Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

mitchell_pgh · Nov 26, 2002, 12:21 PM

I appreciate all of the valuable code that Mac programmers provide for our beloved platform, but I have started to notice a trend that is somewhat disturbing. Some "shareware" programmers are doing little more then creating a OS X front end to a Open Source program and charging $50 or more for it! Perhaps it's just me, but doesn't that seem somewhat immoral?

I understand that if you put a bunch of time and energy into a project, you should get something out of it, but when you do little more then candy coating an app...

It's a "Free Country�" and I guess you can do whatever, but I can't get over some of it...

KaptainKaya · Nov 26, 2002, 12:37 PM

You mean when they charge $10 or more for a simple GUI to a command line utility? I agree there. I understand some people are deathly afraid of the Terminal, but $10 for something as simple as turning something on/off?

macmike42 · Nov 26, 2002, 12:46 PM

Actually this is one of the encouraged ways to make money with OSS. They aren't changing any code (hell, they aren't even distributing the open-source code most of the time), they are writing their own code which makes OSS easier to use. You should read the GPL and the BSD License. Now the guy(s) over at OpenOSX are definitely borderline violators.

Also, read this, please.

Millennium · Nov 26, 2002, 02:47 PM

Originally posted by mitchell_pgh:
I appreciate all of the valuable code that Mac programmers provide for our beloved platform, but I have started to notice a trend that is somewhat disturbing. Some "shareware" programmers are doing little more then creating a OS X front end to a Open Source program and charging $50 or more for it! Perhaps it's just me, but doesn't that seem somewhat immoral?

Depends.

In terms of licensing, a closed-source frontend does not necessarily break the license on an Open-Source tool. Many frontends, for example, essentially just gather information, generate a set of command-line arguments for a tool, and then launch that tool with those arguments. Nothing wrong with that. If, on the other hand, they were to rip code out of the tool and incorporate it into the actual frontend, and then close the source to that, it would be another matter.

I understand that if you put a bunch of time and energy into a project, you should get something out of it, but when you do little more then candy coating an app...

I agree that most frontends just don't tend to be worth much in the way of money. Some of them are, but they're in the minority: frontends for really complex tools which require a lot of work. Examples of these sorts of complex tools would be BrickHouse (frontend to ipfw), ProjectBuilder (essentially a frontend to half-a-gazillion Unix build tools), and so forth.

On the other hand, if someone wants to try and make, for example, a frontend for pngcrush and make money off of that, well... hey; might as well let them try it. I don't think they'll make any money off of that, but let them have a shot at it, I guess.

shiff · Nov 26, 2002, 03:17 PM

I, for one, love these little shareware utilities that the developers create. As was mentioned before, Brickhouse. I used to do the config in the command line and it took me longer to do. Some people think GUIs are for people who do not know how to do it in the command line, but I do not agree. If I can save time and get something working by using a well written front end, where do I sign. I have bought tons of shareware from several different developers of programs for the mac.

I say kudos to all the program writers. Keep up the good work.

eevyl · Nov 26, 2002, 05:35 PM

Mac OS X is a frontend to a Open Source software, and it is expensive as hell

shiff · Nov 26, 2002, 05:47 PM

But it is O so pretty.. hehe.. Sorry..bored at work today. 45 minutes til my first vacation in 2 yrs. I do not know what to do with myself.

Geobunny · Nov 26, 2002, 06:17 PM

Originally posted by eevyl:
Mac OS X is a frontend to a Open Source software, and it is expensive as hell

Touch�, nice one! I agree with most of the rest of the thread that a simple GUI to free CLI tools should also be free, but fair play to people if they put bucket-loads of work into their creation and want to charge a (nominal) fee for it.

msykes · Nov 26, 2002, 06:58 PM

I tend to agree with the general sentiment of the thread. I think what it really boils down to is not that people are charging money for GUI frontends, but that people are charging what we think is an unreasonable amount of money.

However, if people pay for it, then in a capitalist type system (forgive my misuse of the term, I'm Canadian :-) ), then what they are charging is reasonable.

Personally I'd say *most* GUI front ends, if someone used them regularily, should be worth about 5$ tops. Having played with Project Builder and Interface builder a little, I know just how easy things can be to whip together!

The real ugly ones (as mentioned earlier like OpenOSX), are where people simply take credit for Open Source software as if it were there own. I don't have much of a problem with any of the prices, as long as people are completely honest about what they have actually done, and about what existed before they came along.

Coxy · Nov 26, 2002, 09:33 PM

Originally posted by eevyl:
Mac OS X is a frontend to a Open Source software, and it is expensive as hell

That's total BS. You're not one of those people that think Mac OS X is a Linux distro, are you?

DSHwrd · Nov 26, 2002, 11:45 PM

Originally posted by Coxy:

That's total BS. You're not one of those people that think Mac OS X is a Linux distro, are you?

Umm? FreeBSD/Darwin aren't open source? I'm confused... Everything I've ever read has said they are. What _are_ you talking about? The underlying foundation of OS X is _open source_. There's no way around it.

Cheers,
- Daniel

[APi]TheMan · Nov 27, 2002, 12:13 AM

I'm not one to pay for shareware, and even less so if it's a simple wrapper for a free command line utility.

I'm no newbie and I'm not fooled by simple programs like those, so I couldn't really care too much less what's going on with Mac programmers and "misusing" open sourced code.

Of course if I were a programmer I would know not to do crap like charging for a lame wrapper to a simple feature-switching program like SpeedChimera, but there are a few VCDgearX, Mu, and UnrarX that might deserve a few bucks more than some of the silly ones that've popped up.

Northform · Nov 27, 2002, 12:38 AM

I don't care if they want to make money off of OSS as long as they stay within the licenceing stipulations.

The GPL allows you to sell GPL software. The only problem is that anyone who buys it from you can resell as many copies as he/she wants as well.

You can't combine GPL and non-GPL code in the same program.

You can add a nag message in GPL software that asks for money, but as it is requiried to be opensource anyone can remove that nag message and redistribute.

A lot of people have problems with Proteus over this issue. He uses GPL code, but won't opensource what he has written (I don't really care about Proteus - I'm just using this as a case sample).

From the Proteus website:
"Is Proteus itself a GPL product? Short answer, no. You can not download the source code, and compile Proteus from scratch."

"Proteus has been built with the help of several libraries that are 'open-sourced'. More correctly, they are libraries that use the GPL, or General Public, License."

Basically, Proteus uses GPL libraries, but isn't a GPL program

From the Free Software Foundation's website (they wrote the GPL):
"If a library is released under the GPL (not the LGPL), does that mean that any program which uses it has to be under the GPL?
Yes, because the program as it is actually run includes the library."

It's a clear cut violation of the GPL, but only one of the many copyright holders of the libraries can enforce it.

Other licences (BSD, New BSD, MIT, X) are more liberal and don't have the restrictions that the GPL puts on developers, but also gives no assurances of giving back to the community.

ZackS · Nov 27, 2002, 12:39 AM

As an author of three such utilities, I have to agree with what everyone else here has said. I think it is despicable for authors of GUIs for command line tools to charge any money. I made the program PCI Extreme and I've been approached several times about receiving money for my work. I could never accept the money because I thought it was wrong for the following reasons:

1.) The app only edits one plist file
2.) It does this by parsing a defaults command and sending it to the shell based on user input
3.) I didn't discover the plist file being edited or the idea of allowing QE over the PCI bus. (They are credited in the readme)
4.) I spent a total of 1 hour on the project
5.) I learned AppleScript Studio in the process

The same goes for Force Delete and Package Update.

ZackS · Nov 27, 2002, 12:40 AM

OK, I'll admit it, my last post was half contributing, half shameless plugging

DaedalusDX · Nov 27, 2002, 12:59 AM

Originally posted by DSHwrd:

Umm? FreeBSD/Darwin aren't open source? I'm confused... Everything I've ever read has said they are. What _are_ you talking about? The underlying foundation of OS X is _open source_. There's no way around it.

Cheers,
- Daniel

The underlying foundation of OS X is open source... but everything from that point all the way up is closed and guarded somewhere deep in cupertino...

Quartz, the interface.. the key applications... key apis and frameworks... etc etc hidden from everyone's eyes.

Sure you could get Darwin open source from Apple, but to argue if that was REALLY a Mac OS is stretching it. It would get you to a unix command line... yea that's about it

Apple has put ALOT of work into OSX that goes far beyond the open source Darwin. They charge full price because they've DONE full price work on OS X, even though Darwin is open source.

DSHwrd · Nov 27, 2002, 01:09 AM

Originally posted by DaedalusDX:

The underlying foundation of OS X is open source... but everything from that point all the way up is closed and guarded somewhere deep in cupertino...

<<snip>>

All that Eevyl said was that OS X's foundation was Open Source. Then Coxy said that was BS. I reemphasized that it was Open Source in it's foundation. I never said Aqua or any of the APIs were open sourced (like Apple would ever be that nice).

I never stated that Apple didn't deserve every penny they charge for OS X. I simply stated the facts. The underlying foundation of OS X is open source. Plain and simple.

Cheers,
- Daniel

kupan787 · Nov 27, 2002, 03:34 AM

Originally posted by Northform:
I don't care if they want to make money off of OSS as long as they stay within the licenceing stipulations.

The GPL allows you to sell GPL software. The only problem is that anyone who buys it from you can resell as many copies as he/she wants as well.

Only if your software is also GPL. Just because you include a GPL binary, doesn't necessarily make your program GPL.

You can't combine GPL and non-GPL code in the same program.

Correct, however most GUI wrappers don't touch the source code, so this is a moot point. And since this thread is about GUI wrappers, I am arguing that.

You can add a nag message in GPL software that asks for money, but as it is requiried to be opensource anyone can remove that nag message and redistribute.

Once again, only if your software is under the GPL.

If you put a wrapper on a GPL cli program, your program is not GPL, as you are not touching the source code to the GPLed program. I have talked to people about this (including authors of GPL software), and this seems to be the common understanding.

Henriok · Nov 27, 2002, 05:49 AM

Originally posted by Northform:
It's a clear cut violation of the GPL, but only one of the many copyright holders of the libraries can enforce it.

I don't know of all the libraries Proteus use, but the main one is libicq2000 and it's under LGPL. So Proteus is clearly NOT a violation of any licence, not regarding the use of libicq2000 anyway.

Simon · Nov 27, 2002, 06:38 AM

Originally posted by DSHwrd:
The underlying foundation of OS X is open source. Plain and simple.

Correct.

But 99% of all Mac users would probably rather use Windows than just that foundation. Darwin will be a pretty minimalist environment for most Mac users, don't you think? On top of that foundation is the stuff that most Mac users think makes a Mac out of a computer. Stuff like the Finder, the window system, apps like iTunes or the ability to burn a CD right out of the Finder. For that stuff Apple is allowed to charge as much as it wants.

If somebody thinks it's too much, tough luck. Heck, I'd pay Apple 300$ for 10.2 anytime. If people think 129 ist too much for 10.2 they should just try using Debian Linux for a couple of hours. It's nice, it's free and I like it - but no way I'd stick with it just because I wouldn't want to pay 129 for 10.2.

Northform · Nov 27, 2002, 04:13 PM

Originally posted by Henriok:
I don't know of all the libraries Proteus use, but the main one is libicq2000 and it's under LGPL. So Proteus is clearly NOT a violation of any licence, not regarding the use of libicq2000 anyway.

It's not in violation for libicq2000 if it is LGPL, but as the Proteus website says, it does use GPL libraries. It's the creator's claim that the program uses GPL libraries, not mine.

msykes · Nov 27, 2002, 04:36 PM

Originally posted by [APi]TheMan:
I'm not one to pay for shareware, and even less so if it's a simple wrapper for a free command line utility.

Speaking about misusing... not paying for shareware is hardly something to be proud of. OSS GUI front ends aside, there is a lot of awesome shareware out there (ie GraphicConverter) which is well worth it's price.

DSHwrd · Nov 27, 2002, 05:33 PM

Originally posted by Simon:

Correct.

But 99% of all Mac users would probably rather use Windows than just that foundation. Darwin will be a pretty minimalist environment for most Mac users, don't you think? On top of that foundation is the stuff that most Mac users think makes a Mac out of a computer. Stuff like the Finder, the window system, apps like iTunes or the ability to burn a CD right out of the Finder. For that stuff Apple is allowed to charge as much as it wants.

If somebody thinks it's too much, tough luck. Heck, I'd pay Apple 300$ for 10.2 anytime. If people think 129 ist too much for 10.2 they should just try using Debian Linux for a couple of hours. It's nice, it's free and I like it - but no way I'd stick with it just because I wouldn't want to pay 129 for 10.2.

I give up. No one listens to what I say. They just hear what they want to hear. All I said was the FOUNDATION OF OS X IS OPEN SOURCE, NOTHING MORE NOTHING LESS. I never disagreed with anyone about the rest of the operating system (the part the Mac users know as 'Their Mac') being not open source. If I recall correctly, I stated that Apple would never open source that. Anyways, I'm done discussing this. No one listens.

Cheers,
- Daniel

HAPPY THANKSGIVING!

eevyl · Nov 27, 2002, 06:37 PM

Originally posted by Coxy:

That's total BS. You're not one of those people that think Mac OS X is a Linux distro, are you?

Well, that's total BS. I was kidding, of course.

Back to the topic, I think that any software developer can charge for the software he/she make, as well as giving it free. There is no moral division here.

The decision to use one or another or buy or not to buy is up to the users.

I agree that a GUI such as BrickHouse is a lot mor work and maybe worth more money than a GUI to the shutdown utility.

Coxy · Nov 27, 2002, 10:56 PM

Originally posted by DSHwrd:

All that Eevyl said was that OS X's foundation was Open Source.

Not quite, he implied that everything was open source bar the Finder (or perhaps Aqua.) Anyway, the sidetrack is kind of over.

pmcd · Nov 28, 2002, 06:38 AM

Originally posted by ZackS:
OK, I'll admit it, my last post was half contributing, half shameless plugging

But very ingenious

philip

philm · Nov 28, 2002, 11:51 AM

This is interesting. Is it really *so* easy to write a GUI front end to a CLI command?

Can someone explain to me how this could be done to...let's say...rename a file (i.e. a GUI front end for the 'mv' command). Or any other simple command which takes your fancy.

Phil

CharlesS · Nov 28, 2002, 12:24 PM

Originally posted by philm:
This is interesting. Is it really *so* easy to write a GUI front end to a CLI command?

Can someone explain to me how this could be done to...let's say...rename a file (i.e. a GUI front end for the 'mv' command). Or any other simple command which takes your fancy.

Phil

It really is easy.

If you want to see some good examples of how to wrap basic terminal commands, there are a few good ones at http://www.cocoadevcentral.com/ .