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).
Comments
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.