"Ours are not proprietary - ours are just not available in the community version. They are Open Source code: When you pay, and everything, or you become a subscriber, or whatever else, we don't actually keep anything closed." [About 6:30 into the podcast]So the Mule EE extensions are "Open Source"?
Of course I'm not a paying Mule customer, so I don't get the special "paid for" Open Source, so its hard to evaluate. I can't actually find the Mule EE license agreement on the website, but there is an evaluation license agreement that makes interesting reading.
I think we - especially founders of Open Source companies - have a pretty clear idea of what Open Source is. If you don't, then take a read of the definition. A few really minor points spring to mind:
- The license shall not require a royalty or other fee for such sale. This sentence from the Open Source definition seems to blow the whole "paid for Open Source" concept out of the water.
- The license must not restrict anyone from making use of the program in a specific field of endeavor. I haven't seen the license that paying customers get, but the evaluation license says: "you shall not ... publicly disseminate performance information or analysis (including, without limitation, benchmarks) from any source relating to the Software. " Seems like a pretty solid field of endevour restriction.
- The program must include source code, and must allow distribution in source code as well as compiled form. Guess what the evaluation license says: "You shall not... (c) modify, decompile, disassemble or otherwise reverse engineer the Software or attempt to reconstruct or discover any source code". [My bolding] Oh. So its open source, but I'm not allowed to look at the code? That's cool. I like that. I used to do Philosophy... it reminds me of that.
P.S. If anyone has the Mule Master Subscription Agreement, I'd love to see a copy.
5 comments:
Paul--I said you get the source, not that the extensions were "open source". Apologies if this confused you.
Dave,
You said "Open Source". Its very clear. If you don't want to listen to the whole podcast, I have just your words here: http://fremantle.org/rosenberg_on_mule_ee.mp3
If you want to see it in writing, just look on Sanjiva's blog where you state: "The Enterprise version of Mule is open source".
I don't mind your business model, but it is clear that Mule EE is not Open Source, and you need to stop using those particular words.
Hmm. I just listened to it and don't hear that, but whatever. Regarding Sanjiva, Dan D corrected me.
The Mule EE product is licensed under a commercial license.
I don't mind your business model either (whatever it is) but I would ask you not to tell me what to say or do.
I will leave everyone else out there to decide whether you said Open or not. I admit that Ashlee saying "OK" over the top makes it harder to hear. I've made my view clear.
As for the recursive nature of you saying I shouldn't tell you what to say, well that's completely made my day. But I certainly will rephrase it. I recommend to everyone that they apply clarity to the difference between "source" and "Open Source".
I think the quote in the first bullet point is taken out of context. "The license shall not restrict any party from selling or giving away the software as a component of an aggregate software distribution containing programs from several different sources. The license shall not require a royalty or other fee for such sale." applies to redistribution, not the initial distribution (sale). Still, "paid-for Open Source" is impractical.
The OS crowd avoided the word "free" in 1998, but can't escape the "gratis" practicality. And now many people is trying to get into the "Open" namespace, without giving out freedom.
Post a Comment