So where is the source code?

I'm really baffled sometimes by such attitudes.

First of all, I didn't even expect this to appear. It is possible that I was rough, but please be sure that I didn't want you to take it personal. And if this lowered the chances for Verve to go open-source - I'm really sorry.

So why did I write this? Well, you see, there are different values in different communities. It might be very different for people who primarily do art, but in IT an access to the source code is pretty important. Perhaps that's where the misunderstanding came from.

If you want to understand the logic behind this, just step out of yourself a little bit and consider these facts: (no, really! It is just too much of a paradigm shift if you have never looked at software from such point of view. Please be prepared that the stuff you might read in my post might be too different from what you believe or what you've been used to, but please, calm down and get yourself a piece of chocolate, if that is possible.)

• Some people (like me) are primarily using one of the GNU/Linux distributions. Most of the time it means that you can get any software with just a single cli command. That is, it doesn't matter if you're on 32-bit, 64-bit or even arm system, also there are no hidden fees and other bullshit. VERY convenient and the reason behind this convenience is an access to the source code. (Convenience)
  
• You always know that it will not become worse in the future. If it works today, it will continue working later (...maybe it will require some minor tweaks). It is not true that any binary that was compiled today will be functional forever (even if you cannot take it away, although you can), it is very common that old software will simply not run on the modern operating systems (there are many possible reasons for this: updated libs, deprecated stuff, entirely redesigned system components, etc.). (Justified confidence in the future)
  
• We are in the post-Snowden era, and yet here is what we read on the download page:
  
  
  Well, I'm not saying that your software is malware, but this disclaimer looks funny if you put the leaks of the latest years on the background. (Security)
  
• Access to the source code makes it possible to fix minor irritating bugs or simply some software limitations. This is pretty common when there is not enough developer time involved into the project (that is, it will be very easy to fix unimportant bugs (or implement interesting features) that just are not being solved because the developer has no time or motivation to deal with them) (Extensibility, flexibility, etc.)
  
• Sometimes we just want to help. (Being useful to yourself and others)

And the list can just go on and on, there are many reason for us (users) to EXPECT a link to the source code (and this list is just what came from the top of my head, some other aspects might be even deeper but they're not that important for me). And although no one is forcing you to release the source code (we just can't), there have been many cases when the force of the community was really, really strong (for example BitTorrent Sync, where irritation of the owners is maxed out), at the same time I have not seen any case when the users were unhappy because the source code was released. At this point, we should say "well, it would be very beneficial for us (users) to have the source code, but it is up to its author to decide whether the source is released or not", and that's OK.

Now, I really hope that by the time you are reading this you understand that I didn't want to offend you or force you to do something. If not, then I failed to explain this, just forget about this thread...

And what the hell do you care about what's going to happen "in the long run", honestly?! You can download it, use it and be happy now!

Well, I can't, because some people care about tomorrow. It is not like I'm forcing you or anybody else to do the same, but please understand that there are some people who consider this important. For example, not long time ago Skype made an update which turned older versions of it into nonfunctional shit (that is, you cannot login with it). The only way is to upgrade it, but the newer version provides no ALSA support, just pulseaudio (unlike earlier versions). And there are enough linux distributions that have no pulseaudio installed.

Well, some people would say that I should trust you blindly (trust that everything will be OK), and definitely it might make sense in some situations. Just not this time (because we are talking about software, not about you and us (not about people)).

Now, these were the arguments for the users, not for the developer (mostly). So, if we're talking about the developer, let's just focus on the points you have provided:

• 1. Opportunists, who will try to make a commercial product out of it!

  
  Well, that's why we have a a bunch of licenses to choose from. In short: releasing the source code does not mean that you allow people to use it in proprietary closed-source programs.
  

• 2. I am hoping to figure out some way for people to help me focus on creating and evolving future versions of Verve and possibly even more tools

  
  That's exactly what free software is promoting, although in a different way. People will be able to help you with the code (for example on parts that you don't want to struggle with, i.e. MacOS version).
  

• 3. I may explore making some commercial mobile versions of it.

  
  Well, this has nothing to do with the desktop version being open-source. For example, MuseScore is completely free and open on desktop, but has a non-free android app. Even Krita developers are doing something similar. There are many ways you can sell free software.

I'm really sorry that I have to point this out, but:

And what on earth is it with bizarre labels? OPEN SOURCE = open source. FREE SOFTWARE = you don't have to pay to get the software.

my command of the English language suggests the use of the word "free" and the word "software" as appropriate for the case of Verve.

Well, it seems like you are consciously trying to deny a term that was coined more than 30 years ago and is used by a lot of people. Now, that is a weird attitude towards the people who were fighting for your rights and your freedom.

In the end, it is completely up to you. But please at least consider it as an option.

[Taron]

Above all else, even though I most likely would've done the mistake of calling it "free software", I don't recall doing so anywhere?! Would you be so kind to point me to where I was saying that, please!

Second of all, thank you for all your information, that's very kind of you. There's another reason for why I don't go open source, that I have neglected to mention: I'm not done, yet!
I do not want to call it a mistake that I've started sharing Verve this early on, but it really has been and still is merely a prototype of sorts as I have mentioned quite frequently, I believe. I've done various massive updates from the first versions forward and have been doing my best to keep it compatible so that people could load old projects without any troubles. However, the next version will have a much more evolved file format. Yet, I'll still do my best to keep old projects loadable.

That being said...I'd love to know that you're happy. My tip for you is: Be happy now! If you were an artist, who could appreciate Verve, you would be able to do so without worries for tomorrow, but only excitement! You have to learn to let yourself enjoy the beautiful realities right in front of you now and not the potential horrors of tomorrow. All is well!

If you have anything "more" useful to say about how I could deal with the virus killer nonsense, that would be the first really valuable thing I could appreciate!

Above all else, even though I most likely would've done the mistake of calling it "free software", I don't recall doing so anywhere?! Would you be so kind to point me to where I was saying that, please!

Actually, I've never said that you called it this way. It only happened in this thread, I believe. I've dedicated the first half of my previous post to the reasons why I think that it must be free software, so I thought that it is clear that my question about the source code was based on the belief that it is the right thing to do, not on your promises.

There's another reason for why I don't go open source, that I have neglected to mention: I'm not done, yet!

Well, this is a common reason. It seems like a lot of people are pretty shy when it comes to sharing the internals of what they've been working on privately, and that is understandable. However, this brings up other problems:

• What happens if you suddenly disappear? (e.g. get run by a car)
• Sometimes it is much easier to take rough criticisms today (and fix stuff) so that you don't have to carry the weight of bad decisions for years.
• Contributions by others may stimulate your motivation, while increasing responsibility and demand of the new features suppresses it. (not always, but usually it's true)

And there were cases when software was closed till the end, but then released after the author has lost an interest in it. FreeRouting comes to mind. Most likely you're not familiar with it, but I'll just say that this piece of software is very unique in its kind (that is, other alternatives are pretty pricey and there are no free variants). So, that software was developed by one person for many years (and the source code was closed), then he declared that he is "old" now and releasing the source code under GPL license would be the right thing to do. The problem arose when one company (where this author was working at some years ago) claimed that some (unknown which ones) pieces of code belong to them. The whole story is complicated, it's hard to tell where is the truth. But here is a little quote from the discussion about it:

And a second thing, this is code developed behind closed doors, by a single programmer, for seven years. Lone heroes developing code on their own, lacking the feedback of peers and supervisors, tend to end up with rather individual and special coding styles. Typically such code is not easy to maintain.

Third, the code is supposed to be the implementation of a number of complex algorithms, some highly optimized, some not finished, despite working on it almost daily for seven years. Algorithms, that aren't documented (except one paper from 1985), and only exist in the mind of the programmer. Self-documenting code? Gimme a break.

I doubt there are many people around willing and capable of working on that code. Maybe some government organization somewhere is looking into it, trying to find out if it is really as good as he claims. But they are not doing it for the community (according to his posting the Chinese government already "expressed an interest") .

And what if the algorithm isn't as good as he claims? Then someone touching the code would sit there with legal problems, a code base hacked together by a lone hero over the time of seven years, and an algorithm which couldn't be made to work by the inventor.

I feel like some of these points might apply in your case as well...
(This quote was taken from here: http://www.eevblog.com/forum/chat/freer ... #msg462085)

That being said...I'd love to know that you're happy. My tip for you is: Be happy now! If you were an artist, who could appreciate Verve, you would be able to do so without worries for tomorrow, but only excitement! You have to learn to let yourself enjoy the beautiful realities right in front of you now and not the potential horrors of tomorrow. All is well!

Well, we're all different, some people just don't get that point of view - how could I be happy now if the future is too unclear? Also, why don't I just go buy some heavy drugs (so that I can "be happy now")? Where is that line when I should start caring about tomorrow? We will never be able to force our way of thinking onto others, but I've tried pretty hard to bring as many rational arguments as I can, so that I'm not actually trying to force my way of thinking onto you, but provide points that could actually make sense to you (at least logically).

If you have anything "more" useful to say about how I could deal with the virus killer nonsense, that would be the first really valuable thing I could appreciate!

This is a common issue, it's not like you're struggling with it alone. However, it seems like there is no good enough solution besides the one I was suggesting right from the start. It is actually much deeper than it might look like. Well, as far as I know, there is a way to sign programs on Microsoft Windows, so that they're kinda verified before being ran (and thus no alarming popup). But you have to pay for it. Why? Because nothing in a world can prove that your software is not a malware (besides releasing the source code, of course! Then it could be proven and we can just ignore the error, or perhaps notify the antivirus developers that their tools are acting weird on this proven open-source software). But even if you pay for it, there are other things you have to think about. For example, how do you prevent MITM attacks when Verve is being downloaded? Look, there is no https: http://www.taron.de/Storage/Verve/Verve_painter.exe which means that anybody (well, not anybody, but ISPs, malware and such) can swap that file with anything else. In fact, there is some malware that gets into installers just like this... Well, that's why we have advanced package management systems instead of just throwing unverified binary blobs over the internet. Also, SSL certificates usually cost money, but there are some free ones provided for open-source projects It gets so much easier in all aspects when you release the source code And I haven't even touched the ethical and political issues involved in this question.

[Taron]

Thanks.