Growl fork maintainer banned from Growl mailinglist after fixing bugs

http://basementcoders.com/2011/10/episode-47-fork-you-growl-interview-with-perry-metzger/

by anon1385 • 15 years ago

170 71 15 years ago

basementcoders.com

cstuder• 15 years ago

Google cache: http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:r-VuHzw...

buro9• 15 years ago

The fork: https://bitbucket.org/pmetzger/growl/

stephenr• 15 years ago

From the article: "One of the biggest problems with this approach, other than the fact they just pissed off a lot of people who beleive strongly in OSS, is that Growl is still broken. So you pay your $1.99 and it no workie. <samuel:jackson>TESTING MOTHER FUCKERS, DO YOU DO IT?</samuel:jackson>"

I happily paid for Growl from the App store, and sure enough it works fine on both my Lion Macs.

http://growl.info/documentation/developer/growl-source-insta... has instructions on how to Build 1.3 from source.

elgenie• 15 years ago

There don't seem to be publicly visible commits after the 1.3 release, though. Compare http://growl.info/documentation/version_history.php with http://code.google.com/p/growl/source/list : the source of version 1.3.1, which includes some important-sounding bugfixes, is nowhere to be found.

masklinn4• 15 years ago

http://groups.google.com/group/growldiscuss/msg/0793d15920fa...

The 1.3 SDK also added Mist[0], which means software does not have to install Growl itself (and the user does not need Growl) to get Growl notifications.

The Growl application itself (from the AppStore) essentially becomes a "Growl Pro", offering users more (and centralized) control over notifications display.

[0] http://growl.info/documentation/developer/implementing-growl...

mansoor-s2• 15 years ago

"other than the fact they just pissed off a lot of people who beleive strongly in OSS"

If they believe so strongly in OSS, they wouldn't use macintosh would they? Nope they don't want to pony up and take out their wallets.

castewart• 15 years ago

If you want to develop for iOS you have to use a Mac.

patrickod3• 15 years ago

Personally I don't see what people are complaining about here. He took an open source project, with a licence that permitted it, and made it a commercial project by adding chances and forming a derivative work. There is no foul play here.

If someone else wants to fork the project and try and mimic the new commercial features they're free to do so. Don't expect the original developers to help you though. They're already set on their own path.

benatkin• 15 years ago

It became popular because it was open source and the community built the brand recognition. Now he went and took the brand recognition to do something that the community didn't expect and doesn't approve of.

hmottestad• 15 years ago

So the question is. Can you make a fork and call it "Growl" or would the "new" growl try to sue the hell out of you?

rmc4• 15 years ago

decided they should be paid for their work. There is one slight problem however. Growl is Open Source Software.

So? You can sell open source software. Just because software is GPL/BSD licenced doesn't mean you can't sell it. Open Source ≠ Non-commerical. Closed Source ≠ Commmerical. You can change for open source software. If something is open source you can't complain if someone sells it.

Obviously if the software is open source, everyone who buys a copy is allowed to sell the software themselves and they don't have to give the original author any money. They also cannot stop someone taking an older version of the code and distributing it.

_ak• 15 years ago

To my knowledge, the source to the 1.3.x release isn't public. I wonder whether it's a complete rewrite from scratch or whether 1.3.x still contains patches from external contributors and whether they agreed that their work be sold for money.

masklinn4• 15 years ago

Your knowledge is incorrect. The 1.3.0 source is available[0], and 1.3.1 should be soon[1], they have not dumped them in the public repository is all.

> I wonder whether it's a complete rewrite from scratch or whether 1.3.x still contains patches from external contributors and whether they agreed that their work be sold for money.

I'm not sure that has any relevance. It would if Growl had changed its license (they have to agree to license changes to their contributions, unless they ceded their copyright to the project or project owner), but selling the product is independent of that. It can be seen as a dick move, but it's still independent.

[0] http://code.google.com/p/growl/source/detail?r=9831a92b05b20...

[1] http://groups.google.com/group/growldiscuss/msg/0793d15920fa...

p0ckets3• 15 years ago

They agreed that their work would be sold for money when they contributed to a BSD licensed project. If they cared, they could release their patches.

patrickod3• 15 years ago

It's not public yet but as per their BSD licence terms they will be releasing it. This, according to http://www.macworld.com/article/162208/2011/10/growl_shows_t...

eis2• 15 years ago

  If something is open source you can't complain if someone sells it. Obviously if the software is open source, everyone who buys a copy is allowed to sell the software themselves and they don't have to give the original author any money. They also cannot stop someone taking an older version of the code and distributing it.

What? I really don't get why so many people don't understand that "Open Source" does not mean you can't sell it, nor does it mean you can sell it at will or whatever. It just means you can view the source. The term "Open Source" does not make any claims about monetization, it does not even say which kind of license is at play.

You can publish your code open source, charge for it and still forbid people to sell it or even redistribute the source.

"Open Source" is not a license. GPL, BSD, MIT, Apache etc. are all open source licenses with very different rules. Here's a list of licenses many people consider "open source licenses": http://www.opensource.org/licenses/alphabetical

Conversely, you can have closed source applications which allow you to redistribute them or even sell at will. Closed source software is just more likely to have a license which is very strict about redistribution, that's all.

rmc4• 15 years ago

You can publish your code open source, charge for it and still forbid people to sell it or even redistribute the source.

Not really. It depends on the exact licence but just about every 'open source' licence, and the Open Source Definition from the OSI and the Free Software Defintion from the FSF will requite that the licence lets the people who get the software to be allowed to redistribute it.

Just look at the link you provided for 'open source definition': "Open source doesn't just mean access to the source code. The distribution terms of open-source software must comply with the following criteria:", and №1 being: "The license shall not restrict any party from selling or giving away the software as a component of an aggregate software distribution containing programs from several different sources. The license shall not require a royalty or other fee for such sale."

waitwhat2• 15 years ago

"Open Source" [...] just means you can view the source.

No. See, for example, the Open Source Definition [1] by the Open Source Initiative [2] which opens with the statement "Open source doesn't just mean access to the source code." Wikipedia states that their "definition is widely recognized as the standard or de facto definition." [3]

You can publish your code open source, charge for it and still forbid people to sell it or even redistribute the source.

Again, no. The Open Source Definition states that "The license shall not restrict any party from selling or giving away the software" and "The program must include source code, and must allow distribution in source code as well as compiled form."

Note that the term "Open Source" isn't trademarked [3] (YMMV), so you can call pretty much anything you want Open Source (IANAL), but that doesn't mean that anyone else would be likely to agree with you. In much the same way, I can point at the small wooden giraffe on my bookcase and call it a delicious slice of blueberry cheesecake, but you probably wouldn't agree with me and it is unlikely to taste good.

Microsoft once wanted to achieve something similar to what you wrote. But even ten years ago they recognised that their goal wouldn't be recognised as "open source", and so they called their program "shared source." [4]

"Open Source" is not a license. GPL, BSD, MIT, Apache etc. are all open source licenses with very different rules.

This is true as far as it goes (although the use of "very" is certainly arguable), and it is even worth remarking that open source licenses are often mutually-incompatible. However open source licenses all have certain features in common [1], and when talking about these commonalities, it is not unreasonable to use the phrase "open source license" rather than writing "GPL, BSD, MIT, Apache etc." each and every time.

[1] http://www.opensource.org/osd.html

[2] http://www.opensource.org/

[3] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open-source_software#Definition...

[4] http://www.microsoft.com/resources/sharedsource/default.mspx

chalst• 15 years ago

"You can publish your code open source, charge for it and still forbid people to sell it or even redistribute the source." - Microsoft tried to call such a strategy open source; this was widely rejected and the approach was called "source under glass".

dlikhten• 15 years ago

Open source philosophy:

- If you are given the binaries, you are also given the source.

- You may modify the source to your liking.

- You may distribute the source or a compiled version of it at will.

Note it says nothing about licensing of mods and even the distribution. Each license is actually tackling how modifications and dependencies are treated.

Nothing in the philosophy says you cannot sell it. At all. Nor in any os license.

Remember the first analogy Stalman says: Free software: "Think Free as in Free Speech, not Free as in Free Beer."

dedward• 15 years ago

Disregarding all the banter about what "open source" means -there are separate issues at hand.

One is the actual license terms the older versions were distributed under. Those matter.

Another is how the project itself was run, specifically how copyright assignment worked. If contributors were required to assign copyright to the project maintainer (or whatever) in order to commit to his main branch, as is the case with many projects, then he can likely do whatever he wants in terms of re-licensing. If that wasn't addressed clearly, there might be wiggle room for closing it off - contributors may have some kind of copyright claim if their work was taken and used under terms they didn't agree to.

Another is PR - that one is obvious.

As for the "Open source means you give back" - let's get over it - that's not what it was originally about - you have no "duty" to contribute - it's just a fantastic, common side effect that lots of people like to take advantage of.

End of story - if you are contributing code to someone elses project, be sure you understand where you sit in terms of copyright.

doki_pen• 15 years ago

You are confusing open source and free. You don't have the right to redistribute open source software. Free software guarantees this right.

peteforde• 15 years ago

As is so often the case with these sorts of posts, there are several issues being conflated here:

1. Growl authors want to ca$h in

2. Widely reported issues under Lion

3. Legitimate conjecture over rights and ethics for pmetzger's fork and whether it can be called Growl

I'd be more than happy to donate (more) to Growl, although I admit that the "suggested upgrade" made me pause. It felt like it crossed that slim line between a premium version and bait-and-switch that is hard to argue either way. It's certainly not strange that people are responding to the fact that this was just dropped on the existing userbase. That pmetzger is getting C+Ds (has this been confirmed) makes me really uncomfortable — it's not in the spirit of OSS as I understand it in my gut.

Ultimately, I don't think people will have a problem with paying, and certainly not such a small amount. It's more the way that it's been thrust upon us that feels slightly off. Am I right?

Of course, we haven't heard their side of the story yet. I urge you all to wait before you cast aspersions on them, because they've worked hard on something many of us have used for years.

starwed• 15 years ago

>Ultimately, I don't think people will have a problem with paying, and certainly not such a small amount.

Growl use seems to be integrated in several open source projects. I probably would never have gone out of my way to get it -- but, a couple of apps I did want suggested installing growl, and it works quite nicely. (I think Adium is what finally prompted me to install it.)

If for no other reason a fork will appear if growl is not freely available, because a lot of open source projects use it under the assumption that it is available.

celticjames2• 15 years ago

3. It's like the Mozilla Firefox vs Debian Iceweasel controversy. Or Redhat vs Centos. The code is open, but the trademarks are copyrighted. If Growl is a trademark and the brand artwork is non-free, then forks can't use it without permission.

I kind of respect the choice of Mozilla and Redhat to defend their trademarks because it's partly an issue of quality control and reputation. But I do prefer projects that put branding under a creative commons license. It's closer to the spirit of free software. I suggest the forked Growl choose a new name and put the branding under a free license.

patio11• 15 years ago

The OSS community has always had an uneasy tension between a) for-profit enterprise which provides most of the man-power and b) anti-commercial poor adolescents of all ages who simultaneously think that contributing to OSS is a moral obligation and that the license and copyright assignment they fetishize includes a "All contributors will be made happy despite their total lack of business sense" clause, somewhere.

cousin_it2• 15 years ago

That sounds uncharitable and is that really true? Linux, Mozilla or Python don't seem to mostly rely on manpower provided by for-profit companies...

jbellis2• 15 years ago

Linux is written almost entirely by employees of for-profit companies: http://lwn.net/Articles/451243/

Many core Python contributors including Guido are employed by companies like Google to work on it.

Mozilla is, technically, an exception: almost everyone is employed by the Mozilla corporation, a non-profit by virtue of its lucrative search deal with Google. Few projects have that luxury.

irrumator• 15 years ago

Yes, they do. Who do you think contributes to the Linux kernel everyday, only individual hackers all over the world pushing FL/OSS ? The vast majority of the contributors are big-tech-co affiliated who come from places like Red Hat, Intel, IBM, Novell, Oracle, AMD, Google, and more. Individuals and those not wishing to state their affiliation/place-of-work are only about 18% of the contributors to Linux.

Btw, this is part of the issue some people have with Ubuntu, in that it makes no contributions upstream to the kernel like Red Hat, Novell and others do. A Red Hat Greg DeKoenigsberg even said on OSNews once that "Canonical is a marketing organization masquerading as an engineering organization."[1]

Python's father Guido van Rossum and other core contributor are employed by Google and other big tech companies to work on Python.

Mozilla is mostly by Mozilla people, however it's basically alive because of the funding and ad deals it has with Google. Without that, it couldn't continue.

[1] http://www.osnews.com/story/23636/Who_Really_Contributes_the...

pacifika• 15 years ago

Drama. He only got a one month ban. The mailing list is not community owned so when subscribers do things that the owners don't like they're free to do whatever they want. Fork the mailing list.

flexterra• 15 years ago

Here's an interview with Chris Forsythe, the creator or Growl explaining the AppStore decision.

http://thechangelog.com/post/11317828888/episode-0-6-8-growl...

bradleyland2• 15 years ago

It strikes me that if Growl were to disappear, there would be a chorus of users chiming in that they'd "happily pay for the software" as we usually see with popular free utilities that disappear. Here we have someone who finally decided they wanted to profit from their effort, and we see the flip side. A definitive lose-lose situation.

drivebyacct2• 15 years ago

How? An open source project goes commercial and someone forks it to keep an open source derivative going. The system works. I don't see how this is a lose-lose. If the Growl dev loses users then it just goes to show that it's not worth paying for. I won't offer my opinion on whether it's worth $2, especially at this point in the project lifecycle, but you might be able to guess it.

bradleyland2• 15 years ago

I'm speaking from the perspective of community response. If the developer grows tired of maintaining the application and decides to abandon it, the community reacts negatively. If the developer grows tired of maintaining the application, but decides that being paid to do so is sufficient incentive, the community reacts negatively.

That's negative-negative, or lose-lose from a community response perspective.

antiterra• 15 years ago

If you listen to the interview, Metzger actually seemed happy that there would be a paid version, thinking it meant that it would be maintained. Instead, the paid version didn't work for him and fixes didn't seem forthcoming. So he rolled his own and contributed. I'm not saying that your scenario wouldn't happen, but it doesn't apply in Metzger's case.

Growl fork maintainer banned from Growl mailinglist after fixing bugs

Related Stories