Slashdot Mirror
The 'Everyone Gets the Source Code, Donations Get You Binaries' Software Model
TroysBucket writes "One developer who is trying to fund his development work via donations has taken on an 'Everyone gets the source code, donations get you binaries' business model, where he provides installers and binaries directly only to donating users. Quoting: 'A very central goal of everything I am doing, right now, is to show a concrete [and highly documented] way that other developers can fund their own FOSS work. With that in mind One major mistake I made, right off the bat, was that I provided very little direct benefit to people who donate (no “perks”).' Has anyone seen this work well before with other projects?"
The problem with that is... they don't get the binaries, they can't try out the software and learn how good it is.
I would suggest an alternative: people who don't donate get different binaries. Binaries with a nag screen, or binaries that expire and must be manually updated after a certain date to continue using the software.
Whereas folks who donate get auto-update or binaries that can be used indefinitely (even an old version), and maybe some additional 'add-on' content elements like themes that aren't part of the code
And of course, they can build the source themselves.
All this will really do is decrease your user-base. If I download some source and it's lacking the necessary scripts to compile and install the thing, I move on and find another solution that does what I need. I don't have time to write my own make files to get the thing working.
He says in the post that others can do this and that he has no problem with it.
He know, he's fine with it. From TFA:
"Now. You'll note that all of this software is GPL'd. Which means any Tom, Dick or Harry (or any other awesome name) can build their own binaries and distribute it on their website or repository. And I have absolutely no problem with that. None whatsoever."
Am I right in thinking that this is basically the deal with Red Hat Enterprise Linux? Seems to work for them despite the existence of White Box Linux.
I think I've seen a large scientific graphic package with similar terms. It was easy for me to find third-party binaries, but evidently brand-name recognition was sufficient to keep some people buying from the developer.
I don't think it's about the binaries. It's about the installation method and tools, for which he provides support.
But that's wrong. So wrong that you failed to read this:
>Now. Youâ(TM)ll note that all of this software is GPLâ(TM)d. Which means any Tom, Dick or Harry (or any other awesome name) can build their own binaries and distribute it on their website or repository. And I have absolutely no problem with that. None whatsoever.
>modded informative
And the moderator was wrong too.
--
BMO
Given the rate at which they are printing money, everything should be free.
What about this model? Anyone can download the source for free and they're on their own. Donors can get a precompiled binary custom-tailored to their system as needed, and a direct line to you whereby you provide support for installation problems, bug fixes, feature requests, etc.
Michael J.
Root, God, what is difference?
OpenBSD did(does?) a similar thing with their install CDs, and they were largely under the even-less-restrictive-on-distributors BSD license. There was nothing stopping 3rd party packagers, and they acknowledged as much. Conveniently for them, though, their user base is both fairly loyal(and thus wanted to support the project) and fairly paranoid(and thus not entirely trusting of 3rd-party install packages)...
Not sure of how successful it is, but Colloquy for the iPhone is a pay for version, and the source is readily available. Perhaps code signing and walled gardens need to exist for this model to be successful, also release source a version behind the binaries would probably help, too.
Sig: I stole this sig.
If you're a main developer and pushing progress into the project, you have a de-facto monopoly on new releases -- other people's releases will be late and/or less tested. You will be the official source.
In GPLv2 (perhaps not GPLv3) you can have the program open source, but keep the build scripts to yourself.
You can enforce being official even further by registering a trademark on your products name. Then other builds need to change the name if they want to publish releases. All of that is fine with the GPL, and is not depriving users from the source code.
NB: The message above might reflect my opinion right now, but not necessarily tomorrow or next year.
I don't have a problem with this business model - it seems interesting and I hope it works.
However, I hate it when people use the word "donation" to mean a mandatory payment. A donation is a voluntary gift.
"One developer who is trying to fund his development work via donations has taken on an 'Everyone gets the source code, donations get you binaries' business model, where he provides installers and binaries directly only to donating users.
Well, I'm glad he's taking this high ground with F/OSS and not selling his software with the source. God forbid he actually demands money for his labors!
The recent Eclipse launch had several benefits for Eclipse users; the big one is that the donors got access to binaries 48 hours earlier, while anyone else supposedly could build the same release it is a huge project and that would be a labor-intensive process.
I would recommend something like this over denying users binaries, as your project probably does not need any barriers to user adoption.
x-chat has done this for windows binaries a long time, but there are free third party binaries, so i guess it probably doesn't provide a big incentive for people to pay.
I was looking for a nice IRC client after switching to OS X (escaping the madness that is Linux on the desktop). Tried a bunch of them, ignored most of them because I didn't like the idea of running a propietary IRC client (I have itches to scratch, damnit!). Initially I ignored Textual thinking it was yet another propietary one but then by chance I found out they actually have the source up on github under a BSD license, and I was happy to pay a couple bucks for it on the App store to support what seems to be a very neat little IRC client.
I really like this model, I never really felt l like I was an open-source user for any other reason than not having to pay for stuff, but the fact is that I've grown to like having access to the source code - giving me the ability to write or apply patches for bugs, or know for sure that if the developer ceases work, the source will still be there for anyone to pick up and the product won't die.
This worked fine for me with PyKota and other printing utilities that I'm selling as binaries for a number of years now from http://www.pykota.com/
All my software is Free Software licensed under the terms of the GNU GPL, and is freely available to all from subversion. People wanting tarballs or Debian packages can pay.
Additionally I used to sell support contracts and consulting work, but I had to stop when moving to another part of the world.
So yes it's a model which works. I don't have to rely on this for living though, since I've got an unrelated full time job, but if you can dedicate a lot of time to this and to make your software well known and respected (so I'm not talking about spam), you'll be able to get some profits with this model.
Votez ecolo : Chiez dans l'urne !
Brilliant and obvious idea. At first, I thought this would only apply to Windows or Mac platforms. However, once you realize that Linux distros are always late in their software repackaging, this might work on Linux too.
Main difference between the BSD license and the GPL license: one is from California and the other is from Massachusetts
Binaries for those who "donate"? You mean "pay". This sort of thing is friction, and it always drives away some customers. Some people will be put off by a nag screen or crippleware scheme. A bad interface is enough to drive users away. I've also bought games that didn't have some features implemented yet. They fobbed customers off with the excuse that it was a bug, and released a "patch" several months later. Stinks to find that out after you've paid. Now I never buy software unless I can try it first.
This "some assembly required" idea seems especially bad for software. "Some assembly required" makes a lot of sense for physical goods that pack down into much smaller volumes than they need when in use, but not software, just the opposite. Someone who is short of space may not want to make room for a bunch of source code. The Linux kernel is an extreme example. How big is the source code tree now, when unpacked? 200M? And after compiling, 300M thanks to all the object files created? And when you're all done compiling it, you have a kernel binary that might be 2M. Maybe that's insignificant on today's terabyte hard drives, but size still matters in other places. Just grinding through a compile still takes a few minutes. In this scheme, how are ordinary game players supposed to try before they buy? Linux comes with free compilers, but if they are on Windows, will they have to buy a compiler? Why not go with a demo version that leaves out some content?
In a better world, neither developers nor customers would need to bother with such schemes. We would have organizations whose duties are to collect funds, gather information on usage, and dole out compensation. The developer could concentrate solely on development, and the fans could share without guilt.
Intellectual Property is a monopolistic, selfish, and defective concept. It is "tyranny over the mind of man"
Cygnus does this, where they'll give you binaries and their source code with build scripts that hard coded paths for THEIR build environment (meaning it won't build out-of-the-box in your environment).
So it sounds like a great model to me.
I am very small, utmostly microscopic.
Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
"Sveasoft is a small company which makes its living by selling supported versions of Linux-based firmware for a number of wireless routers. Paying subscribers can download current versions of the firmware, which adds a number of features not normally found on those routers. They can grab updated versions as they become available, and participate in support forums as well.
Sveasoft's products are based on free software - Linux in particular. The company's approach to GPL compliance has raised eyebrows for a couple of years now. One tactic employed by the company has been to terminate support accounts for any subscriber who further redistributes the Sveasoft binaries or source. The GPL says that customers are entitled to that code (for the GPL-licensed portions of Sveasoft's products, at least), and that they have the right to pass it on to others. Sveasoft has responded that, when this redistribution happens, it is no longer obligated to provide future versions of the software. The company has employed various schemes for determining which subscriber has redistributed any particular version, and has been quite aggressive at shutting down accounts.", quoted from http://lwn.net/Articles/178550/
Additionally if it's his code, he can do whatever he wants to do with it; it's irrelevant that he's chosen to release all or just a part of the programs as GPL because he owns the code.
This is a dumb idea. You'll just end up killing all traffic to your own website, and some other site offering binary downloads will end up getting all the visitors. And all of the community as well, nobody will visit the forum or bug tracker from a site that refuses to give out binaries, they'll communicate at the other site instead.
You can't do this with the GPL license, if you're not OK with other people putting up binaries, as they have the right to distribute, and even sell binaries.
Which proves, once again, how stupid it is to use the GPL. He could use the BSD license, then provide pay-for-binaries with some sort of proprietary installers and binary updating mechanism. Instead, with the GPL, everyone can steal his binaries. Of course, it wouldn't prevent anyone else from coming up with their installation and updating mechanism, but they would have to put in the work. It would still be advantageous to cooperate with the main project, because you would get more hands and brains working on the same source code. That is the beauty of the BSD license: it's a license for the real world. Not a license backed by corporations and advocated by a screaming army of unemployed students, like the GPL.
In this way, you get the source code, but if you want the convenience, you must pay for his exclusive method of installation and updates. He could push updates and bugfixes constantly. This would go hand in hand with current buzzwords, such as "the lean start up", "A/B testing" and the model of "release early" of free software (you see this constant updating in products such as Evernote, etc.).
I believe this would be a great model for developers who are writing for the desktop, instead of doing software for servers. In this way, we could have a healthy software ecosystem for the desktop, which is still lacking in the Linux landscape, that is just ridden with the problem of having to rely on the small army of "developers" who repackage the source code (they're really repackagers...), who are always behind the curve in comparison with their Mac OS/WIndows counterparts.
Main difference between the BSD license and the GPL license: one is from California and the other is from Massachusetts
AND, if you give them @OpenBSD money, they print your name on the CD cover, which makes you look Super Cool!!!
Main difference between the BSD license and the GPL license: one is from California and the other is from Massachusetts
mod this dumb-ass down please!
Hmmm..... I do not see a mod category "factually incorrect". I guess "overrated" would have to do. What do others use?
PyMol does this and its the de-facto standard in protein structure visualisation
If an experiment works, something has gone wrong.
Sorry, I meant not the cover, the booklet. Don't want to mislead anyone aiming Super Cool status.
Main difference between the BSD license and the GPL license: one is from California and the other is from Massachusetts
Apple did that years ago with Darwin (minus the necessary files to effectively build the components). If you were willing to donate a few bucks, then they would ship the software built, packaged and burnt on a nice and convenient DVD with lots of freebies like a shiny and innovative graphical interface. They didn't stop there and really went for the extra mile : if you were a top donator (1,000+ USD) they would also send you a finely tuned laptop to match your donation. How considerate of them.
I've have rarely seen this work.
Most of the time -- the user base will just hate you.
Binaries for free, donations for source code. The source code gives you the power.
Proprietary methods of install + updates are much, much better then stupid build scripts.
Build scripts are for nerds. Nerdiculous solutions, we now can say with near 100% certainty, will not get you the chics YOU deserve!
We would like to see Real People start using Fine Open Source Software.
Main difference between the BSD license and the GPL license: one is from California and the other is from Massachusetts
You can do that with any free software license, and I would assume anything approved by OSI as well. Being allowed to redistribute binaries isn't a unique feature of the GPL.
This same concept has been working really well for Red Hat for years. They give away the source code, but sell support/binaries. If Red Hat can make a billion dollars a year doing it, this guy can probably make a few sales if his software is useful.
>Which proves, once again, how stupid it is to use the GPL.
1. The article doesn't say he objects to other people building binaries. In fact, he realises this will happen and doesn't care.
2. The GPL does not forbid building binaries in exchange for cash. In fact, such services are encouraged.
3. Trying to turn this into a BSD vs GPL flamewar.
Your anti-GPL rant just demonstrates that you are about as intelligent as jerryleecooper.
--
BMO
He's presumably banking on a sufficient number of users being too dumb (or deciding it's not worth the effort) to find the precompiled/easily installed versions.
P.T. Barnum and I suspect he might be right.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
Nah. Overrated means "I disagree". I'd use funny.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
I have a beef with opinions such as yours. You seem to imply the value of having source code is one of having the regalities of a freeloader. That is to say, we must have the source code, so some dude who specializes in repackaging make us a nice binary, because all we care about is "apt-get install my-freeloading-shit".
To which I say: no! The value of source code is that if you would like to see the code, to learn how it was done, so that perhaps you can not only just use it, but contribute back, then you might want the source code. This "contract" may or may not make your life easy. The whole idea, when back in the BSD Unix days (the people who invented this open source thing), was one of learning and cooperation.
Now, if you think I'm some sort of idealist hippie neckbeard, then read my other post (the one in which I propose proprietary binaries + updates with source code with a BSD license - which would allow that, instead of the infamous GPL. This empowers the individual developer. Read: money.)
In fact, if the developer wants to makes some money off his own software (which might exclude install scripts and makefiles), then who is to say he can't put food on his table, because some free software freeloading unemployed student, living in his parent's home doesn't like it and think it goes against "freedom"?
Main difference between the BSD license and the GPL license: one is from California and the other is from Massachusetts
Not dumb, lazy.
You're on a roll.
Tell me, which of those categories is more numerous? Which would, due to their l334t sk1lz, figure out how get it for free anyway?
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
Nope nope. This model only works for Linux or BSD, maybe even MacOS X, it has the submarine nature of forcing you to use a free OS, or at least one with a system compiler that you can download the source code and compile. Microsoft Windows has never included a system compiler, thus there is no predictable out-of-the-box environment to compile to.
So maybe he's hoping that people running Windows desktops (the majority of computer users) are just too lazy/stupid to compile the binaries themselves and just pay for the binary.
But on Linux and FreeBSD, you can download the source for many programs, type "make install" and off it goes, and in fact that is my preferred solution, because binaries on Linux and BSD rarely work out of the box anyway.
Back in the day you had to compile every little nitpick bullshit thing, and only a few hard core nerds bothered with it. If you want to slash your userbase, and community knock yourself out. I wont have any part of it, and I refuse to purchase a binary under the guise of a donation, I dont like being lied to.
Not lazy, just doesn't care.
their user base is both fairly loyal (and thus wanted to support the project)
I'm sure the "wrath of the deraat" has nothing to do with it :-P
Or, they do care and they wish to support the work.
Xchat for windows has done this for quite a few years - some others like silverex have open source builds for nearly as long though.
If it wasn't for "laziness" we'd all be building our own computers, starting with copper ore and coal (I've always wondered how far one person could get...). "Laziness" is generally a good thing, it stops you expending energy and time on less productive things. I recently had to deal with a lot of JSON data (Facebook's gallery API), and while I could have sat down and mapped it all out I found it easier to use an online tool somebody has been good enough to provide for free. The tenth time I found myself using it I donated $5, totally worth it and I hope he enjoys the beer. It's hardly an unusual business model, take a look at the commercial level Linux distros for proof of that. My main client is "lazy" because he can't be bothered learning HTML and a bit of PHP/MySQL - I win because he pays me to do it, he wins because he can get on with running his business, playing golf, or whatever else he fancies.
Please consider this account deleted, I just can't be bothered with the spam anymore.
starting with copper ore and coal (I've always wondered how far one person could get...)
To a toaster at least. A British man did that in a documentary.
I would say such a model supports the spread of the ideology behind open source and open system even. You build your software (meaning the binaries) exactly the way you want them and every processor and system architecture is invited to the party.
What is the product and who does it target?
Even in the Linux universe not everyone confident working with source.
The "donation" that delivers the goods in the only form a user can comfortably deal with is more properly called a "sale."
In GPLv2 (perhaps not GPLv3) you can have the program open source, but keep the build scripts to yourself.
I'm glad you took the time to read the GPL before commenting:
He has no problem with it...
Unless his program becomes popular and people actually DO start mirroring his code without making any changes to the code. At the point where leechers start drawing away donations I would bet that would start to have a problem with it.
On global warming? He's drowning polar bears, the heartless prick!
If you mod me down the terrorists will have won
What's a CD?
The benefit of funny is that he understands that nobody was actually taking him seriously......
We are supposed to take seriously anyone who thinks a .org domain actually has any legal implications whatsoever?
This is basically how the OS/2 port of OpenOffice.org works.
The company that sells eComStation (OEM version of OS/2 with updates for modern hardware) funds the OS/2 port of OO.org. Anyone who buys eComStation 2.x automatically gets an OpenOffice for OS/2 support contract which includes full binaries. Also, anyone can elect purchase just the OO.org support contract (with binaries).
Meanwhile, the source code for the OS/2 port is all checked in to Apache's repository along with everything else. So anyone can grab it and build it if they have the know-how.
Most users seem fine with this arrangement, as it keeps the OS/2 port funded and alive.
It's not really a donation. You're paying a fee for the precompiled binary. I don't know why people use the word "donation" when it's essentially a mandatory fee. Maybe it just sounds nicer?
Before someone jumps on my case and implies "compiling it yourself gives you the same thing" -- even if it did create a 1:1 copy compiling it yourself, you're still paying a fee for the convenience of having the compilation done for you.
Nothing about it sounds like a donation. A donation is something you give without consideration of something in return. When I hear things like this, I can't shake the mental image of some sleazy infomercial using fancy wordplay to try to score extra sales.
In short, it seems quite clear that the Neo devs are deliberately doing the absolute bare minimum to satisfy the GPL requirements (and to be able to use a ".org" domain, which may have significant tax implications)
You don't have to meet requirements to have a .ORG domain anymore; commercial enterprises can register .ORG domains and use them.
If the developer is not providing the exact build scripts and exact source code,
then he is not following the GPL; the GPL requires that the exact source code (including all build scripts and build directions) be included.
In all seriousness, I habitually refuse to fund any closed source software projects, but I'm not that great about donating to the open source ones that wish to run on donations either. I have however happily contributed to "compile it yourself if you want it free" projects.
I've moral problems with contributing to software that takes away my freedom, which prevents me from buying your closed source software, no matter what incentives you offer. If otoh I see the source code exists, then my moral objections won't prevent me from indulging in whatever conveniences you offer for a price.
The Christian religion has been and still is the principal enemy of moral progress in the world. -- Bertrand Russell
gcc *.c -o derp
Distributing a very old binary, and requiring a donation for the recent versions that have bugfixes and new features is better strategy than that.
Didn't Adobe get torn up in the media for charging for bug fixes a month and a half ago? I seem to remembering it backpedaling in less than a week.
The intersection of people who don't know how to compile from source, and those who are likely to download open source software is approximately zero
I misunderstand. Are you claiming that approximately everybody who has downloaded 7-Zip, Firefox, LibreOffice, VLC, or GIMP knows how to compile from source?
You are absolutely wrong, or Linux distributions would not be able to exist either. Last I checked Redhat, Suse, Ubuntu, and many more all use this exact same model with GPL licensed source and binaries.
By the way, this is extremely similar to the way RedHat started making money. Provide the Distro but only give support and patches to those that pay. It's relatively recent that the model went all paid for, and it's been hurting their business so hopefully they move back to that model.
-The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
There are some kinds of software that don't need a lot of individualized support, such as video games. What revenue model would you recommend for an open-source game?
Ugh, broken build scripts just mean that no linux distro will bother to ship your software. So, unless the author of the software wants to limit distribution to whatever distros the author can personally maintain packages for (and get users to track), that isn't a good thing.
If your software isn't popular, this won't help it become popular. If you care that much about donations, that probably matters to you.
If your software is popular, then expect somebody to fork it and actually maintain a decent build system, and all the distros will ship that instead, thus meaning that nobody actually uses your "official" version. I maintain packages on a distro and I've on occasion essentially pointed the distro at what amounts to my own forks of projects just so that I can maintain code I can actually ship and the distro's requirements are met. I'd rather just use upstream's code directly, but not if it means I'm maintaining messes of patches and merging in new makefiles and such all the time. Easier to just maintain my own git repository and just pull in upstream changes from time to time. Oh, easiest way to get this kind of treatment is to not bother to tag your releases. No, I'm not going to ship out your binary - I'm going to build one that I know is clean - which means that if you don't want your user-base to be fragmented across 14 different commits you should mark which one is the official release version.
I believe XChat (IRC client) used a model similar to this for a while. At least for their Windows binaries. There were unofficial versions like YChat floating around last I checked.
Am I really the only one who's seeing this? No source code, link goes to the post of some guy developing something, linking to no source code.
Impressive editing on the part of Slashdot, here.
It's unfortunate it does not also say that these scripts should be fire-and-forget. Compiling some of the more complicated "GPL" projects is an exercise in frustration, requiring anything from specific OS versions, specific versions of build tools (that are no longer in repositories) and of course whining to the developers enough until they give in and tell you what is missing from their wiki compile-it-yourself page.
How long does it take your foot to heal each time you shoot yourself in it?
Do you alternate feet?
or, you get a supported distribution with someone to point a finger at (see RedHat's enterprise model) There's definitely people that will support this model and not roll their own binaries. I think it will become more common in certain areas.
The cesspool just got a check and balance.
Isnt Theo doing someting like this? You can buuild your own CD from source but if you want a simple bootable ISO to install with you have to buy a disk, or get it elsewhere.
Or has he changed his model since the last time i looked?
---- Booth was a patriot ----
Since he's not going to get money from the binaries of older versions anyway, and people who won't donate should put up with not having the very latest version +1 previous version.
The GPL can't force me to license every single piece of code in my project, nor do I have to abide by the license of a work I own complete copyright on.
Donating to get the binaries in no way compels people to not upload those binaries to any and every site that allows you to submit applications, and the license Bryan chose means there's not a single thing he can do about it.
So the question becomes "does saving the bandwidth cost of hosting them himself offset the loss in donations that will result from everybody getting the binaries he created without ever visiting his site?"
Well, he's not preventing redistribution. So your concern is based on a fallacious premise.
However, what you describe isn't a violation, and Sveasoft has done it for years. I can sell a binary, I don't have to provide source to anyone without a binary, and I'm free to refuse future sales to anyone for any reason (including because you exercised your right to redistribute.)
Except that make install, depending on your luck, may either be a smooth procedure, or may throw you up dependency city. In the latter case, one is much better off paying him for the binaries, and then running it. Only use make install if you are using an unusual platform for all this.
Instead of donations, he should just put a price tag on the binaries - one that he thinks is reasonable, and has a good chance of covering his expenses. In other words, downright sell the stuff.
Actually, why even do that? He only 'owes' the source code to people who get the software from him - either paid, or unpaid. So what he could do - sell it like he does normal proprietary software, but in compliance w/ the GPL or any other open source license in that the source code always accompanies the binaries, along w/ the full installers. That way, no need to run afoul of even a GPL3.
But the real problem, as others pointed out, is the 'help your neighbor' anti-business provision of the GNU freedoms, where others could compile the stuff and distribute it for free. Get rid of #2, and a part of #3, and GNU would be just perfect.
I suppose?
He could individually sign the copies he distributes and include the recipient's name in the signature so the donors also receive a digitally signed certificate of authentication.
In general (I'm now talking about the RIAA, MPAA, etcAA), signing is a much more sane approach than DRM because you are giving paying customers something extra, instead of giving them something broken by design.
We don't see the world as it is, we see it as we are.
-- Anais Nin
You haven't had to meet requirements to buy a .org for more than a decade; I've had on parked since the late '90s.
It doesn't hurt to be nice.
Of course you'd like that, it means that other people are paying so you can freeload...
Now mostly at Usenet:comp.misc & SoylentNews.org (it's made of people!)
Hasn't this been going on in a way with Ardour for a long time now (ie a couple years I think)? If you go to the downloads page you will find that you can't download it for free until it's made it's financial quota for the month (which it never seems to). Of course, I don't mind, as I'm fine with the beta packages that are built or using the binaries in my repository, but as soon as I start doing some actual work with it (still just getting the lay of the interface and such), I'll donate.
"Don't meddle in the affairs of a patent dragon, for thou art tasty and good with ketchup." ~ohcrapitssteve
I came here for a comment/joke about Gentoo Linux, left disappointed.
> Not dumb, lazy.
Which part of deciding it's not worth the effort is giving you trouble?
That he calls them a "donation perk" rather than selling them indicates you can already set your own price. That's hard to undercut.
If it takes me an hour to install the software without donating, and I can have the binaries for any donation of at least $x, then my time only has to be worth more than $x per hour.
In GPLv2 (perhaps not GPLv3) you can have the program open source, but keep the build scripts to yourself.
I'm glad you took the time to read the GPL before commenting:
If YOU were the copyright holder why would YOU need to abide by these terms?
It also doesn't say they have to be easy/simple/working for cases where you fork something you only have limited rights to.
open source, the only retards that think they can make a living by giving product away for free
I wonder if this will continue for Apple.
iOS 6 is a yawner. Yes, what we need -- more facebook integration. Already, there is a backlash against FB. The latest Android announcement had some cool items in it including another method of protecting against piracy that does not depend on if a device is not rooted.
The Retina Display Macbook Pro has a cool screen, but cannot be repaired or upgraded.
Mountain Lion?
Jobs's RDF is gone.
What Apple needs to do is start figuring out how to get themselves enterprise-friendly without losing their consumer market. Enterprises buy stuff in such large chunks that a few good contracts are a lot better than lines around the building of hipsters.
First, redo the Mac Pro. Make a chassis that works like a tower, but can have a rack drawer attached so it can be slammed into a standard enclosure. Offer not just 8Gbs FC cards, but NICs with enough packet offloading power so FCoE is workable.
Second, make something like BES but for managing iPhones. Yes, Exchange can do a lot, but having a dedicated policy management server that can handle data transmissions, perhaps even backups of phone devices would bring a lot of revenue.
Third, the ARM processor supports worlds. In this day of BYOD, offer iPhones and iPads with a "work" partition and a "home" partition. That way, the employee only needs to type in the long password when accessing the "work" side, and the Exchange erase only blows that out. It also allows for apps to only see a subset of data, so the FB app isn't able to access work contacts.
Fourth, make an antipiracy mechanism similar to Google's LVL or new encryption mechanism in Jelly Bean. That way, apps don't have to rely on the fact a device is not jailbroken. As an added bonus, more money can be spent on features, not anti-jailbreak BS.
Fifth, make a business friendly Mac desktop that can push the Dells and Compaqs out of the offices. Take an iMac, toss the camera and mic, and sell that as a business PC with service plans to follow. Lots of cash there to be made, as most companies would switch to Macs if they could, only for the artistic value of the machines.
If YOU were the copyright holder why would YOU need to abide by these terms?
You wouldn't, as long as you don't mind having to do all the development work yourself, rather than working with a community of developers. As soon as you merge other people's patches, you're bound by the terms of the license.
A DVD with a density of 700MB :-)
Back in the 80s, before anyone else was working on Free Software, the Free Software Foundation supported itself by providing a build service. They would build distributions of their Free Software such as Emacs and GCC and ship them to someone for several hundred dollars.
Well, maybe he based his license on the GPL but left that part out? That is perfectly legal.
When i did my open source project, for every source download there were 100 binary downloads. The number of people actually managing to build form source will be even lower. Having a correct toolchain takes a high learning curve. Solving problems in the toolchain needs you to understand it.
The model would fail to function however if someone who is smarter than you builds a better installer. You than have the option to include that person in your team.
But anyway, as a developer you have to have thick skin for people who have their own idea's, but lack the background for developing or do have an good idea, but do not see the coding effort.
Keep doing what you are good at.
Not if his code is based off existing GPL/LGPL work - say, OpenOffice.
It used to be called "distribution of labour" back when people were educated and stuff. Describes key element in the toolbox of our species,as well as others (baboons,chimps, dolphins,whales ).
Defining Statistics and Social Research
I do not agree with you. If everyone was going to learn everything then there would not be any jobs. Each one is expert on his field and maybe for the one or another reason he isn't able to learn what you know. This how the life works. You expert in php.mysql,mysli,html, flex and other programming languages as well but the other guy might know microbiology. That is his field! But i am going to agree with you partially that indeed laziness is a phenomenon of our times.
web developer and 3d rendering
Not dumb or lazy, willing to support the software financially.
Just redistribute a compiled and packaged version... Where will he be then?
People will FLOCK in droves to the alternative packaged binaries and he can do FUCK ALL about it.
Proprietary installation methods are not inherently superior.
They are pretty much identical actually. The only real difference is "eye candy". Both types of installers do essentially the same thing with a similar level of automation. Both types of installer also require that the "college intern" in question gets things right.
If you think proprietary installers are "superior" then you are just superficial.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
With a modern package manager, dealing with build dependencies is pretty trivial.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
This "official binaries" business is really perplexing IMO. Why would anyone want "official" binaries at all? In Linux-land, none of the distros ship binaries built by third parties, except for the few instances where they don't have a choice (Adobe Flash, etc.). For open-source software they distribute, they always maintain the source and build it themselves so that it's built for the right machine type/arch, uses the compiler they've selected, links properly to all the dependency libraries, etc.
I just don't see how this is any incentive at all. If it's going to be included with Linux distros in their repositories, the distros will build it themselves and that's what you'll be installing when you type "sudo apt-get install program"; however if the company makes it so the software isn't included with distros' respositories, it probably isn't going to become very popular.
Stupid Slashdot again; they can spend lots of time revamping the UI, but they can't fix the broken moderation system after more than a decade. The lack of a "-1, Incorrect" moderation option has been a glaring error forever here.
sucker!
on the Linux Action Show
SSH Persistent Tunnels : It's GPLv3, complete with building instructions:
http://code.google.com/p/ssh-persistent-tunnel/
but for $1.50 you can just save yourself the hassle of setting up the android SDK and install the binary from Google Play, complete with automatic upgrades etc...
https://market.android.com/details?id=org.ayal.SPT
It seems like a tax on being uneducated. The ones that have learned to compile from source will be able to get it for free, but those that don't have the training or education or know how have to pay extra for it. It sounds like a good idea, but ultimately I think it's incredibly unfair.
starting with copper ore and coal (I've always wondered how far one person could get...)
To a toaster at least. A British man did that in a documentary.
I would say such a model supports the spread of the ideology behind open source and open system even. You build your software (meaning the binaries) exactly the way you want them and every processor and system architecture is invited to the party.
Make Magazine had a story about someone who got up to a telegraph (with the caveats that he had the benefits of 21st century technology to give him the freetime to be able to do this, and also whatever technology you want to consider was responsible for the abandoned mines he used to get his metal etc. (abandoned == not commericially viable, but there was still bits of impure metal that was easier than trying to just find a random hunk of zinc or copper lying around waiting)
What's a CD?
There are a few different meanings.
Thank you, Edward Snowden.
"Arguments from authority are worthless." —Carl Sagan
He was too lazy to read that bit.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
Gcompris makes more or less that: You get free source code, and free binaries for Linux, but if you want a binary for a non-free operating system (Windows, OSX) you have to pay
The GPL requires that redistributors do this, he, as the copyright owner, may distribute as he pleases. The problem would lie when the recipients of his binaries try to redistribute them under the GPL, since they can't get the source.
The GPL requires that redistributors do this, he, as the copyright owner, may distribute as he pleases.
The makers of NeoOffice are redistributors. They are redistributing a derivative work that contains both their code and LGPL-licensed upstream code. They don't have the right to distribute the work if they do not adhere to the GPL if they choose to redistribute a project based on any LGPL code under the GPL.
If NeoOffice were not actually a derived work, then yes, they could name their terms, but if they distributed under a license whose terms they made impossible to satisfy, then the code wouldn't actually be open source software.
... which makes you look Super Cool!!!
You keep using that word; I do not think it means what you think it means