We are a marketplace. Our developers can pick which licenses they want to use - our only stipulation is the complete source-code would be included and meets the guidelines we publish (i.e, nothing is closed-source on Binpress). We have FOSS licensed projects, dual-licensed projects and projects licensed with our license generator, which for most purposes only differs from open-source licenses on one point - that the code cannot be redistributed as-is without any modification or extension. The reason we provide those licenses is that a lot of developers are worried that people will copy their code as is and sell it somewhere else. We think it's better if people share more code, if we can alleviate some of their concerns.
I don't think it's that surprising that our most popular projects use our own licenses instead of FOSS licenses. Most people care about results and access to the code, and not whether the license was generated by the OSI or the FSF. You can go over our licenses and provide commentary if you feel the need to do so - but please don't accuse us of doing something we don't.
I think you might be confused about what Open Source means. It does not mean access to the source code. Even Microsoft didn't try to hi-jack the term with their "shared source" licenses.
Open Source is a made-up word. It did not exist before the OSI used it to promote OSI approved licenses.
The OSI trademarked the term Open Source to avoid confusions just like this. Not allowing redistribution is BIG difference! Not only is BBpress selling proprietary software, its diluting the very meaning of Open Source!
Everything you said is right with an important exception: The OSI's application for the trademark was denied by the government. So there is no trademark on Open Source.
It's interesting how you choose to spin it to fit your narrative. That product has multiple licenses, the one that allows redistribution of the source is this - http://www.binpress.com/license/read/id/1567/app/859
The one you linked to only allows binary distribution. This is how those projects support themselves, by offering tiers of pricing depending on the user needs. We just require that at least one of the licenses allows redistribution of the source. So I'm understanding that by your world-view, Open-Core projects are not open-source? or that open-source can only be used if sanctioned by the OSI? I'm afraid that no one has monopoly on that term. It means different things to different people. We call our products "Commercial open-source", which you can find the usage of which on the web and wikipedia as well. Most projects on GitHub do not have a license, which means they are copyrighted by default. We vet licensing for each project on our site, to make sure there are no copyright or licensing breaches, and provide a range of licensing options to fit the developer POV. Not sure where all the hate is coming from.
Some hate is coming from the fact that you're running a code-selling website, and you mentioned it on Hacker News of all places. Code-selling websites rank just above insurance salesmen and expertsexchange on the list of things that programmers hate.
Another good portion of the hate comes from the fact that you're selling projects that are not open-source as open-source.
Maybe it's just me, but if you're running a slimy code-selling website you should at least know better than to call it open-source. Here's a link you should read before you get sued by the OSI, which I will be kind enough to not charge $750 for: http://opensource.org/docs/osd
I'm also curious why you think integrating a PDF reader into your app costs $36k. In my world we just use a UIWebView. Or, if you want to type maybe five more lines of code, you can use CoreGraphics. You can then spend the $36k you save to get Donald Trump to fire your horrible developers.
Finally, you probably want to fix the grammatical issues in your laughable "commercial open-source" license if that's a core part of your business.
I would like to mention I have no problem with code selling sites. I think Code Canyon is a fine site, granted I've never used it. Also I do not have a problem with selling stuff under a proprietary license and then selling the same thing for more money under an open source license.
My issue is 100% the association of the word Open Source with proprietary software. Yes, even the enterprise license is proprietary. I think we have a big issue in the software world with confusion about what makes something open source. Part of this is because web software skirts the GPL and so some people have come to see Open Source as for the benefit of the developer.
Open Source is about the user. It is about giving the user freedoms, not saving developers money.
Now, the enterprise license is interesting. It is better than the introduction licenses and I think is 90% to the four freedoms. The only thing is the requirement to only distribute modified source. Which is a weird requirement since one need only add a no-op.
If I was running BinPress I'd inverse things. iOS devs and devs of proprietary software do not want to make their software open source, so charge them for the ability to use your library without distributing their code. This is the dual license business model and it can work well. Propreitary software has the money so get them to finance the open source project.
As far as I am concerned if you are not distributing source and redist rights to end-users then you are worth only as much as you can finance real open source.
Edit: I would also like to mention that I did not downvote pytrin.
Thanks for the explanation, we always appreciate sensible feedback on our messaging and product. We are always looking for ways to get our projects more open and accepted by the traditional open-source community. Our default option when adding new products on the marketplace is GPL + a commercial license (which is the option you mention). Most developers still pick only our own proprietary licenses, since they are worried about people abusing it.
We are also in touch with the OSI for creating a 100% open-source compatible license of our own that could be officially sponsored by them. It's been a slow process, but we hope to get it done in the near future. Our own license was created with the help of copyright lawyer that has dedicated his professional life to supporting and advocating open-source. It is a compromise between closed-source / commercial and fully open-source (what we call "commercial open-source"). For many purposes, it is less restrictive than the GPL (no stipulation on releasing your source if you modify and distribute on other formats), which makes it more attractive to businesses building commercial products (for example, iOS application, which cannot use GPL).
"Commercial open-source" is a pathetic term, please. Sorry for the strong words, but it hurts me when I see the term 'open source' with 'commercial'. Whatever happened to 'Hacker Ethic' ?
Sir, I must say, being on HN, you are at the outright wrong place!
Actually, (and this is not intended to defend Binpress's deceptive marketing!!) all Open Source as defined by OSI allows commercial use, and there is nothing anti-commercial about Open Source. So there's nothing wrong with commercial stuff when it otherwise respects all the Open Source values (which Binpress does NOT do, so there is something wrong in their case).
Comments
We are a marketplace. Our developers can pick which licenses they want to use - our only stipulation is the complete source-code would be included and meets the guidelines we publish (i.e, nothing is closed-source on Binpress). We have FOSS licensed projects, dual-licensed projects and projects licensed with our license generator, which for most purposes only differs from open-source licenses on one point - that the code cannot be redistributed as-is without any modification or extension. The reason we provide those licenses is that a lot of developers are worried that people will copy their code as is and sell it somewhere else. We think it's better if people share more code, if we can alleviate some of their concerns.
I don't think it's that surprising that our most popular projects use our own licenses instead of FOSS licenses. Most people care about results and access to the code, and not whether the license was generated by the OSI or the FSF. You can go over our licenses and provide commentary if you feel the need to do so - but please don't accuse us of doing something we don't.
I think you might be confused about what Open Source means. It does not mean access to the source code. Even Microsoft didn't try to hi-jack the term with their "shared source" licenses.
Open Source is a made-up word. It did not exist before the OSI used it to promote OSI approved licenses.
With that out of the way I fount at least one non-open source product: http://www.binpress.com/app/pdftouch-sdk-for-ios/859 The licenses is almost 100% non-open source: http://www.binpress.com/license/read/id/1565/app/859 The only Open Source like-clause is the non-expiration!
The OSI trademarked the term Open Source to avoid confusions just like this. Not allowing redistribution is BIG difference! Not only is BBpress selling proprietary software, its diluting the very meaning of Open Source!
Everything you said is right with an important exception: The OSI's application for the trademark was denied by the government. So there is no trademark on Open Source.
It's interesting how you choose to spin it to fit your narrative. That product has multiple licenses, the one that allows redistribution of the source is this - http://www.binpress.com/license/read/id/1567/app/859
The one you linked to only allows binary distribution. This is how those projects support themselves, by offering tiers of pricing depending on the user needs. We just require that at least one of the licenses allows redistribution of the source. So I'm understanding that by your world-view, Open-Core projects are not open-source? or that open-source can only be used if sanctioned by the OSI? I'm afraid that no one has monopoly on that term. It means different things to different people. We call our products "Commercial open-source", which you can find the usage of which on the web and wikipedia as well. Most projects on GitHub do not have a license, which means they are copyrighted by default. We vet licensing for each project on our site, to make sure there are no copyright or licensing breaches, and provide a range of licensing options to fit the developer POV. Not sure where all the hate is coming from.
Some hate is coming from the fact that you're running a code-selling website, and you mentioned it on Hacker News of all places. Code-selling websites rank just above insurance salesmen and expertsexchange on the list of things that programmers hate.
Another good portion of the hate comes from the fact that you're selling projects that are not open-source as open-source.
Maybe it's just me, but if you're running a slimy code-selling website you should at least know better than to call it open-source. Here's a link you should read before you get sued by the OSI, which I will be kind enough to not charge $750 for: http://opensource.org/docs/osd
I'm also curious why you think integrating a PDF reader into your app costs $36k. In my world we just use a UIWebView. Or, if you want to type maybe five more lines of code, you can use CoreGraphics. You can then spend the $36k you save to get Donald Trump to fire your horrible developers.
Finally, you probably want to fix the grammatical issues in your laughable "commercial open-source" license if that's a core part of your business.
I would like to mention I have no problem with code selling sites. I think Code Canyon is a fine site, granted I've never used it. Also I do not have a problem with selling stuff under a proprietary license and then selling the same thing for more money under an open source license.
My issue is 100% the association of the word Open Source with proprietary software. Yes, even the enterprise license is proprietary. I think we have a big issue in the software world with confusion about what makes something open source. Part of this is because web software skirts the GPL and so some people have come to see Open Source as for the benefit of the developer.
Open Source is about the user. It is about giving the user freedoms, not saving developers money.
Now, the enterprise license is interesting. It is better than the introduction licenses and I think is 90% to the four freedoms. The only thing is the requirement to only distribute modified source. Which is a weird requirement since one need only add a no-op.
If I was running BinPress I'd inverse things. iOS devs and devs of proprietary software do not want to make their software open source, so charge them for the ability to use your library without distributing their code. This is the dual license business model and it can work well. Propreitary software has the money so get them to finance the open source project.
As far as I am concerned if you are not distributing source and redist rights to end-users then you are worth only as much as you can finance real open source.
Edit: I would also like to mention that I did not downvote pytrin.
Thanks for the explanation, we always appreciate sensible feedback on our messaging and product. We are always looking for ways to get our projects more open and accepted by the traditional open-source community. Our default option when adding new products on the marketplace is GPL + a commercial license (which is the option you mention). Most developers still pick only our own proprietary licenses, since they are worried about people abusing it.
We are also in touch with the OSI for creating a 100% open-source compatible license of our own that could be officially sponsored by them. It's been a slow process, but we hope to get it done in the near future. Our own license was created with the help of copyright lawyer that has dedicated his professional life to supporting and advocating open-source. It is a compromise between closed-source / commercial and fully open-source (what we call "commercial open-source"). For many purposes, it is less restrictive than the GPL (no stipulation on releasing your source if you modify and distribute on other formats), which makes it more attractive to businesses building commercial products (for example, iOS application, which cannot use GPL).
Hope that makes sense!
I thought OSI was denied the claim to "open source" actually, but I could be wrong.
"Commercial open-source" is a pathetic term, please. Sorry for the strong words, but it hurts me when I see the term 'open source' with 'commercial'. Whatever happened to 'Hacker Ethic' ?
Sir, I must say, being on HN, you are at the outright wrong place!
Actually, (and this is not intended to defend Binpress's deceptive marketing!!) all Open Source as defined by OSI allows commercial use, and there is nothing anti-commercial about Open Source. So there's nothing wrong with commercial stuff when it otherwise respects all the Open Source values (which Binpress does NOT do, so there is something wrong in their case).