Your licensing makes sense. But, yes, this is not Open Source (or Commercial Open Source).
Why do you think it's not open source, because it's not free? :)
The code is open, so you can customize anything, but you don't have access to it until solution is purchased. If we have encoded everything or partially it won't be considered and positioned as open-source, but the definition is so tricky that everybody got used to think it should be free for everyone. In our case - it's not! And that is the only difference
Vincent Sinha wrote:
Your licensing makes sense. But, yes, this is not Open Source (or Commercial Open Source).
Why do you think it's not open source, because it's not free? :)
The code is open, so you can customize anything, but you don't have access to it until solution is purchased. If we have encoded everything or partially it won't be considered and positioned as open-source, but the definition is so tricky that everybody got used to think it should be free for everyone. In our case - it's not! And that is the only difference
I am actually happy to pay for your system, but calling it open source just confuses people and annoys them. I would stop calling it open source.
As we are going to integrate Free package for specific non-profit companies that will distribute the package without payments, it will be considered as open-source if you mean that it should be primarily free.
In our point, if you get all the code that is open, even after payment or fee, it's considered as open-source, and you'll get all the freedom to change the code.
Thanks for pointing out on that question.
Brian O'Neill wrote:
I am actually happy to pay for your system, but calling it open source just confuses people and annoys them. I would stop calling it open source.
As we are going to integrate Free package for specific non-profit companies that will distribute the package without payments, it will be considered as open-source if you mean that it should be primarily free.
In our point, if you get all the code that is open, even after payment or fee, it's considered as open-source, and you'll get all the freedom to change the code.
I came here looking for an open source solution. I have absolutely no problems with a business model where the customer gets the source code (or parts thereof) after purchase. But claiming that the ability to customize something is the same as it being open source is just plain wrong. Especially as you apparently encode some files that are vital to operation of the software. I haven't seen the files, but as far as I can tell the files open for customization might be as simple as (sort of) advanced config files, which would be as interesting from an open source perspective as having a CSS file open sourced.
To me this looks very much like you want to use good-will from the world of open source but still not play by the open source "rules". I'm sure that's not how you meant it, but that's how it comes across for me.
I strongly agree with Brian O'Neill: you should just stop calling it open source. Your solution is a fine piece of software, able to stand on it's own right. Why risk alienating the people coming here looking for an open source solution?
And with that said, if you choose to keep the branding of open source and this statement from Paul Yakubets is correct...
Paul Yakubets wrote:
We prefer the term "Commercial open source software" to describe our distribution scheme.
...you should really update the text on your frontpage to match it...
UseResponse is a fully customizable, open-source, self-hosted customer feedback software and support system...
Thanks,
Fred
I came here looking for an open source solution. I have absolutely no problems with a business model where the customer gets the source code (or parts thereof) after purchase. But claiming that the ability to customize something is the same as it being open source is just plain wrong. Especially as you apparently encode some files that are vital to operation of the software. I haven't seen the files, but as far as I can tell the files open for customization might be as simple as (sort of) advanced config files, which would be as interesting from an open source perspective as having a CSS file open sourced.
To me this looks very much like you want to use good-will from the world of open source but still not play by the open source "rules". I'm sure that's not how you meant it, but that's how it comes across for me.
I strongly agree with Brian O'Neill: you should just stop calling it open source. Your solution is a fine piece of software, able to stand on it's own right. Why risk alienating the people coming here looking for an open source solution?
And with that said, if you choose to keep the branding of open source and this statement from Paul Yakubets is correct...
Paul Yakubets wrote:
We prefer the term "Commercial open source software" to describe our distribution scheme.
...you should really update the text on your frontpage to match it...
Our distribution scheme is much like RHEL (Red Hat Enterprise Linux) Open Source Assurance program, where you're actually paying not for piece of open-source software, but rather for time-limited support for it.
My personal opinion that different interpretations of "open-source" won't "alienate" those people who intend to have a software, that fullfils their requirements perfectly, no matter it's commercial or not. If they were ready to pay for such software - they will, otherwise labeling UseResponse as "commercial open-source" won't change their mind, if they weren't ready to purchase such software.
Other than that, without sofistry, UseResponse is open-source solution (except small bit of proprietary code, that's encoded in single file), fully customizable, built on open-source content management framework (SingularCore).
Our distribution scheme is much like RHEL (Red Hat Enterprise Linux) Open Source Assurance program, where you're actually paying not for piece of open-source software, but rather for time-limited support for it.
My personal opinion that different interpretations of "open-source" won't "alienate" those people who intend to have a software, that fullfils their requirements perfectly, no matter it's commercial or not. If they were ready to pay for such software - they will, otherwise labeling UseResponse as "commercial open-source" won't change their mind, if they weren't ready to purchase such software.
Other than that, without sofistry, UseResponse is open-source solution (except small bit of proprietary code, that's encoded in single file), fully customizable, built on open-source content management framework (SingularCore).
Leave a Comment
Login
/ Register
Loading...
Replies have been locked on this page!
No connection
Real-time notifications may not work
Full source code is available after purchase. We prefer the term "Commercial open source software" to describe our distribution scheme.
In Free version the code is encoded except localization and themes
Full source code is available after purchase. We prefer the term "Commercial open source software" to describe our distribution scheme.
In Free version the code is encoded except localization and themes
Full source code is available after purchase. We prefer the term "Commercial open source software" to describe our distribution scheme.
In Free version the code is encoded except localization and themes
Full source code is available after purchase. We prefer the term "Commercial open source software" to describe our distribution scheme.
In Free version the code is encoded except localization and themes
Yes, the source is available for paying customers, though it will be open to customization once purchased.
Yes, the source is available for paying customers, though it will be open to customization once purchased.
Your licensing makes sense. But, yes, this is not Open Source (or Commercial Open Source).
Your licensing makes sense. But, yes, this is not Open Source (or Commercial Open Source).
Why do you think it's not open source, because it's not free? :)
The code is open, so you can customize anything, but you don't have access to it until solution is purchased. If we have encoded everything or partially it won't be considered and positioned as open-source, but the definition is so tricky that everybody got used to think it should be free for everyone. In our case - it's not! And that is the only difference
Why do you think it's not open source, because it's not free? :)
The code is open, so you can customize anything, but you don't have access to it until solution is purchased. If we have encoded everything or partially it won't be considered and positioned as open-source, but the definition is so tricky that everybody got used to think it should be free for everyone. In our case - it's not! And that is the only difference
I am actually happy to pay for your system, but calling it open source just confuses people and annoys them. I would stop calling it open source.
I am actually happy to pay for your system, but calling it open source just confuses people and annoys them. I would stop calling it open source.
As we are going to integrate Free package for specific non-profit companies that will distribute the package without payments, it will be considered as open-source if you mean that it should be primarily free.
In our point, if you get all the code that is open, even after payment or fee, it's considered as open-source, and you'll get all the freedom to change the code.
Thanks for pointing out on that question.
As we are going to integrate Free package for specific non-profit companies that will distribute the package without payments, it will be considered as open-source if you mean that it should be primarily free.
In our point, if you get all the code that is open, even after payment or fee, it's considered as open-source, and you'll get all the freedom to change the code.
Thanks for pointing out on that question.
I came here looking for an open source solution. I have absolutely no problems with a business model where the customer gets the source code (or parts thereof) after purchase. But claiming that the ability to customize something is the same as it being open source is just plain wrong. Especially as you apparently encode some files that are vital to operation of the software. I haven't seen the files, but as far as I can tell the files open for customization might be as simple as (sort of) advanced config files, which would be as interesting from an open source perspective as having a CSS file open sourced.
To me this looks very much like you want to use good-will from the world of open source but still not play by the open source "rules". I'm sure that's not how you meant it, but that's how it comes across for me.
I strongly agree with Brian O'Neill: you should just stop calling it open source. Your solution is a fine piece of software, able to stand on it's own right. Why risk alienating the people coming here looking for an open source solution?
And with that said, if you choose to keep the branding of open source and this statement from Paul Yakubets is correct...
...you should really update the text on your frontpage to match it...
Thanks,
Fred
I came here looking for an open source solution. I have absolutely no problems with a business model where the customer gets the source code (or parts thereof) after purchase. But claiming that the ability to customize something is the same as it being open source is just plain wrong. Especially as you apparently encode some files that are vital to operation of the software. I haven't seen the files, but as far as I can tell the files open for customization might be as simple as (sort of) advanced config files, which would be as interesting from an open source perspective as having a CSS file open sourced.
To me this looks very much like you want to use good-will from the world of open source but still not play by the open source "rules". I'm sure that's not how you meant it, but that's how it comes across for me.
I strongly agree with Brian O'Neill: you should just stop calling it open source. Your solution is a fine piece of software, able to stand on it's own right. Why risk alienating the people coming here looking for an open source solution?
And with that said, if you choose to keep the branding of open source and this statement from Paul Yakubets is correct...
...you should really update the text on your frontpage to match it...
Thanks,
Fred
Our distribution scheme is much like RHEL (Red Hat Enterprise Linux) Open Source Assurance program, where you're actually paying not for piece of open-source software, but rather for time-limited support for it.
My personal opinion that different interpretations of "open-source" won't "alienate" those people who intend to have a software, that fullfils their requirements perfectly, no matter it's commercial or not. If they were ready to pay for such software - they will, otherwise labeling UseResponse as "commercial open-source" won't change their mind, if they weren't ready to purchase such software.
Other than that, without sofistry, UseResponse is open-source solution (except small bit of proprietary code, that's encoded in single file), fully customizable, built on open-source content management framework (SingularCore).
Our distribution scheme is much like RHEL (Red Hat Enterprise Linux) Open Source Assurance program, where you're actually paying not for piece of open-source software, but rather for time-limited support for it.
My personal opinion that different interpretations of "open-source" won't "alienate" those people who intend to have a software, that fullfils their requirements perfectly, no matter it's commercial or not. If they were ready to pay for such software - they will, otherwise labeling UseResponse as "commercial open-source" won't change their mind, if they weren't ready to purchase such software.
Other than that, without sofistry, UseResponse is open-source solution (except small bit of proprietary code, that's encoded in single file), fully customizable, built on open-source content management framework (SingularCore).
Replies have been locked on this page!