Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Generating Income from Open Source

vadimdemedes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 126 posts

Re: Generating Income from Open Source

#21

Post by bruce511 »

Buttons840 wrote: post #15

I recently ran across the the license for Dragonfly [1] which has some restrictions (rights reserved), but 5 years after the license date the license switches to Apache 2.0. Basically a time-limited rights reservation. I don't hate it. I might even contribute to such a project for free. I propose something like this: When I release code, it's rights-reserved for 5 years, then open-source (and this particular clause w…

>>I propose something like this

You don't need to propose it. If its your code you can just do it.

I would recommend that you clearly document (for yourself, if not publically) what your goals are. Is it money? Fame? Github stars? Users? Contributers? Something else? In order to determine if the license is a success you need to set goals, and then measure the results.

Frankly, while this topic comes up frequently on HN, it's getting somewhat boring. I'm starting to come around to the viewpoint that you can either give your work away for free, or make a living, [1], but fundamentally those two goals are against each other.

Sure you can make a living tangential to the work (docs, support et al), but of course that's taking time away from the code (so kinda just like a day job.)

[1] as with lots of fields, like authors and music, there is a tiny sliver of people who manage it, and are held up as examples that it can be done.

But I do applaud your creativity here, and i encourage you to experiment. My first thought is why bother to go Open at all? Presumably to meet some goal and it will be interesting to see if it meets that goal.

I suspect you are looking for contributers (but I'm putting words in your mouth here) and I would suggest that the vast majority of projects get no contributers, regardless of license.

Re: Generating Income from Open Source

#22

Post by supriyo-biswas »

ezekg wrote: post #9
godelski wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I really think these kinds of comments are counter productive to people seeing source available software (SAS, OSS, FOSS, or all three). Free to the public but not corporate is clearly not "try before you buy" and is a gross misinterpretation of this. I don't care what Citizens United ruling said, corporations are not the same as people and we should distinguish them as such. This model is in no way functionally simi…

> Words mean what people use them as. I don't care what OSI says, OSS and SAS are the same thing. I completely agree. I’ve avoided using the term “open source” where possible for my SAS, instead opting for word-play like “open, source-available”, but it was frustrating that I felt I even needed to do that to avoid backlash from the zealots. And I’ve loosened my reigns there a bit as well as time has gone by. I think…

Open source is a technical, well defined term. If your software is ultimately not open for certain fields of endeavor, I’m willing to accept that, but labeling as if it is, and then coming up with derogatory terms such as “zealot” for people pointing out this difference is dishonest.

Re: Generating Income from Open Source

#23

Post by fastball »

supriyo-biswas wrote: post #22
ezekg wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Words mean what people use them as. I don't care what OSI says, OSS and SAS are the same thing. I completely agree. I’ve avoided using the term “open source” where possible for my SAS, instead opting for word-play like “open, source-available”, but it was frustrating that I felt I even needed to do that to avoid backlash from the zealots. And I’ve loosened my reigns there a bit as well as time has gone by. I think…

Open source is a technical, well defined term. If your software is ultimately not open for certain fields of endeavor, I’m willing to accept that, but labeling as if it is, and then coming up with derogatory terms such as “zealot” for people pointing out this difference is dishonest.

Definitions are not static. If the majority of people who say "open source" mean "I can view the source, it is out in the open" vs the OSI definition, then the definition of the word is the former.

Just like how the word "hacker" meant one (generally positive) thing, then it meant computer criminal, and now it has come back to be somewhere in the middle.

Of course it is your right to fight for whichever definition you prefer, but the idea that anyone has a monopoly on the definition and can claim a term "doesn't mean that" is a bit silly.

Re: Generating Income from Open Source

#24

Post by bruce511 »

ezekg wrote: post #16
memefrog wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Source available" is not open source and has nothing to do with open source. Open source never confused people until bad-faith actors started intentionally trying to confuse them by labeling things that aren't open source as "open source". Open source has a precise definition and it has had it for decades . If you describe your software as open source and it is not available under an open source license then you are…

> The only place I've ever seen anyone pretend that "open source" can legitimately mean something other than the OSI's definition is on this forum. I don’t think this is entirely accurate in practice. I talk to businesses, individuals, and enterprises every single day and they all refer to my SAS as open source software. So I don’t think everybody sees OSS like you and OSI wills them to. I’m stepping on toes by sayin…

>> I talk to businesses, individuals, and enterprises every single day and they all refer to my SAS as open source software.

I know it gets tedious, but its useful to politely correct this terminology when it's used incorrectly.

I get that managers are not techies, but allowing them to use this term is harmful to them.

A) they heard the term from one of their programmers, which means the programmer doesn't understand the difference, which can lead to legal troubles or

B) they know the term, but use it incorrectly here, which they could then say to an actual programmer, which he then treats as open source, and can cause legal troubles.

Re: Generating Income from Open Source

#25

Post by kiba »

ezekg wrote: post #9
godelski wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I really think these kinds of comments are counter productive to people seeing source available software (SAS, OSS, FOSS, or all three). Free to the public but not corporate is clearly not "try before you buy" and is a gross misinterpretation of this. I don't care what Citizens United ruling said, corporations are not the same as people and we should distinguish them as such. This model is in no way functionally simi…

> Words mean what people use them as. I don't care what OSI says, OSS and SAS are the same thing. I completely agree. I’ve avoided using the term “open source” where possible for my SAS, instead opting for word-play like “open, source-available”, but it was frustrating that I felt I even needed to do that to avoid backlash from the zealots. And I’ve loosened my reigns there a bit as well as time has gone by. I think…

It's very confusing when someone said it's open source when it isn't actually open source.

I quite literally grew up with the specific definition. If people decided to redefine open source software, then I'll need a new specific definition, because it's no longer useful or fit for the purpose.

Re: Generating Income from Open Source

#26

Post by bruce511 »

supriyo-biswas wrote: post #22
ezekg wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Words mean what people use them as. I don't care what OSI says, OSS and SAS are the same thing. I completely agree. I’ve avoided using the term “open source” where possible for my SAS, instead opting for word-play like “open, source-available”, but it was frustrating that I felt I even needed to do that to avoid backlash from the zealots. And I’ve loosened my reigns there a bit as well as time has gone by. I think…

Open source is a technical, well defined term. If your software is ultimately not open for certain fields of endeavor, I’m willing to accept that, but labeling as if it is, and then coming up with derogatory terms such as “zealot” for people pointing out this difference is dishonest.

I use "shipped as source". My code is not "open" and I'm very careful never to label it as such in verbal or written communications.

I think the word "open" belongs to OSS, not proprietary code, and I would politely suggest and recommend, you never use that word to describe your offering. (Ditto "free" :)

Re: Generating Income from Open Source

#27

Post by ximm »

memefrog wrote: post #12
monero-xmr wrote: post #2

Charging for a commercial license is virtual closed-source. You have reinvented selling software, except with a “try before you buy” model that enables engineers to vet its utility first before paying, with free usage for non-profits (i.e. other non-profit devs). I’m not making any comment about the merits of this model. I strictly make and sell closed-source software (SaaS). But it’s funny to me that this is essenti…

It is not "virtually closed source" to license something as GPLv3 and also under a proprietary license. In fact, it is something explicitly advocated for by Richard Stallman himself and the Free Software Foundation generally: https://www.fsf.org/blogs/rms/selling-exceptions He's got mixed feelings, but says "I consider selling exceptions an acceptable thing for a company to do, and I will suggest it where appropriate…

There is a subtle but important difference here though:

If you publish a piece of software under two licenses, one open source and one commercial, why would anybody pick the commercial one?

You cannot say "corporations have to pick the commercial one". The only way to do that would be to include a term in the open source license so it cannot be used by corporations. But then it would no longer meet the open source definition. "Free for private use but payed for commercial use" is not open source!

But if the open source license is copyleft (e.g. GPL), any software that uses it would also have to be open source. So dual licensing allows corporations to pay to keep their own code a secret.

This implies that dual licensing is pointless for non-copyleft licenses like MIT, and also for developer tooling that is not directly used in the final product.

Re: Generating Income from Open Source

#28

Post by Buttons840 »

bruce511 wrote: post #21
Buttons840 wrote: post #15

I recently ran across the the license for Dragonfly [1] which has some restrictions (rights reserved), but 5 years after the license date the license switches to Apache 2.0. Basically a time-limited rights reservation. I don't hate it. I might even contribute to such a project for free. I propose something like this: When I release code, it's rights-reserved for 5 years, then open-source (and this particular clause w…

>>I propose something like this You don't need to propose it. If its your code you can just do it. I would recommend that you clearly document (for yourself, if not publically) what your goals are. Is it money? Fame? Github stars? Users? Contributers? Something else? In order to determine if the license is a success you need to set goals, and then measure the results. Frankly, while this topic comes up frequently on…

The reason I "propose" it is that I personally don't have anything worth putting under this license.

Re: Generating Income from Open Source

#29

Post by [deleted] »

memefrog wrote: post #14
godelski wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I really think these kinds of comments are counter productive to people seeing source available software (SAS, OSS, FOSS, or all three). Free to the public but not corporate is clearly not "try before you buy" and is a gross misinterpretation of this. I don't care what Citizens United ruling said, corporations are not the same as people and we should distinguish them as such. This model is in no way functionally simi…

"Source available" is not open source and has nothing to do with open source. Open source never confused people until bad-faith actors started intentionally trying to confuse them by labeling things that aren't open source as "open source". Open source has a precise definition and it has had it for decades . If you describe your software as open source and it is not available under an open source license then you are…

[deleted]

Re: Generating Income from Open Source

#30

Post by ipaddr »

ximm wrote: post #27
memefrog wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is not "virtually closed source" to license something as GPLv3 and also under a proprietary license. In fact, it is something explicitly advocated for by Richard Stallman himself and the Free Software Foundation generally: https://www.fsf.org/blogs/rms/selling-exceptions He's got mixed feelings, but says "I consider selling exceptions an acceptable thing for a company to do, and I will suggest it where appropriate…

There is a subtle but important difference here though: If you publish a piece of software under two licenses, one open source and one commercial, why would anybody pick the commercial one? You cannot say "corporations have to pick the commercial one". The only way to do that would be to include a term in the open source license so it cannot be used by corporations. But then it would no longer meet the open source de…

You might want the logos
Post reply on HN