Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

OS X Notifier App Growl Goes Closed Source

timothy posted about 2 years ago | from the what-order-will-emerge? dept.

Software 270

First time accepted submitter para_droid writes "Version 1.3 of the popular open source notification system for Mac OS X, Growl has surprised its users by going closed-source and only available for purchase on the Mac App Store. Any users who provide links to bugfixes and source for the previous version 1.2 are being banned from the discussion group, and their messages deleted. Could it be time for the community to create an OpenGrowl fork?" The linked post above about bugfixes and source ends "Hopefully the Growl 1.3 branch from the official Growl maintainers will eventually become open source again and get straightened out so that it works for most users, but if it doesn't, a fork of the project will be able to provide a working Growl to Mac users."

cancel ×

270 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

YES (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#37779904)

Fork that bitch!!!

Re:YES (1)

T-Mckenney (2008418) | about 2 years ago | (#37781890)

Fork that bitch!!!

Amen!

Key word is "in the app store". (0, Redundant)

Kenja (541830) | about 2 years ago | (#37779914)

Licensing gets strange when you start to use the App Store. So this is not a shocking development.

Re:Key word is "in the app store". (3, Informative)

SiMac (409541) | about 2 years ago | (#37780114)

Why? You need to have the copyright to begin with to be able to make it closed source. And if you have the copyright, you can do pretty much anything with your software, including distribute it through the App Store while simultaneously licensing the source under any open source license you want.

This is just stupidity on the part of the Growl developers. Developers added support for Growl to their products because it was FOSS. The net effect of selling Growl and making it closed source is going to be that developers either won't support Growl, or they will support the older version of Growl that's still FOSS.

Re:Key word is "in the app store". (1)

Kenja (541830) | about 2 years ago | (#37780224)

It would also apear to not be true, so what ever. I just dont care that much despite using the software. Its not like the copy I have will stop working.

Re:Key word is "in the app store". (1)

Jane Q. Public (1010737) | about 2 years ago | (#37780370)

I use Growl but it doesn't do that much for me anymore anyway. In fact it is usually more annoying than anything else.

If they do actually go closed source, and my existing copy stops working, I'll just stop using it. Growl loses, not me.

Re:Key word is "in the app store". (2)

93 Escort Wagon (326346) | about 2 years ago | (#37780776)

This is just stupidity on the part of the Growl developers. Developers added support for Growl to their products because it was FOSS. The net effect of selling Growl and making it closed source is going to be that developers either won't support Growl, or they will support the older version of Growl that's still FOSS.

I doubt whether Growl is or isn't FOSS matters to the vast majority of Mac developers - or Mac end users, for that matter.

If it adds useful functionality, they'll use it. If it doesn't, they won't - regardless of the license.

Re:Key word is "in the app store". (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#37780254)

Not true. You're thinking of the iOS App Store as opposed to the Mac App Store.

Re:Key word is "in the app store". (0)

Britz (170620) | about 2 years ago | (#37781282)

That makes a lot of sense. Apple probabely also has a gag clause in their app store contracts that forbids them to talk about said contract. So they can't explain why the went closed source.

Re:Key word is "in the app store". (1)

BitZtream (692029) | about 2 years ago | (#37781402)

No it doesn't, not even a little. There is nothing that prevents any form of OSS from existing on the AppStore except perhaps some retarded interpretation of GPL.

Going on top of that, the actual copyright owners ... the ONLY ones who can make it closed source ... can also make an exception or special license to deal with the AppStore, like 'its GPL for everyone outside of our organization, and we'll do whatever the fuck with it internally because well, we can'.

Again, licensing isn't even a little bit confusing or difficult to understand unless you're trying to make it into something its not.

Re:Key word is "in the app store". (1)

sarhjinian (94086) | about 2 years ago | (#37781816)

[blockquote]There is nothing that prevents any form of OSS from existing on the AppStore except perhaps some retarded interpretation of GPL.[/blockquote]

That "retarded interpretation of the GPL" got VLC for iOS strategically yanked from the App Store by a contributing developer (and not by VideoLAN, nor Applidium) who worked for Nokia.

Apple was okay with the app. Most (all save one?) of the developers were okay. The porter was okay. One guy wrecked it for everyone.

going open to closed (1)

v1 (525388) | about 2 years ago | (#37779926)

Isn't there some form of restriction here in the license, are they allowed to make a closed source derivative work, seeing as they're the original authors? What open source license (if any) was Growl formerly using?

I know some licenses require all derivative works to be open source, but I'm definitely not expert on open source licensing.

Re:going open to closed (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#37780020)

Nope, it's BSD licensed. They can do whatever the hell they want.

Re:going open to closed (1)

Hatta (162192) | about 2 years ago | (#37780118)

Except include code with licenses that guarantee the users fundamental software freedoms.

Re:going open to closed (0, Flamebait)

UnknowingFool (672806) | about 2 years ago | (#37780252)

I know it's easier to cry "freedom" than understand complex issues like licensing but BSD is more free than GPL. You can do most anything as long as you maintain copyright notices. It you disagree with this, you don't have to contribute to it.

Re:going open to closed (4, Insightful)

Hatta (162192) | about 2 years ago | (#37780478)

You can do anything with the GPL as long as you include sources. If you disagree with this, you don't have to contribute to it.

They both include one restriction. Which restriction is least restrictive?

One guarantees that all users will be able to fix and modify their software if there are problems. The other offeres no guarantees. In terms of enabling people to do things, which is what freedom is all about, the GPL is clearly more free. BSD only enables you to remove the freedom of others.

Re:going open to closed (1)

fotbr (855184) | about 2 years ago | (#37781478)

I can fix and modify all the BSD software I want. No restriction there. Same for GPL. Since, in your words, BSD allows you to remove freedom of others while GPL does not, clearly BSD is more free than GPL.

I know, you're trying to refer to code that was released under the BSD and is now part of a closed-source piece of software. Which, is irrelevant since nothing prevents me from using and doing anything* I want with the original BSD release though.

*as long as I maintain copyright notices

Re:going open to closed (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#37780592)

This is an oversimplification of the issue. BSD protects the freedoms of only the next entity using the source code; GPL protects freedoms of all entities that might use the code. This involves putting restrictions on the all of them as well (i.e., right to swing my fist vs. right to not be punched). Saying either is "more free" is just nonsense. Ironically:

I know it's easier to cry "freedom" than understand complex issues

Re:going open to closed (1, Troll)

BitZtream (692029) | about 2 years ago | (#37781506)

This is an oversimplification of the issue. BSD protects the freedoms of only the next entity using the source code; GPL protects freedoms of all entities that might use the code.

Wrong.

BSD protects the freedoms of the source code it covers for ANYONE using it. It does not drag all the other code someone else creates down with it. That is what GPL does, it covers itself, and forces itself on anything else thats anywhere remotely close to it.

If I take a copy of BSD source and make changes and do not redistribute those changes in source form you have lost exactly nothing, nodda, zilch, zero.

You have not also been given rights to the NEW work I did, but you have lost nothing, all of the old stuff is still there for you to do whatever you want with.

One is CLEARLY more free, unless you're a zealot ... which you are.

BSD allows you to do the exact same thing as GPL, GPL does not allow you to do the same thing as BSD licensed software. Its really not difficult to understand.

Re:going open to closed (2, Insightful)

rtfa-troll (1340807) | about 2 years ago | (#37780766)

Just like a white American male from the South in the early 19th century, the individual developer with a piece of BSD licensed software is more free than the current white American male. He can even choose to release his code as free / have no slaves. However, just as in the south, most people with BSD software are not developers and so they lose certainty of their future freedom for nothing. The BSD society as a whole, which includes a whole bunch of Junos and OS X users, for example, is less free than the GPL society. This even feeds back to the slaver who is unable to live in a society without slavery and is much the worse for it. BSD developers are slightly luckier because there are enclaves, like OpenBSD where real freedom exists but these are always small exceptions.

Re:going open to closed (3)

mfwitten (1906728) | about 2 years ago | (#37780980)

BSD is more free than GPL

The BSD license is more permissive for only the upstream.

In fact, the downstream ('end-users') may ultimately get a license that is more restrictive on further developments—possibly even restrictions that might hinder the development of your own upstream work should you find yourself in some sort of downstream position relative to a fork.

Because everyone is ultimately an end-user eventually, the BSD license is quite dangerous.

Everything that you like about open source BSD-licensed projects is simply encoded for legal enforcement in the GPL. When you espouse the merits of open source, you are actually espousing the merits of the GPL.

Re:going open to closed (1, Insightful)

BitZtream (692029) | about 2 years ago | (#37781602)

In fact, the downstream ('end-users') may ultimately get a license that is more restrictive on further development

So you're saying that its dangerous because at some point in the future the upstream developer may make the changes closed source and then you won't have access to them? Thats all you can be saying since the license won't/can't be retroactive and take away source that you already have.

So your bitching that you MAY LOSE FUTURE WORK ...

So what is the upstream author dies? Does that make you all scared and freighted as well? Thats a fact, its going to happen, the upstream author WILL die at some point, but he may never close the source.

You're argument is retarded, it rests around the idea that you are losing something just because you aren't continuing to get something for free. You can not 'lose' anything with a BSD license, the worst that can happen is that you no longer get new stuff. No one can make BSD code 'closed', only their own modifications on top of it.

GPL is the most restrictive license thats considered 'open source' by the majority of people, I do not espouse the merits of using GPL, I do not push my political agenda on others like you do. You also utterly fail to understand the license you're fanboying for and the licenses you're arguing against.

In short, you don't have the slightest idea what you're talking about

Re:going open to closed (1)

mfwitten (1906728) | about 2 years ago | (#37781878)

Embrace. Extend. Extinguish.

Heard of it?

Holy pointless. (2)

Dogtanian (588974) | about 2 years ago | (#37780998)

Nope, it's BSD licensed. They can do whatever the hell they want.

Except include code with licenses that guarantee the users fundamental software freedoms.

I know it's easier to cry "freedom" than understand complex issues like licensing but BSD is more free than GPL. You can do most anything as long as you maintain copyright notices. It you disagree with this, you don't have to contribute to it.

Oh great. The scene appears to be being set for yet *another* identikit thread hijack on behalf of the GPL vs. BSD holy war.

Never mind that we've had this discussion countless times before and every possible debating point and issue has been raised and discussed exhaustively a million times. Never mind that the chances of any new insight coming out of the billionth tedious discussion of this long-established subject is next to nothing. Never mind that those involved on both sides feel the need to repeat the same entrenched positions- which mostly come down to personal philosophy and not an incomplete understanding of the issues (which everyone knows full well by now) and will therefore be unlikely to change in the face of the discussion... not that this was the point anyway.

No, the point is that those involved in every one of these pointless rehashes of the exact same to-ing and fro-ing and restatements of the same old facts and arguments on both sides know this damn well, but can't reign in their desire to indulge in the argument yet again.

Re:going open to closed (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#37781168)

Dear BSD vs. GPL arguing asshats,

Please fuck off!

Signed,

The Rest Of Humanity

Re:going open to closed (1)

Dr_Barnowl (709838) | about 2 years ago | (#37780318)

The more modern 3 or 2 clause BSD licenses are entirely compatible with the GPL.

Re:going open to closed (2)

willy_me (212994) | about 2 years ago | (#37781362)

Except include code with licenses that guarantee the users fundamental software freedoms.

Freedom is such an abstract term and should not be applied to software. Using the term "fundamental software freedoms" is even worse and likely means something different to each person who hears/reads it.

The real issue is limitations and this is where the two licenses (BSD+GNU) differ greatly. The BSD license has almost no limitations while the GNU license has severe limitations that extends to code that is simply linked with GNU code. The two licenses serve different purposes and as such, one is not better then the other. To compare the licenses using abstract concepts like "freedom" is ridiculous.

Re:going open to closed (1)

nzac (1822298) | about 2 years ago | (#37781068)

Unless they have accepted community contributions that are difficult to replace they as the copyright owners can do 'whatever the hell they want' anyway.

The BSD licence allow us to 'whatever the hell we want'.

Re:going open to closed (1)

DangerOnTheRanger (2373156) | about 2 years ago | (#37780172)

Only the GPL and QTPL (formerly used for Qt) licenses have a strong copyleft (and thus require derivative works to be licensed under the same license) - most FOSS licenses (2/3-clause BSD, Apache, MIT/X) do not have such a requirement. And they, as the original developers and copyright holders, are well within their rights to change the license. However, silencing users who are trying to alert others of Growl's FOSS forks is tyrannical and completely uncalled for.

Re:going open to closed (1)

Millennium (2451) | about 2 years ago | (#37780266)

They can't pull the license from older versions: there's no revocation clause in the old license to allow for that. But as long as they hold the copyright to all of the code, they can close versions going forward. Even if they only hold the copyright on some of the code, they could close it if they got permission from the copyright holders for the rest of the code.

If someone forks it, they'll have to start based on one of the versions that is under the old license.

Re:going open to closed (1, Interesting)

Desler (1608317) | about 2 years ago | (#37780506)

They can't pull the license from older versions:

This is often claimed but no with case law to back it up. And in fact there is US case law that contradicts this claim.

Re:going open to closed (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#37780748)

state it please, this sounds remarkably like taking "back" property that you gave to someone, without their permission i.e theft.

Re:going open to closed (2)

Desler (1608317) | about 2 years ago | (#37781250)

Mattel and cphack. Mattel obtained an injunction barring anyone from distributing cphack which revoked the license.

Re:going open to closed (1)

BitZtream (692029) | about 2 years ago | (#37781706)

Uhm, lookup promissory estoppel and stop being an ignorant moron.

And Mattel versus CPhack wasn't a case where the license was revoked later, it was NEVER GRANTED IN THE FIRST PLACE. The cphack authors used code they didn't write ... i.e. code that was part of cyberpatrol itself.

Again, you have no idea what you're talking about.

Re:going open to closed (2)

SlashV (1069110) | about 2 years ago | (#37781396)

I am surprised how many people still get this wrong. Since they are the copyright holders of the work they can do whatever they want with it, period. As a copyright holder you don't license the software to yourself. That would be stupid.

Well, that does it... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#37779934)

Growl's jumped the shark and notified everyone about it.

That's the nice thing about FOSS: (1)

DangerOnTheRanger (2373156) | about 2 years ago | (#37779964)

If a formerly FOSS product goes proprietary, people are well within their rights to fork it the last FOSS version of it. The Growl developers are going to come to regret their decision.

Re:That's the nice thing about FOSS: (1)

Stereotypical Nerd (2488882) | about 2 years ago | (#37780022)

They already regret their decision. It is impossible to contradict basic objective free software morality and not feel a sharp pain in the gut.

Re:That's the nice thing about FOSS: (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#37780154)

Mod up funny, I chuckled because of the username.

Re:That's the nice thing about FOSS: (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#37780162)

The imaginary decision to make it closed source that they didn't actually make?

No, I doubt they regret that. Since they never made it.

Re:That's the nice thing about FOSS: (1)

BitZtream (692029) | about 2 years ago | (#37781812)

The Growl developers are going to come to regret their decision.

Unlikely.

99.999% of the code is written by the primary developers, very little of it has been 'contributed' in any sense of the word, most of the 'contributed' has been related to bug fixes and such, thats not going to stop.

No one has in the past 5 or 6 years has replaced it or even really tried to make an alternative, you think its going to happen now just because its no longer open? Thats funny. Have you ever even written any software?

The reality of it is this is more likely done to combat a problem that Open Source has to deal with. People using OSS software in bad ways.

For instances, Adobe Creative Suite 5 installs Growl without asking the user or without an option to turn it off. The Growl authors are upset about this and 'are working on ways to mitigate the problem' ...

And do you know what making it closed source and only available on the app store does? Stops Adobe and people like them cold.

About 10 people ACTUALLY give a shit that growl is going closed source because they happen to use it and are OSS zealots, the other hundreds of thousands of people who use it will neither give a flying fuck or likely even be aware that something has changed.

The world doesn't revolve around FOSS, once you get out of high school things change there little guy.

Stop Spreading FUD (4, Informative)

qpqp (1969898) | about 2 years ago | (#37780018)

http://growl.info/documentation/faq-new.php#1.3source [growl.info]

We will post source code. However, our bigger concern right now is fixing issues and providing support to folks on our discussions group, and on our support email address, and on Twitter. As soon as the flood of inbound requests slows down, we fully intend to push the 1.3 source over the wall.

On the other hand, I sure hope that won't be when they release 1.4 to the store.

Re:Stop Spreading FUD (3, Funny)

Hatta (162192) | about 2 years ago | (#37780344)

A promise to release source is not source. The developer of the fork has been banned from the groups. So the article seems pretty accurate.

What do we call the opposite of FUD? Complacency and Certitude? CaC? Quit trying to shove all this CaC down our throats!

Re:Stop Spreading FUD (3, Insightful)

beelsebob (529313) | about 2 years ago | (#37780742)

Interesting how this argument didn't apply in the android discussion isn't it. Google promise to release the ICS source when devices ship... people believe them. Open mac software maker does the same "oh, i's only a promise".

Re:Stop Spreading FUD (2)

Darinbob (1142669) | about 2 years ago | (#37781080)

I don't believe Google either. Source code availability does not make something open source, being open makes it open source. High moderation of dissenting views and trying to maintain absolute centralized control makes it closed even if people do have source code.

Re:Stop Spreading FUD (1)

sessamoid (165542) | about 2 years ago | (#37781100)

This is /. 2011. Google good. Apple bad.

Re:Stop Spreading FUD (0)

Hatta (162192) | about 2 years ago | (#37781290)

No, it applies quite well to Android. Android is no longer open source.

Re:Stop Spreading FUD (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#37781906)

people complain about that all the time and i've read multiple articles from multiple sources pointing that out. why do people think that just because someone doesn't complain about it here that they aren't complaining about it. I also don't know why this is considered interesting as its simply not true. the only people modding it interesting are the same ones who ignore what doesn't fit their perspective.

Re:Stop Spreading FUD (2)

Fnord666 (889225) | about 2 years ago | (#37781064)

What do we call the opposite of FUD? Complacency and Certitude? CaC? Quit trying to shove all this CaC down our throats!

I believe they would be called facts.

Re:Stop Spreading FUD (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#37780398)

Oh, so in other words they've taken a leaf out of the Android book. "We're still open source... if/when we want to release the source."

From most accounts 1.3 is terrible anyway compared to previous versions.

Re:Stop Spreading FUD (1)

matunos (1587263) | about 2 years ago | (#37780406)

Why is releasing the source code considered an afterthought, something that falls into the category of API documentation (that is, we'll do it later, got bigger things to worry about)? If they want to fix the issues, wouldn't providing the source code early and letting others hack at them and provide suggested fixes help with that?

They have the source, all they have to do is make it publicly available. How is that so distracting from providing support? Some folks on their discussions groups want the source so they can help fix issues, why don't they provide support for them?

Re:Stop Spreading FUD (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#37780834)

exactly, its not like they couldn't work out of one [github.com] of the many [bitbucket.org] hosted public [launchpad.net] code [google.com] repositories.

Re:Stop Spreading FUD (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#37780866)

Why is releasing the source code considered an afterthought, something that falls into the category of API documentation (that is, we'll do it later, got bigger things to worry about)?

because most people don't give a flying shit and never will, they just want an application that works.

Re:Stop Spreading FUD (1)

mfwitten (1906728) | about 2 years ago | (#37781232)

All closed-source applications I've ever used have problems I'd like to fix; I can't fix them.
All open-source applications I've ever used have problems I'd like to fix; sometimes I do fix them.

Re:Stop Spreading FUD (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#37781842)

Same people crying about it going Closed source will be crying that Apple is unfair when they bring their notification system over from iOS. As a growl user I feel that it has been lacking for years and now they are getting around to working on it. If they add a few missing features I might buy it but for now what I have installed is good enough.

Note: 3 years and no way to view a history of messages is a big flaw.

Re:Stop Spreading FUD (2)

aardvarkjoe (156801) | about 2 years ago | (#37781930)

Although lots of people are linking to that promise, it doesn't address what is (to my mind) rather more troubling -- the claim that they are deleting information about using prior open-source versions of the software. Checking out the linked post, it looks like it was indeed removed from their own forum archives. So why are they hiding it?

Haha (1, Funny)

GameboyRMH (1153867) | about 2 years ago | (#37780032)

So how's that walled garden thing working for you?

Re:Haha (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#37780082)

Hows that crowd-think working for you. Read the comments in this thread and understand the situation before you get your Apple-bash on.

http://growl.info/documentation/faq-new.php#1.3source

Re:Haha (0)

Lumpy (12016) | about 2 years ago | (#37780490)

Pretty darn good. Still no viruses and trojans that take over the computer without the user having the user to run it.

Hows that weed filled outlot you called Windows working for you?

Re:Haha (1)

GameboyRMH (1153867) | about 2 years ago | (#37780612)

Plays my games pretty good but that's all I use it for at home...I can compile and run anything I want on it though and I can buy software for it from anywhere, so I'd still take it over iOS any day.

So far only picked up 2 viruses, one on purpose (I was bored...) and the other due to a misunderstanding about how Autorun works (learned the hard way that it executes if you double-click the drive in Explorer - glad that's done away with these days).

Re:Haha (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#37781446)

Windows != iOS, by the by. Steam runs pretty well on my Mac.

Re:Haha (1)

GameboyRMH (1153867) | about 2 years ago | (#37781772)

That gives you access to a grand total of 118 games, a slightly bigger game selection than the Atari Jaguar. OSX for gaming would make as little sense as Linux for gaming, if OSX were free, but it's not so it makes even less sense.

Not true. At all. (3, Informative)

CaptainJeff (731782) | about 2 years ago | (#37780036)

Oh good lord, does anyone actually check stories anymore before posting? This is twice is one day!

Read the New FAQ on the site. Here's a link [growl.info] . Look at the last question. They are not going closed source, they just haven't packaged it up yet and released it. They will.

Re:Not true. At all. (5, Insightful)

Hatta (162192) | about 2 years ago | (#37780242)

That's a piss poor excuse. Just run an open git repository and you'll never be bothered with packaging and releasing code again. Also, if people have the source they can help fix the issues that seem to be slowing them down.

They can slap whatever license they want on it, and make whatever promises they want. The fact remains that if a binary is available, and corresponding sources are not, it is closed source. It might be open source again, maybe even soon, but it's not open source today.

Re:Not true. At all. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#37781410)

GNU/Purity

Re:Not true. At all. (1)

Bill_the_Engineer (772575) | about 2 years ago | (#37781696)

Remember the old saying: Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity.

Re:Not true. At all. (1)

lerxstz (692089) | about 2 years ago | (#37781920)

yeah, but I think it ends with "...but never discount malice"!

Re:Not true. At all. (1)

Hatta (162192) | about 2 years ago | (#37781966)

How does stupidity adequately explain the banning of the developer who ported 1.2 to Lion?

Re:Not true. At all. (1)

Bill_the_Engineer (772575) | about 2 years ago | (#37782002)

It doesn't.

Re:Not true. At all. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#37781220)

This is twice is one day!

Oh good lord, does anyone actually check comments anymore before posting?

Re:Not true. At all. (2)

Sipper (462582) | about 2 years ago | (#37781286)

Concerning not posting the source code yet, Apple is within their rights because the license for Growl is BSD.

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Growl_(software) [wikipedia.org]

This means that Apple also has the right not to stop posting the source for Growl anytime in the future. BSD advocates would argue that being able to ship binary-only is a freedom for developers, and GPL advocates would argue that the GPL is more free because it mandates that users have the freedom to always see the source code. Which license is "more free" depends on your point of view.

Re:Not true. At all. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#37782012)

He Epic Games said the same thing about the Linux port of UT3. Guess what, they never delivered. Apple is a company that exists to bilk non computer saavy users out of their money.

They want to be bought by Apple (-1, Troll)

calzones (890942) | about 2 years ago | (#37780054)

How much you want to bet this is a set up to enable Growl to become purchased by Apple for eventual inclusion into the OS

Re:They want to be bought by Apple (1)

the_B0fh (208483) | about 2 years ago | (#37780244)

That's such a stupid comment. Apple bought CUPS and it was fully open source, GPL'ed.

Apple had no problems buying it.

Re:They want to be bought by Apple (1)

UnknowingFool (672806) | about 2 years ago | (#37780288)

If it is BSD, Apple doesn't have to buy it to use it.

Re:They want to be bought by Apple (1)

BitZtream (692029) | about 2 years ago | (#37781918)

Considering Apple already has an alternative and has had for years (since probably the OSX release after Growl became popular IIRC) ... 0?

Fork it (1)

milbournosphere (1273186) | about 2 years ago | (#37780116)

I hope Growl is forked, it's an amazing tool. I can tolerate paying for it in the app store, but taking such a popular open source tool to closed source is just wrong. I'd gladly give my $2.00 and my support to an open source fork.

Re:Fork it (1)

Desler (1608317) | about 2 years ago | (#37780400)

They aren't taking it closed source. This is just FUD.

Isn't that technically illegal? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#37780142)

As in, the prevention of bugfixes to old versions that were under a different licence?

Or was the licence that they used in the first place corrupt enough to allow people to close source and do all sorts of damage to those helping older versions?

Oh well, regardless, fork that and fork them. They can't stop that regardless of whatever "open source" licence they use.

In time, it will all come out in the wash. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#37780148)

Apple, killing the opensource world one appstore item at a time. There once was a farmer who grew wheat. A company produced a genetically altered strain of wheat to fight insects and sold it to a neighboring farm. Winds carried it to his, now he has to legally pay a royalty to continue to grow his own farm (real story, I can't make this crap up).

Pretty soon all apps that run on Apple will be one royalty at a time.

QQ me (1)

bobmajdakjr (2484288) | about 2 years ago | (#37780228)

i was qq'ing about this a few weeks ago. it would be awesome if it was forked. i imagine if that happened the official growl would have to go back open. i cannot imagine many apps implementing 1.3 if opengrowl was pro.

WT (1)

cyfer2000 (548592) | about 2 years ago | (#37780348)

Fork, please.

I hate open source names (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#37780424)

What the fuck is "growl" supposed to be about? A program that can converts human speech into dog barking?

Re:I hate open source names (2)

itchythebear (2198688) | about 2 years ago | (#37780862)

It's notification software. OS X versions are all names of big cat's (tiger, leopard). Big cats growl.

I'm not saying it's the best name ever, but that's prob where the name comes form.

fork (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#37780428)

Pretend the new closed-source Growl is Frankenstein and drive him off with a pitchFORK.

Fuck me (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#37780440)

This sucks. I use Growl all the time.

Re:Fuck me (1)

BitZtream (692029) | about 2 years ago | (#37781954)

And exactly how does this ACTUALLY change ANYTHING for you? Other than a political viewpoint about the software, how has it changed to effect you in any way what so ever?

Open Source *nix Notification Specification (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#37780446)

Would it be possibly to port Ubuntu's NotifyOSD to OSX? Would anyone want to?
https://wiki.ubuntu.com/NotifyOSD#Bubble_appearance_and_layout [ubuntu.com]

Re:Open Source *nix Notification Specification (1)

Weezul (52464) | about 2 years ago | (#37780894)

I doubt it, just start distributing an OpenGrowl program based upon Growl 1.2.2, but switch the license to GPL.

A better questions is : Is there any benefit for NotifyOSD and Growl in homogenizing their backend interfaces?

Whoever posted this "news" should be shot (1, Troll)

Theovon (109752) | about 2 years ago | (#37780516)

Growl is not going closed source. They just don't have releasing the source EARLY as a priority. That's their choice. As long as the source is eventually released, that's all most of us care about.

The way I judge this, this slashdot story is grossly slanderous and was posted by an asshole whose sole intent was to spread FUD and stir up trouble. There's no way they couldn't have been ignorant of the FAQ. Probably what happened is that they felt entitled, were refused, and got mad, so they decided to make up this bullshit. And the slashdot editors are not competent to filter out this kind of crap.

The main summary needs to updated.

Re:Whoever posted this "news" should be shot (3, Informative)

curious.corn (167387) | about 2 years ago | (#37781498)

you don't "release the source code"... what you normally do is to maintain a certain kind of website, one that most often has an URL such as http://svn.growl.info then you don't spend a single extra-minute to "release the source", you just use something called a tag. Here's the linky in case you can't google for it: http://svnbook.red-bean.com/en/1.5/svn.branchmerge.tags.html

That's when you're talking about projects that are truly open source and don't call themselves that, just for marketing...

Re:Whoever posted this "news" should be shot (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#37782026)

If they're only releasing source code every once in awhile, and they haven't done so yet, I'd be pretty confident in calling it closed source.

this slashdot story is grossly slanderous

Oh god, you're starting to sound like a legal troll now.

Hrm... (1)

black mariah (654971) | about 2 years ago | (#37780676)

So this Perry Metzger dude forked Growl, gets pissy when the developers tell him to screw off, then goes onto Google Groups and blasts shit about how Growl should be expelled from Google Code because it's "not open source" and now costs money. Perry Metzger... submitter? Probably. One pissy little bitch with an axe to grind.

Extract money from the lazy? (1)

qvatch (576224) | about 2 years ago | (#37781272)

Growl prompts you to upgrade and sends you to the site when you are told you need to pay. Perhaps some do. Some time later, it becomes open source again, and perhaps freely downloadable from the website. Didn't neooffice do this (first part at least? They were also quite hush-hush about the transition to no free binaries(for the current, and only 10.7 version)).

Affirmation? (1)

Fnord666 (889225) | about 2 years ago | (#37781310)

Growl has surprised its users by going closed-source and only available for purchase on the Mac App Store

If you are going to make a statement like this in a headline, shouldn't at least one link point to something that confirms this? I saw nothing that claimed Growl was going closed source.

Re:Affirmation? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#37781502)

Wh don't you seek out your own affirmation instead of expecting to be spoon fed.

Check the app store, see growl for sale.

Check the growl site, see no source.

Fork that sucker (1)

roc97007 (608802) | about 2 years ago | (#37781514)

The decision to fork on the last open version should be a natural result of an open source product going closed source. At very least, it gives users a competitive choice. And if the open source version doesn't work out, then it was not to be. But it should still be tried.

Read the rest of the linked to thread (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#37781564)

Chris asked him if he wanted to participate in Growl rather than spin his wheels by forking the project. Perry is definitely a troll.

G Men (1)

Grindalf (1089511) | about 2 years ago | (#37781586)

It contains spy code from G men to assist in the enslavement of geeks by evil Carnegie Mellon overlords.

Why not call it GNUgrawl and clear things up? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#37781798)

gnuplot has paved the way.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>