7tag Open Source Google Tag Manager Alternative Deleted from GitHub
24 comments
Mirror: https://github.com/tsteur/open-source-tag-manager and https://github.com/lindsaymacvean/seventag
Cheers, made it more decentralized.
From a legal standpoint, what is required to "un-open source" a codebase? Would all of the contributors need to agree?
It depends. If you give someone code which has a LICENSE file containing the BSD 3-clause license -- you've given them a license to use that code under the specified terms in the license, i.e. without charge etc.
In order to revoke access to the code from that user, you would have to get them to legally agree (i.e. sign something) that says they agree to having their license of that code revoked / that they will not use the code.
That is just for that one user -- at that one revision of code. If you wanted it such that _nobody_ could use your old codebase -- you'd have to get anyone who is using that code under said license to legally agree not to use it.
For new revisions of code, assuming a non-copyleft license like BSD, MIT, etc., you could simply state "we were the original owners of the code, therefore we no longer license the code under the open source license" and there is no need for you to distribute that code ever again.
In fact, this is why people can legally sell open-source software made by someone else -- even if that is ethically wrong to do.
IANAL, and some of the above is light on the details, so take it with a grain of salt / try not to be too nit-picky at me =)
In order to revoke access to the code from that user, you would have to get them to legally agree (i.e. sign something) that says they agree to having their license of that code revoked / that they will not use the code.
That is just for that one user -- at that one revision of code. If you wanted it such that _nobody_ could use your old codebase -- you'd have to get anyone who is using that code under said license to legally agree not to use it.
For new revisions of code, assuming a non-copyleft license like BSD, MIT, etc., you could simply state "we were the original owners of the code, therefore we no longer license the code under the open source license" and there is no need for you to distribute that code ever again.
In fact, this is why people can legally sell open-source software made by someone else -- even if that is ethically wrong to do.
IANAL, and some of the above is light on the details, so take it with a grain of salt / try not to be too nit-picky at me =)
> "In fact, this is why people can legally sell open-source software made by someone else -- even if that is ethically wrong to do."
Why/how is it ethically wrong?
If the license permits commercial sale (GPL, for example), then as long as the seller abides by the license (by making available a free download to the source code in the case of GPL, for example), then it is ethically valid because they aren't violating the license.
If you develop open source software with a license that allows commercial use, you can't possibly get angry at users who fully abide by the license and commercialize the software, let alone call them "unethical."
Either you don't distribute your software with a license that explicitly allows commercial use, or you can't possibly call a commercial user "unethical."
That's the whole point of a license -- to definitively spell out in an unambiguous way the legal terms of usage. With GPL, it's not even close to being a "loophole," that license explicitly allows commercial use.
Why/how is it ethically wrong?
If the license permits commercial sale (GPL, for example), then as long as the seller abides by the license (by making available a free download to the source code in the case of GPL, for example), then it is ethically valid because they aren't violating the license.
If you develop open source software with a license that allows commercial use, you can't possibly get angry at users who fully abide by the license and commercialize the software, let alone call them "unethical."
Either you don't distribute your software with a license that explicitly allows commercial use, or you can't possibly call a commercial user "unethical."
That's the whole point of a license -- to definitively spell out in an unambiguous way the legal terms of usage. With GPL, it's not even close to being a "loophole," that license explicitly allows commercial use.
For reference, the code in discussion appears to have been released under the GNU Affero General Public License.
I think it's generally not possible to un-open-source something. Once you release it with a properly open source license, that version is released with that license. Otherwise a single person could release something open source, wait for it to become popular and then revoke the open source licensure and cause all kinds of headaches.
That said, if you take down the source code and no one has a mirror, barring any other legal obligations (like those created by the GPL), it's not like you are compelled to provide your source, even if it's been released under an open license.
That said, if you take down the source code and no one has a mirror, barring any other legal obligations (like those created by the GPL), it's not like you are compelled to provide your source, even if it's been released under an open license.
>Otherwise a single person could release something open source, wait for it to become popular and then revoke the open source licensure and cause all kinds of headaches.
Well, you can do that, assuming you're the original copyright holder for all of the original source. It doesn't change the license for the code you already released...but it would for any new features, bug fixes, etc. That appears to be exactly what's happening here.
Well, you can do that, assuming you're the original copyright holder for all of the original source. It doesn't change the license for the code you already released...but it would for any new features, bug fixes, etc. That appears to be exactly what's happening here.
My guess (for what it's worth) is that getting the code off github is not the same as "un-open source" it.
Open source, as far as the GPL license is concerned means that anyone that has a copy of the original codebase is allowed to give away copies of this code. I think it's still the case for the part of the code that was on github under the GPL.
What do you think?
edit : slimsag was quicker
Open source, as far as the GPL license is concerned means that anyone that has a copy of the original codebase is allowed to give away copies of this code. I think it's still the case for the part of the code that was on github under the GPL.
What do you think?
edit : slimsag was quicker
AFAIK, changes to this GPL codebase must be GPL.
Licenses are always complicated, but when I contribute to a project GPL licensed, I expect any changes to be GPL too.
I'm not a lawyer, but studied licenses to understand which projects I can use.
Licenses are always complicated, but when I contribute to a project GPL licensed, I expect any changes to be GPL too.
I'm not a lawyer, but studied licenses to understand which projects I can use.
The author of the code can change the license for future releases. So if I write a GPL'd project and distribute it, I can decide at any point that I want the project to be BSD or closed source or anything else instead. Anybody with a copy of the old code can continue adhering to the GPL for those old versions, but new code follows the new license.
Any obligations I have under the old license still stand (for example, if I shipped precompiled binaries of my old GPL'd version, I still need to make the source available at that version for people who have the binary.
It gets more complex if, as the other commenter here mentioned, there are multiple contributors. If I merged patches into my project from 10 people, I need their permission to change the license of their code. So either I need to ask them, or I need to get them to assign copyright for the work to me so I can decide for them (this is part of the reason why lots of larger orgs / projects ask contributors to sign a contributor agreement that assigns copyright to the org).
For an example of how this looks in practice: OSX still ships an ancient version of bash, which was released under the GPLv2, because newer versions are released under GPLv3 and they're concerned about including GPLv3'd things due to the additional terms in the license. They're free to continue using the old version of the code under GPLv2, but can't apply the old license to the new code.
Any obligations I have under the old license still stand (for example, if I shipped precompiled binaries of my old GPL'd version, I still need to make the source available at that version for people who have the binary.
It gets more complex if, as the other commenter here mentioned, there are multiple contributors. If I merged patches into my project from 10 people, I need their permission to change the license of their code. So either I need to ask them, or I need to get them to assign copyright for the work to me so I can decide for them (this is part of the reason why lots of larger orgs / projects ask contributors to sign a contributor agreement that assigns copyright to the org).
For an example of how this looks in practice: OSX still ships an ancient version of bash, which was released under the GPLv2, because newer versions are released under GPLv3 and they're concerned about including GPLv3'd things due to the additional terms in the license. They're free to continue using the old version of the code under GPLv2, but can't apply the old license to the new code.
This would normally be the case, but for small projects with a small number of contributors, they are always free to dual-license their own code, even "retro-actively". Anything that was already released would still be available under GPL, but new edits could in theory be licensed under whatever terms they want, independent of how "derivative" it is. For large open source projects without a copyright assignment clause, this is essentially impossible, but for small projects it's relatively easy, assuming you can track down all the contributors. IANAL.
Looks like they are calling it Piwik PRO Tag Manager, and the team doing this is the gang trying to provide professional services around the Piwik open source web analytics tool.
I can't help but wonder if this is a shot across the bow to gauge reception of taking Piwik out of open source by moving all improvements they create to a commercial license. I presume this is easier or harder depending on the license chosen, but IANAL.
I can't help but wonder if this is a shot across the bow to gauge reception of taking Piwik out of open source by moving all improvements they create to a commercial license. I presume this is easier or harder depending on the license chosen, but IANAL.
Just to clarify: Piwik is and will remain open source. Piwik PRO is a separate company and has no direct ties with Piwik anymore.
Edit: FAQ Item: http://piwik.org/faq/new-to-piwik/#faq_21984
Edit: FAQ Item: http://piwik.org/faq/new-to-piwik/#faq_21984
Don't the piwik team have a copyright on the name? Surely they can prevent them using the name if they have.
They have a trademark on "Piwik", not on "Piwik PRO".
Have a look at http://piwik.org/faq/new-to-piwik/#faq_21984 for a more detailed explanation.
Have a look at http://piwik.org/faq/new-to-piwik/#faq_21984 for a more detailed explanation.
They would usually have it (you cannot add a word to circumvent trademarks), but they sold a license to Piwik Pro. So there was no intention to avoid the naming issue, rather the opposite.
Isn't the name Piwik PRO confusing for customers of Piwik? Can I call my company Microsoft PRO? Or can I call my product Windows Pro? I at least can't call it Lindows in the USA, that's for sure.
It looks like Piwik has bought or in some other way acquired it and shut it down. Bit of an odd move for an open source company..
Edit: Had this thread open in a tab and forgot to refresh before commenting - Apparently Piwik and Piwik PRO are different companies, despite piwik.org linking to them a lot and them having the exact same logo with a "[pro]" stamp on it. I always figured PRO was the commercial arm of Piwik.
Edit: Had this thread open in a tab and forgot to refresh before commenting - Apparently Piwik and Piwik PRO are different companies, despite piwik.org linking to them a lot and them having the exact same logo with a "[pro]" stamp on it. I always figured PRO was the commercial arm of Piwik.
Piwik (open source project & community) and Piwik PRO (one polish company) used to be related somehow to each other (part of the Piwik core team was working at Piwik PRO) but this changed drastically in 2016 after some internal disagreements. As of 2016 there is no Piwik PRO employee working on Piwik or having commit access, no website access, etc. Piwik the open source project & team members became fully independant from Piwik PRO. The company is still buying ads on the homepage and other pages, which can be confusing, but it helps the Piwik project to sustain operations. More details in http://piwik.org/faq/new-to-piwik/faq_21984/
Fork it, fork it all.
Anyone know where I can get a copy and/or is this even allowed? I thought this defeated the purpose of the open source spirit!
Original Github URL: https://github.com/seventag/seventag