Hello,
Somebody asks me to support a nice program with a AGPL license.
It is free as in speech, but not as in beer. If you want to use it for more then 5 users, you have to pay a fee,
The source is available but the Makefile is missing. The developer says it's to make it a bit more difficult to build it yourself. Eventually for removing the registration.
It's a complex Java program what depends on many third party components (all free), so maybe it's not so easy to make such a Makefile, no idea.
What's your opinion?
With regards, Paul van der Vlis
On 03/20/2015 11:26 AM, Paul van der Vlis wrote:
Hello,
Somebody asks me to support a nice program with a AGPL license.
It is free as in speech, but not as in beer. If you want to use it for more then 5 users, you have to pay a fee,
That's fine! Anyone will be able to make a version with unlimited users with no fee requirement and distribute it, though!
The source is available but the Makefile is missing. The developer says it's to make it a bit more difficult to build it yourself. Eventually for removing the registration.
It's a complex Java program what depends on many third party components (all free), so maybe it's not so easy to make such a Makefile, no idea.
What's your opinion?
It's up to developer whether to supply a Makefile with the source code or not.
However, I'd consider it bad form, and if that program ever becomes popular, someone could and should create a fork with the Makefile included. In a way, I'd say it undermines the intention of freeing the program, as it provides obstacles to people building their own version without "reverse engineering" the build process. In all cases, discouraging people from building their own version contradicts the spirit of free software. It may also violate some free software licenses (though I can't think of any examples right now).
There's absolutely nothing wrong with creating free software with built-in registration requirements, but that does not mean that one should put obstacles in the way of users wanting to exercise freedom no. 1. If you, as a supporter, can get the Makefile from the main developer, everyone else should be able to get it too.
Best Carsten
On 20 March 2015 at 11:41, Carsten Agger agger@modspil.dk wrote:
On 03/20/2015 11:26 AM, Paul van der Vlis wrote:
The source is available but the Makefile is missing. The developer says it's to make it a bit more difficult to build it yourself. Eventually for removing the registration.
It's a complex Java program what depends on many third party components (all free), so maybe it's not so easy to make such a Makefile, no idea.
What's your opinion?
It's up to developer whether to supply a Makefile with the source code or not.
I'm not so sure that I'd agree... (If he's the only developer ever touching that code, etc, it might be OK).
Though, normally, GPL and AGPL will require you to also publish the build-scripts, or whatever you're using. So to release a program under AGPLv3, and not supplying the Makefile won't make you fulfill all the requirements from AGPLv3...
Cheers, Anders
Op 20-03-15 om 11:41 schreef Carsten Agger:
On 03/20/2015 11:26 AM, Paul van der Vlis wrote:
Hello,
Somebody asks me to support a nice program with a AGPL license.
It is free as in speech, but not as in beer. If you want to use it for more then 5 users, you have to pay a fee,
That's fine! Anyone will be able to make a version with unlimited users with no fee requirement and distribute it, though!
Only the people with enough skills, and who want to do that. Realize it's software for enterprise users, not for home users.
The source is available but the Makefile is missing. The developer says it's to make it a bit more difficult to build it yourself. Eventually for removing the registration.
It's a complex Java program what depends on many third party components (all free), so maybe it's not so easy to make such a Makefile, no idea.
What's your opinion?
It's up to developer whether to supply a Makefile with the source code or not.
However, I'd consider it bad form, and if that program ever becomes popular, someone could and should create a fork with the Makefile included. In a way, I'd say it undermines the intention of freeing the program, as it provides obstacles to people building their own version without "reverse engineering" the build process. In all cases, discouraging people from building their own version contradicts the spirit of free software. It may also violate some free software licenses (though I can't think of any examples right now).
There's absolutely nothing wrong with creating free software with built-in registration requirements, but that does not mean that one should put obstacles in the way of users wanting to exercise freedom no.
My problem is, that I cannot check if the sourcecode can create the binary.
- If you, as a supporter, can get the Makefile from the main developer,
everyone else should be able to get it too.
He would give me the Makefile, and some other interested developers. But I would not publish it when he does not want that. You will understand.
With regards, Paul van der Vlis.
As "open core" goes, that's pretty blatant. The correct answer is that it is not in fact a working piece of free software, and the claim to be AGPL is a marketing lie.
- d.
On 20 March 2015 at 10:26, Paul van der Vlis paul@vandervlis.nl wrote:
Hello,
Somebody asks me to support a nice program with a AGPL license.
It is free as in speech, but not as in beer. If you want to use it for more then 5 users, you have to pay a fee,
The source is available but the Makefile is missing. The developer says it's to make it a bit more difficult to build it yourself. Eventually for removing the registration.
It's a complex Java program what depends on many third party components (all free), so maybe it's not so easy to make such a Makefile, no idea.
What's your opinion?
With regards, Paul van der Vlis
-- Paul van der Vlis Linux systeembeheer, Groningen http://www.vandervlis.nl/
Discussion mailing list Discussion@fsfeurope.org https://mail.fsfeurope.org/mailman/listinfo/discussion