Potentially unpopular opinion: There is no money to be made in consumer desktop operating systems in 2018, so there is little funding for innovation in the consumer desktop operating system space. Until a business model emerges which challenges this, the status quo will remain roughly the status quo.
The two major commercial producers of proprietary operating systems are basically giving away their operating system at this point. Free Linux distributions offer basically the same functionality for most users; the only things preventing migration from one OS to another are existing applications. For non-gamers, that's often moot, because the world exists in a web browser now. Yes, there are other applications causing OS lock-in too, but they're mostly on the business side, not the consumer side.
There is still plenty of money to be made from enterprise operating systems, but the innovation there is in a totally different direction than what consumers would find valuable.
Example: Linux containers are great! But who's spending the R&D money to make them a viable way to distribute games? There's plenty of work being done on containers and graphics chipsets for ML applications, but not for consumer use.
> The two major commercial producers of proprietary operating systems are basically giving away their operating system at this point.
Huh? Windows 10 home and pro aren't free? It's true that Apple doesn't charge for upgrades, but they do charge a significant markup - and they will happily sell you a licence to run Os X on a hackintosh although they'll forbid you from doing it in their licence ("non apple hardware").
> Until a business model emerges which challenges this
Appstores. Windows, and Os X have app stores. Steam is an appstore. Microsoft and Apple bundle a competitor to steam with the Os.
Just because both apple and Ms suck at making/marketing/developing their App stores... Doesn't mean valve don't want to stay in the business...
They can't get in on ios, Xbox, ps4, etc. They could probably make an appstore for Android - but I'm guessing they'll just focus on streaming games from the cloud to Android (esp Android TV).
With hw support for virtualization, Linux could be the universal runtime - allowing the same game to run on Mac, Windows and Linux...
"Free software" and "open source" have very clear meanings in software industry. Nobody can force you to use them correctly but don't get angry or even act surprised when people complain that you are wrong and even deceitful (when the error doesn't seem naive).
If you go to a flight engineer and say that a plane has a high risk of stalling, first thing the engineer thinks would be a problem in the aerodynamics, not some engine problem, which would not make sense according to the dictionary definition: Stalling: Stop running, typically because of an overload on the engine. (Random example from the top of my head and my example can theoretically be very wrong, but I hope my point is clear).
I agree with you on "open source", that term was basically introduced by the OSI and people still stick to the OSI definition, but I cannot agree with you on the term "free", that word has a very long history of meaning gratis long before the FSF.
I personally understand different things when I hear that an application is "free" vs that it is "free software" [1].
It also helps to look at the more correct terms to use when talking about a different kind of "free" [2].
It doesn't actually matter, but even if we dig the actual root of the word, and its usage, we see that the "libre" meaning precedes the "kostenlos" (without monetary cost). It meant "noble, free person" in the proto-Germanic [3]. If you say that someone is a free person, no sane person would think that he/she can be owned for free. So the phrase "free software" is a very unsuitable substitute for "free to redistribute" or "free to use", even when you ignore the industry jargon. License to use it is free, not the software.
Maybe the author should consider a more explicit proprietary for liability purposes and clarity about revocability, exclusivity, transferability, et al, but for now any user should assume he can choose to do whatever tomorrow and proceed with caution.
Because open source has a very specific definition which the licensing on this application does not conform to. The ability to produce derived works is a key attribute of open source.
And I understand that these are your thoughts, but what I'm looking for is a clear and legally enforceable license, which seems to still be missing.
I would love to know the very specific definition of open source you are referring too. I believe there are multiple very specific definitions that are drastically different, from Stallman's "Free Software" to "Open Source" to "Creative Commons" and the flavors in-between. The proliferation of Open Source Licenses seems to suggest that it's not as clear as your myopic viewpoint suggests.
"The ability to produce derived works is a key attribute of open source." Where did you get that gem from?
"but what I'm looking for is a clear and legally enforceable license, which seems to still be missing." As far as I know the only OS License that has been deemed enforceable is GNU General Public License.
It's free software and the code is viewable, what's so hard to understand?
> As far as I know the only OS License that has been deemed enforceable is GNU General Public License.
The OSI recognizes a number of different licenses, as do the attorneys of the numerous individuals and companies making use of them.
> It's free software
It's not, unless I have a legal right to redistribute a modified copy.
"Open source" and "free software" both have requirements to meet their respective definitions. And additonally, "source is viewable" is not the same thing as a license.
OpenSource.org doesn't own the definition of "Open Source." It's a concept and idea interpreted and implemented by lots of people in different ways meaning different things.
No one gets to "own" what open source means.
But, in their definition: "The license must allow modifications and derived works, and must allow them to be distributed under the same terms as the license of the original software."
All that says is that derived works are allowed under the same terms as the original software, which technically could enforce a royalty payment to the original for any derivative, how would that sit with you?
You're conflating community and cultural definitions with legal precedents and enforceability. GNU GPL is the only enforceable one in a US (and I think UK) court of law.
In the end of the day, what's the argument - you want the software creator to use a LICENSE you approve of or else not call their software release "free" or "open" because you feel that misleading?
Literally the purpose of the Open Source Initiative is to provide definition to what open source is and is not, and to prevent openwashing by companies and individuals presenting their non-open software as open source.
I'm not going to argue with someone who thinks open source is a feeling subject to their own personal interpretations in lieu of license.
> OpenSource.org doesn't own the definition of "Open Source."
Don't they, though? "Open Source" is not even a natural turn of phrase like "Free Software" is. Open Source is a strange phrase made up to describe a specific thing, and that thing is not that the source is available to be viewed.
edit: Also, thinking that the GPL is the only enforceable software license is just strange.
I was watching a stream at one time (wish I had a link, but it was a Microsoft project), and they called that concept 'source open' (viewable but not not modifiable).
"Open Source" is not a strange phrase. It's the natural phrase for software that doesn't keep its source secret (or "closed", a common synonym for secret). This is so natural that the intelligence community has a parallel definition of "open source" that refers to non-secret/publicly available intelligence sources.
I understand that in practice, ESR successfully muscled others out and claimed effective cultural ownership of the phrase, but that doesn't mean that no one else is allowed to try to stake their claim and see if it sticks.
I personally think the unlimited redistribution clauses that are mandatory for "Open Source" licenses have caused some serious problems. Commercial vendors have improperly conflated the distribution of source code with the complete inability to make any money from it.
The problem, of course, is not that the source is available and people are free to tweak and understand what's happening on their own machines, but that the licenses which open-source programs grew up under made serious commercial sales effectively impossible. The only business model that's viable is selling support. Compare the market caps of Oracle and Microsoft to Red Hat for an illustration of the comparative effectiveness of these models.
Stallman at least swapped commercial viability out for the infectious nature of copyleft, intended to keep as much software free and shareable as possible. Permissive BSD/MIT family licenses just give it up.
The argument you've started here isn't meaningful. The project we're talking about doesn't (AFAICT) declare any license, so the fact that it's not open source (in the usual sense of "released under an open-source license") hardly warrants arguing.
The "problematic" bit is that the project's page describes it as open-source, says "you can even make improvements", etc., though the project isn't actually licensed that way (or at all).
You are obviously trying to underhandedly gain adoption to then turn commercial.
It's perfectly fine to give out free versions with restrictions on redistribution and commercial use. Publishing the source code in such an arrangement is even laudable.
But it is not Open Source. Those words have meaning, and I have no doubts that you know as much. E
ven if not: I assure you that 90%+ of your contributors are under the impression that they are contributing to a FOSS project as it is commonly understood.
If you are using the free Github plan, you're also breaking their terms.
Well I can't actually find the license, if one even exists.
You link to your "Thoughts on Free and Open Source." from the github repo, which gives a reasonable explanation of what you are looking for in a license and why. It concludes
> So what I’m thinking based on my experience:
> MIT License + The following exceptions:
> [...]
But I can't find anything saying you've actually released the software under such a license instead of just thinking about it. Ideally the license would reside in a license file in the git repo like is fairly standard these days.
Until a license is declared, this is (c) Wonder Unit, All Rights Reserved, which, unless I'm mistaken, is the authors intent for now.
From Github on licenses:
> You're under no obligation to choose a license. However, without a license, the default copyright laws apply, meaning that you retain all rights to your source code and no one may reproduce, distribute, or create derivative works from your work. If you're creating an open source project, we strongly encourage you to include an open source license.
People generally don't want a new license or a modified license. In my experience, software licenses at big organizations are a bereaucratic nightmare. Often, you just want something on the pre-approved list.
That aside, you seem to be conflating "free as in speech" (FOSS) with "free as in beer" (freeware, or how most people treat WinRAR) in some parts of that writeup. Ardour is the usual example of software that's the former without being the latter (you can download the source code for free if you have the know-how to compile it yourself, but a donation is required to download the pre-built direclty-installable binary).
It's also problematic for educational institutions even if they happen to be tolerant of a little bit of colorful language here and there. By charging $30 a seat for the "educational" version and wanting to forbid educational institutions from distributing the "free" version, you're punishing the Goonies-tolerant organizations for Goonies-intolerance. Not to mention the need to define what "educational institution" means.
Being concerned about preventing others from making money off this ("If we struggle to make it free, you can’t be paid") seems to also run counter to the stated reason for making it free in the first place ("We will make money from creating great stories, not selling overpriced niche software.").
There's also the problem of longevity. If Wonder Unit, Inc. goes belly-up, then its non-FOSS storyboard editor does, too. An actually-FOSS license means there's at least some chance of the broader FOSS community keeping it alive, if only so that they can say "well hang on, Linux has awesome creative/multimedia tools, too - and we don't even have to pretend GIMP is one of them anymore".
All that said, the MIT license is probably not the right fit for Storyboarder itself (but is certainly a good fit for the underlying libraries; same with the ISC license) based on your criteria. A strict copyleft license - like the GNU GPL - might actually be more up your alley, since it would force anyone hoping to make a buck off your hard work to release their source code and allow others (you included) to do the same and make a buck off their hard work. If they don't comply, sue 'em.
Of course, even that one educator's little stunt of cloning your repo and removing all references to Wonder Unit would run afoul of both the MIT and ISC licenses, so you'd still be covered if you took the legal approach to going medieval on his Goonies-intolerant ass.
All in all, it doesn't really matter to me (as a Linux-using end user) what license you opt to use for Storyboarder (I use plenty of non-free software day-to-day), as long as there actually is a license so that I know whether or not I'm legally allowed to even use the software (let alone redistribute it, modify it, package it up for a Linux distro's package manager/repositories, etc.).
Even with all that aside, though, Storyboarder looks like an amazing tool, and the fact that it works on something that's not running Windows or macOS is a pretty damn big deal. Kudos, and thanks for your hard work. Whatever the license ends up being, it'll be a valuable contribution in that particular niche of "storyboarders who want to use Linux".
Which implies all rights are reserved and no one may reproduce, distribute, or create derivative works from the work, which is clearly what the developer wants.
I got my start with programming in QBasic. Now I work at a Prominent North American Enterprise Linux Vendor. FWIW I don't write much code that gets merged into anything important, but I wouldn't be working in the tech industry at all if it weren't for the curiosity QBasic sparked in me twenty years ago.
I would have written the headline as "In an Absolute State: Elevated Use of Absolutist Words Could Be a Marker Specific to Anxiety, Depression, and Suicidal Ideation" but maybe that's only because I'm in a good mood.
That's a better title than my submission but sadly over the limit for HN titles.
I started with the original title of "In an Absolute State: Elevated Use of Absolutist Words Is a Marker Specific to Anxiety, Depression, and Suicidal Ideation" and cut words until it fit.
> City planners assumed everyone would have one, engineers overbuilt roads for them to the detriment of walking or biking, and businesses and residential areas are often far apart from each other.
Close. More like "rich white people had cars, rich white people control local zoning and planning decisions, ergo cities and suburbs were planned to accommodate those rich white people's cars, and then we all had to get one just to survive because density and infrastructure support dollars dropped to a point where other modes became unviable."
I tend to agree with the comments about height, but re: skyways - they're just kind of weird. They're not public spaces, so they can be exclusionary. And the vibe is just kind of weird. Downtown Atlanta below the skyways is already eerily quiet for a major city, but within them... I don't know, I have a constant feeling that I'm trespassing even though I'm not. Does anyone else get this feeling?
Want the name, age, gender, home address, mailing address, party of registration, and voter history from every registered voter in North Carolina? Here is the "leak" on Amazon S3. http://dl.ncsbe.gov/index.html?prefix=data/
Except, by leak, I mean, link I got from my state board of elections' homepage.
The two major commercial producers of proprietary operating systems are basically giving away their operating system at this point. Free Linux distributions offer basically the same functionality for most users; the only things preventing migration from one OS to another are existing applications. For non-gamers, that's often moot, because the world exists in a web browser now. Yes, there are other applications causing OS lock-in too, but they're mostly on the business side, not the consumer side.
There is still plenty of money to be made from enterprise operating systems, but the innovation there is in a totally different direction than what consumers would find valuable.
Example: Linux containers are great! But who's spending the R&D money to make them a viable way to distribute games? There's plenty of work being done on containers and graphics chipsets for ML applications, but not for consumer use.