I got an interesting form submission this Saturday evening apparently from (someone who didn’t name themselves at) the Open Source Initiative. They filled out the Timeglider JS license registration form (here), but he or she was really just sending a message:
You can not call this software open source if you are charging for a license to use it.
Nobody signed the note, and there was a general-box email address left in the email field (osi@opensource.org). This is how I responded:
Greetings
I appreciate your feedback.
First, I ask that you continue this correspondence
in person so I know whom I’m talking to.I think you’re right that Timeglider probably shouldn’t
present itself as “open source” in that many developers
could end up with the false impression that we’re
using the MIT or GNU licenses.However, one can call one’s product whatever one
wants — as long as it infringes no copyright or trademark.
No one (and especially not OSI) has ownership of
the phrase “open source”, so I think you’re wrong that
one “can’t” use that term. If one were to be diplomatic,
one might say that by using the term, while not meeting
conventional criteria, it could lead to misunderstanding.I’ve removed reference to “open source” on our site,
just to be clear. We originally did place our jQuery
component under the MIT license, yet since turning
to a “dual license” have been trying to figure out how
to present the fact that the source code is open for
inspection and free (as in beer) in many situations.We rely on open-source software for our product, and
also plan to offer many parts of our code as “open source”
according to the MIT or GNU Licenses, so
I’m a big fan of the work of the open source community.
Still, the term is itself not a matter of intellectual property.This is an important dialog which I’m sure is pertinent
to many companies and developers. I’d like to hear back
how it is that you feel you can enforce a rule (or law?)
under which one cannot present something as “open source”.If you see other references to “open source” anywhere
on timeglider.com which I’ve missed, please let me know.
I thought it would be worth spelling out here on the blog why Timeglider is not currently “Open Source” (under any OSI-approved licenses) — even as we did for a while have it under the MIT Open Source license, from March until September of 2011.
The Open Source Initiative (here) defines “open source” in a manifesto here: It begins: “Open source doesn’t just mean access to the source code.” It lays out reasonable criteria that should be met, they believe, if one is to call a product “open source.” (The phrase, by the way, was coined in 1998 by some early web pioneers at Netscape — as Netscape became the first large company to offer it’s own source code out to the world at large. This was indeed a pivotal moment in technological history).
It makes sense that the rather vague concept would need some pinning down. Sometimes important ideas in a community need vanguards. Yet it seems that the OSI has given itself the paradoxical role of enforcing a strict meaning on a “fair use” phrase as if it were their own intellectual property. Their criteria frequently use phrases like “must include”, “shall not”, and “not allowed”. What is between the lines is this: “The meaning of Open Source shall not be open source”. This type of contradiction — between freedom and restriction — is the hallmark, come to think of it, of government.
The polarization of creativity and “property” (not just software) between two extremes — free and commercial — is a corrosive binary seizure happening these days that is on par with the conflicts between “communism vs. capitalism”, and “liberal vs. conservative” ideologies. It makes for an numbing system under which to create code, do business, and simply to think. The void-gap in this binary is probably the reason why people in Hollywood can’t innovate their commercial products, and why on the other hand, so many people feel that piracy of electronic products is some revolutionary force.
We (still) live in a free society. How we frame our businesses and how we distribute our intellectual property is one of the creative freedoms we need to exercise — with attention to the complexities and nuances of the real world. I made the mistake of feeling that I had to jump on the Open Source bandwagon: After some testing of the waters, it became clear that the “pure” Open Source model doesn’t benefit us — and presents serious hazards. Business patterns differ as much as design patterns in software. One has to use the tools for the job. Timeglider being minuscule, and yet offering something unique that has demand in the market, we need to make sure we survive and still serve and connect with our customer.
So, just to clarify: The code of Timeglider’s JS component is freely available for looking at and downloading (on Github here), and non-commercial use is free, but there is a $500 commercial license fee for it if it’s used in a commercial context (or $1500 if the application has more than 10 authoring users). The core idea is: “If you use our code in a commercial context, it probably helps you make money, so pay us some money; if you use it in an non-commercial context, use it for free — we want to help. If you want to redistribute it, we’ll work out an arrangement, because every use case is different.” Our license will evolve as the business does. So far, dozens of non-profits, historians, educators, and others have used the non-commercial face of the license with great success, and we’ve worked out several commercial licenses, too.
I’m rubbing my eyes. Does the OSI really enforce their rules with anonymous form submissions? I think probably the person who filled out my form wasn’t really from OSI, but was an irritated Open Source adherent who just wanted to throw a brick through my window with a note taped to it. It did get me thinking.
If you have any thoughts on the matter, I’ve opened comments up — or drop me a line at michael at timeglider dot com.
Yes, we’re still hard at work here at Timeglider Industries, cranking out new javascript, css, and HTML on a daily basis!
This is an important announcement: Development of TimeGlider in the Flash platform has stopped! The application will be in a state of suspended animation — and I will be less available for providing feedback and working out bugs — until a new HTML/Javascript version of the timeline interface is in running order.
As the dust was settling from recent Adobe / Apple skirmishes (relating to Flash and the iPhone/iPad devices), Steve Jobs issued a 