Why Newton is not open source

[qubodup]

The bottom line is that Newton is not Open Source

I am wondering: why? Newton may be used for commercial use without paying, so why not release the source as well under an open source license?

Do you dislike the philosophy? Is it because you want to keep the attribution (3) and notification (5) rules of the license? Do you just not see any advantages in opening the source or even disadvantages?

I hope this question is acceptable. I do not intend to preach why you should or should not release the source, I'm just curious and "We don't want to talk about it!" would be an answer for me too. :)

[JernejL]

This was many times answered, basically it's because "too many cooks spoil a dish".

[Stucuk]

"Too many cooks spoil the broth" is the correct quote. Open Source is great for random source code(I.E Loading a filetype). Its generally not great for projects unless they are ran by dedicated teams who lead the project in a single direction (I.E Google Chrome).

[qubodup]

"Too many cooks spoil the broth" is the correct quote.

Thanks, that quote let me find another thread, where the license choice has been discussed a little and then I realized I could search the administrator's profiles for "open source" and found some more posts.

@Julio Jerez if possible, I would appreciate an official answer in the faq section, just in case somebody else is curious - I for one found the answer I think.

[Stucuk]

Most people don't ask "Why is newton open source" so its not really a Frequently Asked Question. Most only care about it being Free.

By the way, the 1.53 license doesn't apply to 2.0 as 2.0 doesn't have any license. Website should really be updated.

[qubodup]

Most people don't ask "Why is newton open source" so its not really a Frequently Asked Question.

This question has been asked enough times to be in the FAQ, see

This was many times answered

By the way, the 1.53 license doesn't apply to 2.0 as 2.0 doesn't have any license. Website should really be updated.

Of course it has a license. See the doc/license.txt file

[Leadwerks]

Why don't you come to my house and wash my car for free? Why?

[Carli]

Why don't you come to my house and wash my car for free? Why?

The question is not "bake me a cake" but "give me the recepture for this cake"

[Stucuk]

Why don't you come to my house and wash my car for free? Why?

That doesn't work as Newton Is Free and there is no "Buy the Source code" option.

Of course it has a license. See the doc/license.txt file

There is no Doc folder in 2.0 . At least not in the Windows distribution. If you have copied 2.0 over 1.53 then you will have 1.53's license.

EDIT: Looks like the Linux distribution has the 1.53 Doc folder for some reason. Everything inside of it is just the 1.53 stuff and unrelated to 2.0 .

This question has been asked enough times to be in the FAQ, see

As far as i remember your either the 2nd or 3rd person to ask the question. Its also not an important question. FAQ should be about important questions on using newton, not things like "Do you believe in freedom of speech".

[qubodup]

Why don't you come to my house and wash my car for free? Why?

The question is not "bake me a cake" but "give me the recepture for this cake"

Nah, it should be "The library binaries are available for commercial use for free, why did youu decide against releasing the source code as well under similar terms?"

FAQ should be about important questions on using newton, not things like "Do you believe in freedom of speech".

Oh, you're right. I didn't realize until now that my question isn't a general license question, but a personal one. (At least asking on the forum seems to be the preferred way of contacting the developer.)

Hopefully the developer will find the time and motivation to give an answer though (only it matters in the end ).

[Carli]

Nah, it should be "The library binaries are available for commercial use for free, why did youu decide against releasing the source code as well under similar terms?"

It's Julios decision and I respect his decision.
The reason, why I asked for OpenSource was the portability on platforms for that Julio has no test computer. (Linux-ARM etc.)
But in the moment, I myself have no Linux ARM, too, so in the moment, i don't need Newton to be OpenSource.

On the other hand, it's Julios right to do what he wants with his own source. Maybe, he wants to earn money with it later?

[Stucuk]

"The library binaries are available for commercial use for free, why did you decide against releasing the source code as well under similar terms?"

That makes it sound like one imply's the other when it doesn't.

The reason, why I asked for OpenSource was the portability on platforms for that Julio has no test computer. (Linux-ARM etc.)

There is no reason for anyone to need the source code. To test a Binary you don't need the source code. To build a binary you don't need the target machine/OS.

Maybe, he wants to earn money with it later?

I doubt it. Its most likely that he wants to be in control of a project that he has spent years on. He also proberly doesn't want the hassle of having users come up to him telling him that Newton doesn't work right when the user has used a version that was modified by some random person, who made lots of mistakes.

[qubodup]

"The library binaries are available for commercial use for free, why did you decide against releasing the source code as well under similar terms?"

That makes it sound like one imply's the other when it doesn't.

It does not, but in my experience, most freeware software prohibits free commercial use and most software that permits free commercial use is licensed under open source licenses and I'm curious to know why this is not the case for Newton.

[JernejL]

There is a ton of such software that is also free but comes with no source code - just like this library - it is usually because the original author is the most qualified person to work on it, and noone else that is competent enough to assist ever offered help.

[Stucuk]

There is lots of Free software on the internet which is closed source. So there is no difference between them and a library that can be used in your applications which is 100% free and closed source.

and noone else that is competent enough to assist ever offered help.

I doubt most would accept help from people unless they knew they could 100% trust them with the source code. Especially when it comes to projects you have worked on for years.

One thing to remember is that Newton isn't owned by a Company which has to keep its shareholders happy. With a company made thing they will charge money for it(They only allow non-commercial for free because there is free alternatives and they want to get you hooked to there thing).