In Reponse To...

This blog post is in response to Mark Stephens who wrote a comment to my JPedal LGPL Direct Links blog post. Thank you Mark for your comment. I'd like to reply to it here, since I'm likely going longer than a traditional comment block would support.

Here is Mark's comment:

Adam,

Its done automatically and you are taken straight to the page with the download links on. As you say, you don't even need to post a valid email address if you are paranoid.

We just ask for an email address so we can get an idea where the software is being downloaded from. IS that so unreasonable?

We go to a lot of trouble to make a version of the software freely available, we spend our lives updating it and answering questions on the forums and wonder why we bother when we see your comments...

Thanks again Mark, I appreciate the dialog.

First, you're right, currently the download link to the LGPL JPedal viewer is available on the page after submitting the 'name and email' form (I just tried it out). However, this was NOT the case when I wrote the blog post originally. I had to wait for an email to be sent to me in order receive the download link location.

So, kudos to you guys for changing your form. If it had been this way originally, I wouldn't have written my post. I think it's perfectly acceptable for you to ask for name and email, if you choose. According to the LGPL, you can even charge for downloads of your Free Software.

With the previous procedure, I had to post a valid email address, so being paranoid was not an option. This was because, again, the links were not present on the page following the form submission. I even tried an @mailinator.com email address waiting for the links that way, again with no luck. This gave rise to my suspicion that a manual process was in place, since Mailinator email addresses tend to get through otherwise.

So no, in my opinion, what you're doing (now) is not unreasonable to ask. What is unreasonable, in the spirit of Open Source Software, is to expect valid data to download your software (in this case, valid email). Though, of course, not required by most (all?) open source licenses, many Free Software advocates tend also to be privacy minded and expect to be able to download anonymously and for free. And if we can't, we assert the rights which you gave us, to legally distribute your Open software (for free) or, at the very least, do what I did and provide the direct download links.

This is all, therefore, water under the bridge. Your new procedure changes the need for me to provide direct download links to your software. Like I said, I wouldn't have written my original post if it had been the case.

Your second argument, however, doesn't hold water. You seem to suggest that you are going out of your way to make your software available to the open source software community for some benevolent cause. That you are heavy burdened by your LGPL initiatives.

The fact is that releasing an Open Source version of your software benefits you and supports your business model, because otherwise, you wouldn't have done it to begin with. In your case, you are hoping to provide an upgrade path from LGPL users to commercially licensed users, by removing support for printing and extraction in your LGPL product. In your business model, you are releasing your software as LGPL somewhat as a taste of the full package, almost like a limited trial edition. What you're doing is no more about Free Software (capital F) than what a "freeware" publisher is doing.

If you are "spending your lives" supporting your free software version without any direct or indirect benefit, then if I were you, I would be questioning your involvement. If you are so burdened by your support of the LGPL version, since you are obviously strictly motivated to this release for financial reasons, then I am just not seeing that the math is working out for you.

I have no idea why you took such offense at my original post, but if Open Source is not benefiting your business model (now or in the future), then honestly we (the Open Source Community) really don't want your code. If you are strictly in this to support your bottom line, and you are so bothered by posts like mine or support/complaints in your forums, then maybe you should just stop. It would be sad to lose your contributions, but it's better this way.

We, the OSS community, want partners and contributors who are supportive and happy about our cause. And, if you are able to make a buck in the process, even better. We have no problem with that either.

However, to imply that you are somehow burdened by the support of your software without rewards, or that you expect some sort of kissing of your backside because of your contributions, well, maybe it's time to say goodbye. We'd hate to see you leave, but rather that than to know that you are somehow dissatisfied with the Open Software Value Proposition. It's no skin off our backs, either way.