, like your post implies? Or is it true that "Any users who provide links to bugfixes and source for the previous version 1.2 are being banned from the discussion group, and their messages deleted" as stated in the summary? I've been here long enough to know that /. summaries have a habit of being twisted where not factually wrong, but they're also right on occasion, and definitley imply multiple users / posts here.

Re:I'm the Project Lead for Growl

[Andor666]

1.- Why AppStore only? I won't buy anything from Apple. I don't want them scanning my hard disks for apps and sending reports back. Also, I have computers without internet access that cannot use AppStore. Also, I want to give my money to the one I'm buying from.

2.- Where is the history of changes for 1.3 ? Why would I need to change and buy an App? I can only see changes up to 1.2.2...
http://growl.info/documentation/version_history.php

Re:I'm the Project Lead for Growl

[1155]

I'm confused - you talk about VCS as though it's something new, unusual, or unexpected. It's the oppoite of those things. For any decent-sized project, and many tiny ones (see Sourceforge/Codeplex/etc.), enlisting in a version control repository is the best way to get the source code, and often the only one (who wants to spend time packaging it up?).

You've obviously already got a branch that builds version 1.3. Instead of tarballing it, why not just allow unauthoried read access to the repo and publish the link? That's what the open-source community generally expects, and it requires no additional work on your part. It also means that people can't truthfully complain, for even a very short period, that the source isn't available. The community is happy, the users are happy (or don't know/care), the developers are happy (less time wasted), you don't wind up with a negative story on the front page of Slashdot...

OK, the last one *might* be beneficial to you guys in the long run. Or it might not. Contrary to silly sayings that people parrot out of context, there is such a thing as bad publicity.

Oh, and was it really only one user who got banned, like your post implies? Or is it true that "Any users who provide links to bugfixes and source for the previous version 1.2 are being banned from the discussion group, and their messages deleted" as stated in the summary? I've been here long enough to know that /. summaries have a habit of being twisted where not factually wrong, but they're also right on occasion, and definitley imply multiple users / posts here.

Good questions. Answers in order:

1) We provided source tarballs before, those are going away. We've been using different vcs's for 8 years or so.

2) We want to spend time helping people build with a known stable revision, which is what a stable tree will give us. We've found that we actually get more done if we don't have random people reporting issues on xyz revision, which we know has a problem already. So the issue we've been having is with taking the 1.3 tag, and putting it into the stable repository.

3) It was a single user. No, we're not banning people for talking about 1.2.2 (we're helping those people, I think someone had a 1.1.6 version and that was way old and we helped them too) or patches for 1.2.2 or anything else. Patches likely should go to the development list and not discussion list.

Chris

Re:I'm the Project Lead for Growl

[curious.corn]

I second this post... there's nothing shameful to open the repo read only.

This habit of closing development behind doors has only been made fashionable by Google with Android and I don't particularly like it (just to make clear what axe I'm grinding in this forum today)

But anyway, good luck...

Re:I'm the Project Lead for Growl

[1155]

I don't use growl (not much of a mac user myself), but I do appreciate seeing a candid and professional response.
There are many geeks/devs that end up getting tied in knots or in pissing matches, so it's refreshing to see a response that's well-thought-out, and addresses the issue in #3 without going off as "person X is a poopoohead and we don't like him"

Thanks!

Thank you. :)

Re:I'm the Project Lead for Growl

[toriver]

Maybe broader access to the live branch leads to more overhead from feedback than they need? Remember, open source licenses like the GPL only mandates you make source available when you distribute a binary, not at any other point in the lifecycle. Access to VCS systems is a neat extra, but not mandatory in any way.

Re:I'm the Project Lead for Growl

[1155]

1.- Why AppStore only? I won't buy anything from Apple. I don't want them scanning my hard disks for apps and sending reports back. Also, I have computers without internet access that cannot use AppStore. Also, I want to give my money to the one I'm buying from.

2.- Where is the history of changes for 1.3 ? Why would I need to change and buy an App? I can only see changes up to 1.2.2...
http://growl.info/documentation/version_history.php

1) A few reasons:

1a) Prior to this, multiple applications shipped Growl with their applications, but did not inform the users that they were installing Growl. Applications like HP drivers, Adobe CS5, and Dropbox would either install, or reinstall without informing the user. We needed a trusted party to review Growl, and Apple is it.

1b) When we see hundreds of people a month complaining about the updating system, and the new updating system with Sparkle didn't seem that appealing, it really just didn't seem like a great idea to continue on. Setting up Sparkle infrastructure on our end would have just exacerbated things.

1c) With one of our releases, we exceeded the entire allocation of Google Code's bandwidth within a few hours. Our other host has contacted me in the past to ask if we were seeing a DDOS, just for a release. Meanwhile Apple has this nice infrastructure for just what we wanted, to provide easy downloading and updating.

1d) We do not want to be responsible for credit card transactions. PCI is serious business, and we're not set up for any of that. Nor did we want to be.

2) We just haven't had time to type it all out yet. It's on my todo list. You can look at the app store description, I put some of it in there.

Chris

Re:I'm the Project Lead for Growl

[sco08y]

Hi, I'm the Project Lead for Growl. I'll be happy to respond to any questions replied to this thread, as long as they are kept nice, courteous, professional, etc.

Good luck with that!

Re:I'm the Project Lead for Growl

[Graff]

I really appreciate the calm, collected, and clear responses in the face of what is clearly a very contentious topic for many people. It's also great to get some insight into the internals of a popular project.

Keep up the good work, Growl is a very interesting project and it is definitely driving UI development. Having an open-source project like this available for browsing and contributing to the source code does a great deal for programmers both established and new.

Re:I'm the Project Lead for Growl

[Anonymous Coward]

Chris,

The problem is not that you're charging for it. I want to be clear about that upfront. Growl has been such an essential part of my Mac for so long that I have absolutely no problems paying for it through the app store. This is not about the money - I would have paid 10 times what you were charging for it. Especially with the added convenience of knowing that the will be updated regularly through the app store distribution chain. Nor do I have any issue with you having a private app-store branch and a public OSS branch, and, within reason, back merging the changes from the app-store branch to the OSS branch at a slower pace.

The problem is that 1.3 does not work and you've, for all intents and purposes, abandoned 1.2. 1.3 is so horribly unreliable that, frankly, I have to wonder how well it was tested before it was released. The only app on my Mac that seems to work reliably with 1.3 is Adium. Everything else (GrowlTunes, GrowlMail, and many apps that use the Growl framework) are hit or miss. I'll restart Growl 1.3 and some things may or may not work. It's just so unreliable as to be totally unusable. And, as the reviews on the app store would seem to indicate, I am not the only one having these issues.

Now I can't say anything about Perry Metzger as a person, as I've never met him or had even heard of him until a couple hours ago. I don't know anything about his anger issues. But I've just switched to his fork and it works with all my Growl-enabled apps, which is more than I can say about Growl 1.3.

What you don't seem to understand is that your ("Growl, LLC's") indecisiveness and intransigence regarding the source code and nature of the project has caused this. Growl 1.3 has major issues. Why not show the code? Let us look at it. I'm an Objective-C hacker - not a great one, but I have some experience with the language. Maybe I can help? At the very least, another set of eyes may be able to figure out what is causing such major problems.

But your refusal to post the code to 1.3 or provide a timeline to do so, or even really acknowledge the issues with 1.3, appears to me (as an outsider) to be the crux behind the reason to Metzger to fork the project.

So here's your chance, Chris, to answer some questions about the state of the Growl project:

1. Straight up, is Growl still an open source project? If so, when are you going to post the code to 1.3? If not, when are you going to fix the issues with 1.3 or at the very least acknowledge them?

2. Where is the 1.3 SDK, so that I can begin updating my own apps?

Re:I'm the Project Lead for Growl

[stephanruby]

3) This guy was banned for only a month because he was responding in a very hostile way. He was told he would be unbanned at that point. However, he seems just like an angry individual in general, and I hope he gets counseling or something in order to help with anger management issues.

I've read his comments on his repository and I'd say he's putting up a pretty good front for such an angry guy. Also angry guys/hostile individuals rarely version control their own comments like this guy did.

He was not banned because he forked Growl, I think that's kind of neat actually and the point of being open source.

You might be a better man than I am then, and it's not because I dislike forks. If it were me, I would have been slightly annoyed that a person that I would have considered "poisonous" would have forked my code. I know that logically, such an emotion doesn't make much sense, it's just that I generally have trouble remaining emotionally objective about someone's actions after I've judged that person to already be "poisonous".

He was being a poisonous person, and was removed as such. I will not discuss this any further, but wanted to address this here.

I'm sure there is no denying your perception of those events and the weird entitlement issues that some internet users, you don't even know, may have over your time. That being said, at no point does he call you names, in the present form, nor in any of his past comments (which luckily have been version controlled for us to see). Don't you think you may have been a little bit too quick to judgement over this guy? So yes, he seems to have been a little bit frustrated over the fact that he didn't have access to the source, but all these labels you've placed on him just don't seem to fit him at all.

An angry guy would have responded to your comments by now, and would only have gotten himself deeper. Looking at his posting history, he just doesn't seem to fit that profile (and in a way, I'm not surprised he hasn't responded in that manner yet, I doubt he ever will).

4) We will be providing source in the form of our chosen vcs. If you do not know how to use a vcs but you work with oss, or want to work with oss, not learning a vcs is doing yourself a disservice. Future employers, or current oss projects, will find your knowing a vcs up front an asset, and we want to promote that. Tarball distributions will be ended as of 1.3.

Has any one actually complained about having to go through your version control system? Or was this just an assumption on your part when people were asking for your tar balls? Even the "poisonous" guy you banned seems to be relying on his version control system for everything. So he couldn't be the one who complained about that. Right?

Re:I'm the Project Lead for Growl

[blackcat]

3) This guy was banned for only a month because he was responding in a very hostile way. He was told he would be unbanned at that point. However, he seems just like an angry individual in general, and I hope he gets counseling or something in order to help with anger management issues. He was not banned because he forked Growl, I think that's kind of neat actually and the point of being open source. He was being a poisonous person, and was removed as such. I will not discuss this any further, but wanted to address this here.

I'm sure you have no desire to discuss it any further, since it would shed a very unfavorable light on you. Still, I'd like you to point me to one (only one) angry/hostile post by this user. Because to me you seem to be the angry one, see http://www.mail-archive.com/growldiscuss@googlegroups.com/msg09608.html

Re:I'm the Project Lead for Growl

[GWBasic]

Chris,

What I don't get is why haven't you been using some kind of public repo like Github? (Bitbucket, ect,) At that point, publicly releasing your source code is just a matter of tagging the repo and/or branch at a particular point in time.

Even tarballing or zipping your build environment isn't a major undertaking, especially if it's part of your release process.

It seems like you're spending more time "making excuses" on message boards when it would take less time to just put a zip of source code on your web site.

Re:I'm the Project Lead for Growl

[1155]

We already had the source posted before you made this post.

Chris

They have every right to do whatever they want.

[aristotle-dude]

Nobody ever bothered to contribute code changes to the project outside of the core team so they have every right as the copyright holders to do as they wish. They are not bound by any license be it BSD or GPL of any version. Those licenses are always trumped by copyright.

None of you have a right to complain since nobody contributed anything to the project.

Re:They have every right to do whatever they want.

[jedidiah]

On the other hand, ANY THING that has been released under the GPL can be forked and taken out of the control over the entity that "owns" it.

It's kind of a big part of the point of GPL to begin with.

Do it if you care to, or not.

Re:Key word is "in the app store".

[wolrahnaes]

No it doesn't, not even a little. There is nothing that prevents any form of OSS from existing on the AppStore except perhaps some retarded interpretation of GPL.

Not entirely correct. Distribution of GPL code for which you do not own the copyright on an app store for a locked down platform such as the official iOS App Store is at best a grey area under GPLv2 and I believe plain illegal under GPLv3 as the user can not just download the source and build a working version for their device. To my knowledge this is why VLC was pulled for example. It was by request of a VLC copyright holder, not Apple.

This limitation does not apply to app stores which are not the sole source of binaries for the platform such as the jailbreak app stores on iOS and the many Android options, as those users are able to compile and load their own binaries as they please. This would also be the case IMO for the Mac App Store, as you could still download the Growl code and build it yourself with Xcode same as always.

Going on top of that, the actual copyright owners ... the ONLY ones who can make it closed source ... can also make an exception or special license to deal with the AppStore, like 'its GPL for everyone outside of our organization, and we'll do whatever the fuck with it internally because well, we can'.

Again, licensing isn't even a little bit confusing or difficult to understand unless you're trying to make it into something its not.

This part you got completely right, if the Growl team requires contributors to assign copyright to the team or all the contributors agree, they can license the App Store version however they want.

tl;dr: If you're building from someone else's GPL code, closed app stores _might_ be a problem, though historically this has only come up if one of the copyright holders has a problem with the app store. If you own the copyright, do whatever you feel like.

Obviously in this situation since they're able to relicense to closed, this has nothing to do with the app store and everything to do with making money.

The fact that you have to ask the question

[strangeattraction]

means the answer is yes. F0rk it.

Re:Key word is "in the app store".

[toriver]

Yes, a copyright complaint form one of the copyright holders got VLC taken off the iOS app store, and THEN the discussion arose about whether GPLed software could be distributed using the app store (given that Apple do not have a mechanism to provide source for apps they distribute binaries for).

One workaround could be that a button in the app sends a mail to you with a link to where you can download the source.

Re:Key word is "in the app store".

[sarhjinian]

I don't think that would fix the problem, though. The FSF's point isn't that the source isn't available, it's that you can't release a GPL'ed product under, say, a distribution license that imposes further restrictions.

Get Perry (the forker) side

[javab0y]

The basementcoders interviewed Perry this week and Perry explained why he forked Growl and what happened: http://basementcoders.com/2011/10/episode-47-fork-you-growl-interview-with-perry-metzger/

Re:Get Perry (the forker) side

[ctataryn]

Then perhaps you should read the second paragraph:

"It's not like we've never seen this before. A company starts an open source product, gets a bunch of people to contribute to it and then keeps a separate branch of development for themselves and their paying customers. Eventually enhancements and bug fixes make their way into the Open Source version of the product. In the case of Growl however OSX Lion happened, and what better way to profit than to create a private branch of Growl, put all the fixes needed to operate Growl under OSX Lion and throw it up on the AppStore for $1.99. Yeah, they never bothered to feed the fixes back into the OSS version of Growl. They took their proverbial ball and they're going straight to the bank with it."

Re:Get Perry (the forker) side

[andywest]

The Free Software Foundation let their code by free-as-in-beer, but charged for the media to transport the code and for the printed documentation for the code. It was only fair, as this was a way to keep the foundation self-sufficient. So the problem is not, in itself, open-source not equal to free-as-in-gratis.

The point is not that the Growl project is charging for its software, but that the project is not making its code available for patches or for improvements by other programmers, which is the whole idea of open-source. The Growl project, starting with 1.3, are not doing that. And they made the problem worse by refusing to admit that there is a problem.

I have listened to the forker on the interview; he sounds like a rational fellow, and he did believe that he had a reasonable grievance. Frankly, I cannot see any problem that the Growl project had with him (or with the others they cut off and then claimed did not exist), unless they have become blind from their own hubris.

The real problem is that the Growl project may never have been open-source in the first place. The project misrepresented themselves in their license (enclosed below), which looked like it was GPL but in face was not. The least that the Growl project can do now is to admit openly that they are going closed-source, pull out of Google forums, and let their volunteers choose to go elsewhere.

Growl License

Copyright (c) The Growl Project, 2004-2011
All rights reserved.

Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions are met:

1. Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer.
2. Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in the documentation and/or other materials provided with the distribution.
3. Neither the name of Growl nor the names of its contributors may be used to endorse or promote products derived from this software without specific prior written permission.

THIS SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED BY THE COPYRIGHT HOLDERS AND CONTRIBUTORS "AS IS" AND ANY EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE ARE DISCLAIMED. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE COPYRIGHT OWNER OR CONTRIBUTORS BE LIABLE FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, EXEMPLARY, OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES (INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, PROCUREMENT OF SUBSTITUTE GOODS OR SERVICES; LOSS OF USE, DATA, OR PROFITS; OR BUSINESS INTERRUPTION) HOWEVER CAUSED AND ON ANY THEORY OF LIABILITY, WHETHER IN CONTRACT, STRICT LIABILITY, OR TORT (INCLUDING NEGLIGENCE OR OTHERWISE) ARISING IN ANY WAY OUT OF THE USE OF THIS SOFTWARE, EVEN IF ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGE.

Re:I hate open source names

[toriver]

Explain what a "powerpoint" is. Measure of electricity? Closed source names are worse since there is no source to check what the hell it is doing.

Re:Key word is "in the app store".

[uglyduckling]

The copyright holders can release a GPL'ed product also under a distribution license that imposes further restrictions. The copyright holders can do as they please with their work. If they feel that it is commercially viable to release a GPL'ed version with source code and a paid-for version on the app store for people who are willing to pay for the convenience, that's entirely their choice as the copyright holder.

Re:Key word is "in the app store".

[93 Escort Wagon]

True, but I think that suddenly having to pay $1.99 will matter - at least to enough people that growl will no longer be used by other apps.

Oh, yeah - no question. But at the time I made my comment, nobody was talking about the fee - everyone seemed to think it going closed source was the real crime.

But in any case, there's no way I'm paying for Growl!

Re:Key word is "in the app store".

[jo_ham]

Why?

Open source licences are compatible with the App Store - the motivation here seems solely to be that if the source is still open, who will pay the $1.99 they want for the ready-compiled app on the store?

You seem to think that it's Apple "forcing" them to close up the source, but I think you should look closer to home (ie, the devs themselves) for that decision.

Re:Key word is "in the app store".

[sarhjinian]

The copyright holders can release a GPL'ed product also under a distribution license that imposes further restrictions

I am not sure this is the case. See http://www.fsf.org/news/2010-05-app-store-compliance

Re:Key word is "in the app store".

[Trillan]

You think the Mac App Store is simpler, licensing-wise?

Not at all.

BSD and GPL the same in this case

[perpenso]

Isn't there some form of restriction here in the license, are they allowed to make a closed source derivative work, seeing as they're the original authors?

Nope, it's BSD licensed. They can do whatever the hell they want.

As the owner of the copyright they are free to relicense their code however they want, GPL or BSD does not matter in such a case. GPL'd code is sometimes dual licensed in such a manner to make an active project acceptable to commercial users.

Re:Key word is "in the app store".

[LingNoi]

Exactly, I find it nothing but annoying.

Re:Key word is "in the app store".

[mwvdlee]

Why? You need to have the copyright to begin with to be able to make it closed source.

TFA mentions bugfixes by third parties, so did Growl have a license forcing contributers to relinquish their copyright?

Re:Key word is "in the app store".

[Dr Dodgy]

True, but I think that suddenly having to pay $1.99 will matter - at least to enough people that growl will no longer be used by other apps.

And this is what is so fucked about the general app store user...

$600 for a phone & $1200 for a shiny new laptop? Not a problem your Steve-ness

Nek minnit

$1.99 for a fucking app???? WHAT A FUCKING RIP OFF!!!

Moot to the topic at hand

[Benanov]

Growl isn't GPL-licensed.

Oh man.

[DaVince21]

Closing the source is one thing. Subsequently removing any and all open-source discussion is another. Dickery, to be precise.

Re:Key word is "in the app store".

[toriver]

They can use a modified GPL (after all it's just a license) like the Linux kernel does (the "linking exception"). The modification can be e.g. to allow third-party agreements for distribution where the third-party defers source distribution to the first party - thus removing Apple's requirement to do so.