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
-
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'm curious, what reason was given for closing the question?
The difficult we do right away... ...the impossible takes slightly longer.
-
I'm curious, what reason was given for closing the question?
The difficult we do right away... ...the impossible takes slightly longer.
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.
-
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
Look at GPL3. It makes users also open up their software, but I figured this wouldn't be a problem except for the types of users that you'd want payment from, in which case they can buy their way out.
Robust Services Core | Software Techniques for Lemmings | Articles
The fox knows many things, but the hedgehog knows one big thing.<p><a href="https://github.com/GregUtas/robust-services-core/blob/master/README.md">Robust Services Core</a>
<em>The fox knows many things, but the hedgehog knows one big thing.</em></p> -
Look at GPL3. It makes users also open up their software, but I figured this wouldn't be a problem except for the types of users that you'd want payment from, in which case they can buy their way out.
Robust Services Core | Software Techniques for Lemmings | Articles
The fox knows many things, but the hedgehog knows one big thing.Thanks for your notes. You are correct and that would create a Dual-License (where they buy their way out). The thing that none of these covers is a "Licensing Tier". Basically, if you use my Complete Program (the SaaS) and your yearly revenue exceeds X dollars then you pay $X per user. If you use my Complete Program and your yearly revenue are less than X dollars then you pay less $. Maybe I need a lawyer for such a thing. It seems like such an obvious thing, that doesn't seem to exist. It seems like this kind of thing could : 1. keep software open. 2. Make big Companies pay for dev's hard work 3. Make little Companies pay reasonable amount for dev's hard work. 4. Make hobbyists pay extremely small or nothing. And, the point of making my SaaS Open Source is basically marketing from a sole proprietorship's type of experience. People could see it and use it as hobbyist / students and then learn how it works and then later suggest to companies as a way to solve a problem that companies would pay for. This would help single open source devs get attention and finally get paid too.
-
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
My student days were before OSS became a concept. Yet, the OS for the mainframe at the University was distributed in source form, and the computer center staff made local modifications before assembling it (yes, the OS was written in assembly code). Every update was paid, but I have been told that the highest cost (and reason for the University skipping many updates) was the manpower cost of the local modifications. My first employer was a mini/supermini manufacturer, with an OS that didn't allow dynamic addition of drivers, so each machine came with a tailored OS build for that specific hardware configuration. The delivery included a hardcopy printout of this tailored build, but not on a machine readable medium. One customer needed to interface some medical equipment for which there was no driver, and he asked if he could get access to the OS code in machine readable form. That was against company policy - "But you've got the OS source code, why don't you just type it in?" And he did! (He was later employed in the OS group of the manufacturer.) I've got a microfiche copy of VAX/VMS from the same time period. The original DEC version certainly was payware, but again: You could easily obtain a non machine readable version, to read and learn from, but not intended for forking. In those days, thousands of open source programs were accessible at ftp sites (ftp.funet.fi as one of the biggest one). A fair share of them was 'begware', presenting a header telling that you might try out the program for 30 days, but to use it after that, you have to pay so-and-so much to this and that account. The most common local modification was to delete the begging :-) So there are many examples of open source payware. There is no reason why you shouldn't do the same thing. You just must trust your fellowman to be honest and not to rip off the code and use it outside your control. I never heard of any standard licensing terms for this kind of code publication, though. The closest I can think of is Norwegian copyright law, stating that you may make single copies of protected works for non-commercial purposes. You must do the copying yourself, you cannot hire anyone to make the copy for you, and even though you are entitled to make copies, in plural, you must do it as 'single' copies, not a serial production of a hundred copies in one sweep. There are a few other restrictions as well, but I've got at at least a couple hundred perfectly legal music CD and a few dozen movies. (But go to our neighbor country Denmar
-
My student days were before OSS became a concept. Yet, the OS for the mainframe at the University was distributed in source form, and the computer center staff made local modifications before assembling it (yes, the OS was written in assembly code). Every update was paid, but I have been told that the highest cost (and reason for the University skipping many updates) was the manpower cost of the local modifications. My first employer was a mini/supermini manufacturer, with an OS that didn't allow dynamic addition of drivers, so each machine came with a tailored OS build for that specific hardware configuration. The delivery included a hardcopy printout of this tailored build, but not on a machine readable medium. One customer needed to interface some medical equipment for which there was no driver, and he asked if he could get access to the OS code in machine readable form. That was against company policy - "But you've got the OS source code, why don't you just type it in?" And he did! (He was later employed in the OS group of the manufacturer.) I've got a microfiche copy of VAX/VMS from the same time period. The original DEC version certainly was payware, but again: You could easily obtain a non machine readable version, to read and learn from, but not intended for forking. In those days, thousands of open source programs were accessible at ftp sites (ftp.funet.fi as one of the biggest one). A fair share of them was 'begware', presenting a header telling that you might try out the program for 30 days, but to use it after that, you have to pay so-and-so much to this and that account. The most common local modification was to delete the begging :-) So there are many examples of open source payware. There is no reason why you shouldn't do the same thing. You just must trust your fellowman to be honest and not to rip off the code and use it outside your control. I never heard of any standard licensing terms for this kind of code publication, though. The closest I can think of is Norwegian copyright law, stating that you may make single copies of protected works for non-commercial purposes. You must do the copying yourself, you cannot hire anyone to make the copy for you, and even though you are entitled to make copies, in plural, you must do it as 'single' copies, not a serial production of a hundred copies in one sweep. There are a few other restrictions as well, but I've got at at least a couple hundred perfectly legal music CD and a few dozen movies. (But go to our neighbor country Denmar
Very interesting story and goes along with my search for a license that allows me to charge for use but keep my software open. Thanks for sharing.
trønderen wrote:
The most common local modification was to delete the begging
:laugh: Yeah, makes sense in the world of Devs. We're not going to put up with the pop-ups. :laugh: It seems as if I would have to create a special license (get a lawyer involved) to create the license I would want. I think I got a bit confused because there are so many Open Source licenses and I can't believe there isn't one like I'm thinking amongst them. Check out the long list at Licenses – Open Source Initiative[^] The Dual-License thing only works if the user bases their software off of mine -- then it forces them to buy a bail out license. In my case, I want a license which kicks in when the user company has Sales Revenue of X or something like that. Thanks for the interesting discussion. :thumbsup:
-
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
You may want to read this book, [Entreprenerd](https://entreprenerd.lowagie.com/) (Building a Multi-Million-Dollar Business with Open Source Software) by Bruno Lowagie, the original developer of [iText](https://itextpdf.com/), an open-source Java PDF library. The book documented his journey of making a business of his open-source library. His PDF library is dual-licensed. Many developers pirated his library without paying but he prefers his users pirate his library than using his competitors' library, in the hope that they buy a commercial license in the future. It is about mind-share vs market-share. Feel free to click the link I provided. It is not an affiliate link.
-
Thanks for your notes. You are correct and that would create a Dual-License (where they buy their way out). The thing that none of these covers is a "Licensing Tier". Basically, if you use my Complete Program (the SaaS) and your yearly revenue exceeds X dollars then you pay $X per user. If you use my Complete Program and your yearly revenue are less than X dollars then you pay less $. Maybe I need a lawyer for such a thing. It seems like such an obvious thing, that doesn't seem to exist. It seems like this kind of thing could : 1. keep software open. 2. Make big Companies pay for dev's hard work 3. Make little Companies pay reasonable amount for dev's hard work. 4. Make hobbyists pay extremely small or nothing. And, the point of making my SaaS Open Source is basically marketing from a sole proprietorship's type of experience. People could see it and use it as hobbyist / students and then learn how it works and then later suggest to companies as a way to solve a problem that companies would pay for. This would help single open source devs get attention and finally get paid too.
When they "buy their way out", you should be able to transition to the payment system you outlined.
Robust Services Core | Software Techniques for Lemmings | Articles
The fox knows many things, but the hedgehog knows one big thing. -
You may want to read this book, [Entreprenerd](https://entreprenerd.lowagie.com/) (Building a Multi-Million-Dollar Business with Open Source Software) by Bruno Lowagie, the original developer of [iText](https://itextpdf.com/), an open-source Java PDF library. The book documented his journey of making a business of his open-source library. His PDF library is dual-licensed. Many developers pirated his library without paying but he prefers his users pirate his library than using his competitors' library, in the hope that they buy a commercial license in the future. It is about mind-share vs market-share. Feel free to click the link I provided. It is not an affiliate link.
-
When they "buy their way out", you should be able to transition to the payment system you outlined.
Robust Services Core | Software Techniques for Lemmings | Articles
The fox knows many things, but the hedgehog knows one big thing.Thanks so much for discussing this with me. I'm not sure that in my case the "buyout" would work, because of what this article says, Can You Charge for Open-Source Software? Making Money from Open-Source Projects[^] It states that the only reason you can really charge for is: 1. delivery services - for delivering the source code 2. charging them a license if they base software off of mine or (as in most cases use my component in their software) In my case, I'm saying, "I'd like it to be open but then charge them if they use it to a certain degree -- (hundreds or thousands of users, for example). I believe the way OSS works with all of OSS licenses is that you can just charge them for works based upon your work. But, I could be interpreting it wrong. Thanks again for the great discussion.
-
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
In my honest opinion, if your purpose is to charge customers for your software and make money, don't make your software open-source. Even Red Hat found it hard when it made its source code freely available and its competitors got all its bug fixes and features for free. Even the maker of [Avalonia UI](https://avaloniaui.net/) closed its source code in the hope that Microsoft would buy the company sometime in the future. When you open-source your software, everyone has your IP. It makes it useful to other developers but useless to the creator in monetary terms.
-
In my honest opinion, if your purpose is to charge customers for your software and make money, don't make your software open-source. Even Red Hat found it hard when it made its source code freely available and its competitors got all its bug fixes and features for free. Even the maker of [Avalonia UI](https://avaloniaui.net/) closed its source code in the hope that Microsoft would buy the company sometime in the future. When you open-source your software, everyone has your IP. It makes it useful to other developers but useless to the creator in monetary terms.
Shao Voon Wong wrote:
In my honest opinion, if your purpose is to charge customers for your software and make money, don't make your software open-source.
Shao Voon Wong wrote:
It makes it useful to other developers but useless to the creator in monetary terms.
I believe you are right on 100% with both of those statements. It is actually quite painful to discover this because I thought being open source would be : 1. really cool and interesting and a (sideways) way of marketing the project to devs. 2. allow devs to see the code so they could vet it themselves and see how it works. But, from everything I'm reading going the OSS route makes it basically impossible to make money -- unless it is from a side thing like maintenance or support or extending the software. That was even more confirmed by the Bruno Lowagie link (and bunch of reading I did) that you provided. Thanks again for the input and discussion, you've really helped me understand this. Honestly it makes me sad too, because it kind of quashes the dream of "creating something cool and helpful and just putting it out there and then being able to support yourself". Instead, it has to become this Official Thing that protects itself like a huge monster that will threaten or destroy anyone who tries to steal it. Not really the software development dream I was hoping for. But I am naive.
-
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[^]
-
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
