Open Source / Source-Available / Dual-License: We Need a new license!
-
Here's my story that you may find interesting. First of all, I posted the following question on a StackExchange site and they immediately closed it. Posted Question I have a completed project (SaaS) that I want to release as Open Source. However, I want to create a tiered payment system which would be something like the following: 1. Via my Site: Using the SaaS solution via my web site: $X per month/year 2. Personal use (running SaaS on their own server & using it theirself): Free 3. "Small" Professional Use Running SaaS on company server for employee use. $X per user per month -- Small would be defined as Annual Revenue figure less than $XXX,XXX 4. "Large" Professional Use: Running SaaS on company server for employee use. $X per user per month -- Large defined as Annual Revenue figure greater than $XXX,XXX 5. Royalty-Free: Using SaaS as a subscription-based service: One-time payment $XX,XXX Modern License? Is there a modern License which will allow me to: Open source the code (so everyone can see it change it etc.) Still charge for its use? If there isn't a license like that, what are some reasons that there isn't? Reasons? Are there legal reasons that this just can't be done? Or, is this not done because people will steal the open source and use it without paying? How About A Nice Balance? It seems like this would be a nice balance between: 1. allow source code to be fixed/inspected/etc. by users 2. allow a developer to live off the work that she has created? Since I didn't get an answer I had to read a ton. After Extensive Research I discovered there is a thing called Source-Available software[^] which isn't OSS. My Question For This Forum Why isn't there a nice license like the one I describe above? One where intellectual property (and all that work we do as devs) is protected. But, where we can still make the source open? I also read this long article about Open Source Dual Licensing[^] which means: 1. provide a GPL (General Public License) which is OSS but requires users to open up th
Can you do it as you described? Yes. Why is there no 'standard' license for that? Because there are too many variations. And if you are going to make money then you should really talk to a lawyer. You will need to understand liability, taxes, etc. Variations? For example I have seen ones where the free tier depended on how many users there were, the activity based on different time periods, how many servers it ran on (complicated by cores), what industries it what used in (for example not allowing government/military use), and others. I have seen a license which allowed just inspection but did not allow making money from it. More often now I see cases that do not allow it in any 'commercial' use. Which is why I always actually read licenses for third party libraries. Versus what very often in my experience seems to be that developers think that because they found it on the web it can be used without regard to the license.
raddevus wrote:
Richard Stallman had when he created the idea of OSS
I doubt that attempting to wrap it in a ideologic context is going to mean anything.
-
Thanks for your interest. They said that another question already answered it but it didn't. Here's my original question posted on SE (https://opensource.stackexchange.com/questions/14225/which-license-would-i-use-to-make-my-source-code-available-but-require-payment[^]) Take a look and see if you agree? I mean after reading extensively I guess it answered my question but that was after reading off-site articles and other research. I just don't think what they posted really answered my specific questions.
-
There is a lot of mumble jumble in it about what 'should' happen but the reference original does answer the question. https://opensource.stackexchange.com/questions/9805/can-i-license-my-project-with-an-open-source-license-but-disallow-commercial-use[^]
Yes, it does but not directly and I had to read about 5 side articles to understand that it was the answer. I'm not sure why they couldn't allow the question to be answered with: "There is no license like that in OSS" But I don't care anyways since I have the answer for myself. Having a good, clear, solid answer on the site would only help others who had the same question as I had. :rolleyes:
-
Can you do it as you described? Yes. Why is there no 'standard' license for that? Because there are too many variations. And if you are going to make money then you should really talk to a lawyer. You will need to understand liability, taxes, etc. Variations? For example I have seen ones where the free tier depended on how many users there were, the activity based on different time periods, how many servers it ran on (complicated by cores), what industries it what used in (for example not allowing government/military use), and others. I have seen a license which allowed just inspection but did not allow making money from it. More often now I see cases that do not allow it in any 'commercial' use. Which is why I always actually read licenses for third party libraries. Versus what very often in my experience seems to be that developers think that because they found it on the web it can be used without regard to the license.
raddevus wrote:
Richard Stallman had when he created the idea of OSS
I doubt that attempting to wrap it in a ideologic context is going to mean anything.
I see now that all OSS is really just a "poison pill". Think about it -- if you use the GPL then you require that any software based off yours is also free. That means that only large companies who will provide support, documentation etc. will ever make any money from the software -- but no money goes to the original (ass-in-chair) developer. I'm sure that this is what Stallman originally intended. If you watch this video by Bruno Lowagie of iText (PDF converter) you will see the agony of doing OSS. Open Source Survival: A Story from the Trenches - YouTube[^] So the dream of creating an amazing system as a Developer is dead. Instead it is the nightmare of creating a Business Which Owns the System and bullies everyone to pay for it. (Does this sound like MS, Google, etc. ?) Not the dream I was looking for.
-
Here's my story that you may find interesting. First of all, I posted the following question on a StackExchange site and they immediately closed it. Posted Question I have a completed project (SaaS) that I want to release as Open Source. However, I want to create a tiered payment system which would be something like the following: 1. Via my Site: Using the SaaS solution via my web site: $X per month/year 2. Personal use (running SaaS on their own server & using it theirself): Free 3. "Small" Professional Use Running SaaS on company server for employee use. $X per user per month -- Small would be defined as Annual Revenue figure less than $XXX,XXX 4. "Large" Professional Use: Running SaaS on company server for employee use. $X per user per month -- Large defined as Annual Revenue figure greater than $XXX,XXX 5. Royalty-Free: Using SaaS as a subscription-based service: One-time payment $XX,XXX Modern License? Is there a modern License which will allow me to: Open source the code (so everyone can see it change it etc.) Still charge for its use? If there isn't a license like that, what are some reasons that there isn't? Reasons? Are there legal reasons that this just can't be done? Or, is this not done because people will steal the open source and use it without paying? How About A Nice Balance? It seems like this would be a nice balance between: 1. allow source code to be fixed/inspected/etc. by users 2. allow a developer to live off the work that she has created? Since I didn't get an answer I had to read a ton. After Extensive Research I discovered there is a thing called Source-Available software[^] which isn't OSS. My Question For This Forum Why isn't there a nice license like the one I describe above? One where intellectual property (and all that work we do as devs) is protected. But, where we can still make the source open? I also read this long article about Open Source Dual Licensing[^] which means: 1. provide a GPL (General Public License) which is OSS but requires users to open up th
raddevus wrote:
My Question For This Forum Why isn't there a nice license like the one I describe above? One where intellectual property (and all that work we do as devs) is protected. But, where we can still make the source open?
For that, you should post it in the B&S or summon the masters of the hamsters... @Chris-Maunder @Sean-Ewington @Matthew-Dennis You might be interested on this OP
M.D.V. ;) If something has a solution... Why do we have to worry about?. If it has no solution... For what reason do we have to worry about? Help me to understand what I'm saying, and I'll explain it better to you Rating helpful answers is nice, but saying thanks can be even nicer.
-
raddevus wrote:
My Question For This Forum Why isn't there a nice license like the one I describe above? One where intellectual property (and all that work we do as devs) is protected. But, where we can still make the source open?
For that, you should post it in the B&S or summon the masters of the hamsters... @Chris-Maunder @Sean-Ewington @Matthew-Dennis You might be interested on this OP
M.D.V. ;) If something has a solution... Why do we have to worry about?. If it has no solution... For what reason do we have to worry about? Help me to understand what I'm saying, and I'll explain it better to you Rating helpful answers is nice, but saying thanks can be even nicer.
Well, I didn't want to bother those guys, because they are so busy. I was just learning about OSS licenses and wondering why there wasn't a license like that. I see also that when you write an article here you can choose any OSS license very easily so that is very nice I was more interested in why a new License that is Open Source for minimal use and Closed/Require Payment for "larger" use hasn't been created. I guess that is up to each software dev / creater to get with an individual lawyer -- which may be cost-prohibitive. Thanks
-
Here's my story that you may find interesting. First of all, I posted the following question on a StackExchange site and they immediately closed it. Posted Question I have a completed project (SaaS) that I want to release as Open Source. However, I want to create a tiered payment system which would be something like the following: 1. Via my Site: Using the SaaS solution via my web site: $X per month/year 2. Personal use (running SaaS on their own server & using it theirself): Free 3. "Small" Professional Use Running SaaS on company server for employee use. $X per user per month -- Small would be defined as Annual Revenue figure less than $XXX,XXX 4. "Large" Professional Use: Running SaaS on company server for employee use. $X per user per month -- Large defined as Annual Revenue figure greater than $XXX,XXX 5. Royalty-Free: Using SaaS as a subscription-based service: One-time payment $XX,XXX Modern License? Is there a modern License which will allow me to: Open source the code (so everyone can see it change it etc.) Still charge for its use? If there isn't a license like that, what are some reasons that there isn't? Reasons? Are there legal reasons that this just can't be done? Or, is this not done because people will steal the open source and use it without paying? How About A Nice Balance? It seems like this would be a nice balance between: 1. allow source code to be fixed/inspected/etc. by users 2. allow a developer to live off the work that she has created? Since I didn't get an answer I had to read a ton. After Extensive Research I discovered there is a thing called Source-Available software[^] which isn't OSS. My Question For This Forum Why isn't there a nice license like the one I describe above? One where intellectual property (and all that work we do as devs) is protected. But, where we can still make the source open? I also read this long article about Open Source Dual Licensing[^] which means: 1. provide a GPL (General Public License) which is OSS but requires users to open up th
I think you're confusing free (no cost) and free (freedom to do what you want). It's always bugged me that the Free Software Foundation uses the term "free" to mean "freedom" and I feel the rest of the world sees "Free software" as "I don't have to pay". I'm fairly sure if you asked any random person this ambiguity would show. Short answer: you can do what you want already. Other answer: look at the MongoDB licence. That not only allows you to do what you want, it also protects you from others (eg Amazon and big players) who take your code, host it, and sell it with no added value. While this certainly goes against the "freedom" of Free code, life isn't fair, and "free" has been abused enough that others have become fed up and created licences that abide by the spirit, namely allowing devs like you and I do use code as we need to, without abusing the author's intent, but also protecting the author
cheers Chris Maunder
-
I think you're confusing free (no cost) and free (freedom to do what you want). It's always bugged me that the Free Software Foundation uses the term "free" to mean "freedom" and I feel the rest of the world sees "Free software" as "I don't have to pay". I'm fairly sure if you asked any random person this ambiguity would show. Short answer: you can do what you want already. Other answer: look at the MongoDB licence. That not only allows you to do what you want, it also protects you from others (eg Amazon and big players) who take your code, host it, and sell it with no added value. While this certainly goes against the "freedom" of Free code, life isn't fair, and "free" has been abused enough that others have become fed up and created licences that abide by the spirit, namely allowing devs like you and I do use code as we need to, without abusing the author's intent, but also protecting the author
cheers Chris Maunder
Thanks so much for taking time to read my "rant" and to understand what I'm trying to say. I really appreciate it.
Chris Maunder wrote:
Short answer: you can do what you want already.
That would be fantastic! In the end, if I'm unable to release it and be paid I will still release it as OSS because I still believe in the value of sharing and what my service does*.
Chris Maunder wrote:
Other answer: look at the MongoDB licence. That not only allows you to do what you want, it also protects you from others (eg Amazon and big players) who take your code, host it, and sell it with no added value.
That's exactly what I'm looking for!!! I will take a closer look. I thought maybe someone in this modern age would've had to already run up against this and already done this. Fantastic. *tldr; My service : 1. written as a .NET Core WebAPI 2. allows you to post your (or your user's data) by pointing at my WebAPI - all data is encrypted (using Authenticated encryption and AES256 algo) 3. Supports any DB backend via two configuration strings -- this is the magic sauce!!! The user can simply choose a DbType (sqlite3, sqlserver, oracle, mysql, postgres, etc.) and add valid DB connection string and data will be encrypted (on client side of course, sent over https) and saved to DB. Additionally, if the user is running on sqlite3 and wants to switch. Literally stop the WebAPI, make the two config changes and start against new DB. 4. The source code behind the magic sauce makes code extremely small and easily extendable (via interfaces & generics). IE - even if you have a new DbType you can have it supported in 15 minutes, following the source-code pattern.
-
I see now that all OSS is really just a "poison pill". Think about it -- if you use the GPL then you require that any software based off yours is also free. That means that only large companies who will provide support, documentation etc. will ever make any money from the software -- but no money goes to the original (ass-in-chair) developer. I'm sure that this is what Stallman originally intended. If you watch this video by Bruno Lowagie of iText (PDF converter) you will see the agony of doing OSS. Open Source Survival: A Story from the Trenches - YouTube[^] So the dream of creating an amazing system as a Developer is dead. Instead it is the nightmare of creating a Business Which Owns the System and bullies everyone to pay for it. (Does this sound like MS, Google, etc. ?) Not the dream I was looking for.
raddevus wrote:
if you use the GPL then you require that any software based off yours is also free.
That specifically is not true. I have seen a license, years ago (more than 10 years at a minimum), that seemed to suggest that. I have not seen it at all recently.
raddevus wrote:
I'm sure that this is what Stallman originally intended.
Stallman had no problem with people making money. His primary idea is that the code was viewable and that the product code be modified by the user. That idea came about long ago when only products were delivered (no services), when products tended to be much smaller, and when licenses due to the prior two items could be much simpler.
raddevus wrote:
So the dream of creating an amazing system as a Developer is dead.
My dream is that I get a substantial paycheck. And that requires that the company makes money.
-
Well, I didn't want to bother those guys, because they are so busy. I was just learning about OSS licenses and wondering why there wasn't a license like that. I see also that when you write an article here you can choose any OSS license very easily so that is very nice I was more interested in why a new License that is Open Source for minimal use and Closed/Require Payment for "larger" use hasn't been created. I guess that is up to each software dev / creater to get with an individual lawyer -- which may be cost-prohibitive. Thanks
raddevus wrote:
Well, I didn't want to bother those guys, because they are so busy.
I don't think they would see this as a disturbance, but they are the ones that might give you the best answer. As it has happened :) ;)
M.D.V. ;) If something has a solution... Why do we have to worry about?. If it has no solution... For what reason do we have to worry about? Help me to understand what I'm saying, and I'll explain it better to you Rating helpful answers is nice, but saying thanks can be even nicer.