I'm asking to infiniteautomation,
This software is now closed source? It really intrest me, because I avoid closed source software for strategical reasons (and i will pay for free software).
So if you can state clearly what's the state of this project, I will avoid to waste my time.
JoelHaggar last edited by
Mango Automation 2.0 will fully replace Mango M2M and will be released very soon. It will be open source under a commercial license. This means the source code will be available but to fully use the software will require the purchase of a license. Licenses start at $400 and then you can add the data sources you want individually. We also have discounts available for re-sellers and OEMs.
The software will also run in a free mode for non commercial use and is restricted to allow only 3 unique IP address to connect.
You can request to download the beta version at http://infiniteautomation.com/index.php/downloads-categore-list.html
Once we have the full release ready and the source code published we will make an announcement.
Please let me know if you have any other questions,
Ok so the software is closed source.
Open Source (or free software for the most of us) should respect the 4 famous freedoms, your software will miss something, so I think the best name should be "freeware" or "free core", please don't use the "open source" software words, it's misleading.
You should at least tell us under which license yuo'll release the software, but I think it will not be "GPL", "MIT" nor "APACHE".
It's really a shame that a great software like Mango will be closed, I'm just installing Scadabr! :)
JoelHaggar last edited by
I'm sorry, maybe I did not explain this as well as I could of. The term "open source" does not mean free in any sense of the word free. Also the term "open source" does not imply a license and there are many types of licenses that can be used with open source software. When Mango Automation 2.0 is released it will be open source and the source code will be available to anyone. Right now the plan is to place it in a public repo. We also specially designed Mango Automation to be free of charge for any legitimate free use of the software.
All that aside there is still Mango M2M 1.12.5 which is published under the GNU V3. Many people have spent a huge amount of money and time to bring Mango Automation 2.0 to the current level and keep the project alive. There have recently been many many improvements and we plan many many more. If you don't want to contribute financially to the project and benefit from all this new work then you could at least work with Mango M2M 1.12.5 with the GNU license and not bash our recent efforts.
To summarize, Mango is open source, if you don't like the new license terms of MA 2.0 then you can still use M2M 1.12.5 and there is no need to be upset about anything.
I hope you will reconsider your statements because they are not correct and honestly very insulting to our efforts.
I'm confused by your reference, "the 4 famous freedoms". I'm sure you don't mean [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_Freedoms]this, but then i'm not sure what you do mean. The term "open source", as Joel said, means that the source is available. The terms under which the source is made available are provided in an associated license, such as GPL et al. There is no accepted definition of "open source" that means the software must be provided without charge.
Sorry, but frankly I don't understand!
Your software will be free for non commercial use. This conflict with "The freedom to run the program, for any purpose (freedom 0)." http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.en.html of the general concept behind FLOSS software. So your software is closed source! OK, I can inspect your code because you are a good guy, but this doesn't have anything to do with FLOSS!
You can also open the code or setup a public repo, but who will contribute knowing that you are owner of the rights on that software and the contribution could not be used freely? In some countries, modifying source code for which you not have rights is illegal!
If you want to be open, legally for you, your customers and future developers, you should switch to an open core business model, in which the core is FLOSS, plugins are not. Or alternatively you can switch to a dual license model like Mysql, if anyone want's to redistribute the code in a product, it should comply with the GPL or pay you a fee.
I the license will be GPL or similar, I can fork your code and remove the limitation on use with a license and make my own patches, but this is a pity.
I'm bashing nobody, it's your choice, you are founding the project with your efforts so you can choice what license and what business model use for your software.
For me, FLOSS has a strategical meaning, so I'll choice always and ever FLOSS. I'm a contributor to many FLOSS projects (as developer, tester, bug hunter) and I generally contribute also economically, so I want to contribute, and this is the reason behind my choice on FLOSS.
I want to build a project on Mango and I have to write some code, if Mango will be FLOSS, I could contribute back my code!
I don't think Joel or i ever used the term FLOSS, only "open source". Even on the page that you reference there is a distinction between "free" and "open".
I'm and advocate of FLOSS for many years and I know well the matter. Also I know the subtle relation between "OpenSource" and open source, but I think we can agree that generally OpenSource means FLOSS.
For the pragmatic inside me, having an open source code that I can see but cannot touch is something similar to not having the code at all. We should agree that the reason behind FLOSS is to share the knowledge and make the software advance collaboratively, the reason behind having an inspectable code is to make the development process closed on it's own.
The page I linked on says clearly:
"Thus, you should be free to redistribute copies, either with or without modifications, either gratis or charging a fee for distribution, to anyone anywhere. Being free to do these things means (among other things) that you do not have to ask or pay for permission to do so."
Will have MA 2.0 this freedom? If not, it will be similar to a closed source software with inspectable code.
but I think we can agree that generally OpenSource means FLOSS.
No, i don't agree with this. "Open source" means that the source is available. FLOSS as the quasi-legal terms means the things you say, be neither Joel nor i ever used this term. The page that you linked to is about FLOSS, and so is irrelevant.
On the other hand, Joel suggested the possibility of using something like github as an open repo for the MA source. This would provide you with the ability to fork, alter, and then submit a pull request, which sounds like it would address your concern regarding contribution.
This is hilarious!
Honestly I cannot understand the rationale! I will be glad if Joel can give us more details on the business model to understand what can be done and what cannot.
But in the end, I will not contribute to anything that clearly states that I have the right to contribute and I can use the contribution as I want.
Making an example:
If Infiniteautomation release the software as GPL (and so I can contribute) why limit the use at runtime? It's against the GPL, so you cannot use the GPL! It's a short-circuit!
If Infiniteautomation doesn't release the software as GPL, I cannot contribute, so the problem ends here!
In general, if you limits the freedoms, you cannot use a FLOSS license. If you don't use a FLOSS license I cannot contribute, but for your choice.
Please bear in mind that this wasn't be a discussion on the best business model or the difference between FLOSS/open source/free-gratis, I'm only trying to understand what I can LEGALLY make with Mango.
I will be only a (paying) customer? I'll can be a contributor? Will I make a plugin to sell to my customers? I think these are legitimate questions!
Thank you for your time!
I honestly do not understand how your questions have not been answered.
I cannot find clearly wrote anywhere what license will be used for MA 2.0. Only if you or Joel can write it down clearly, I can understand if the software will be OpenSource, FLOSS, or both.
Thanks for your time!
The details of the license are still being worked out. (Joel did not say this explicitly, but if the case were otherwise i assume he would have pointed you to the license text.) But for certain, it will not be FLOSS.